EPTThat's pretty funny.
British national executed in China - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
That's pretty funny. | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
 | ||
|
MamiyaOtaru
United States1687 Posts
On January 03 2010 13:38 StorkHwaiting wrote: It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech. The First Amendment was around a long time before those six decades of rampant consumerism. Your assertion is somewhat flawed *edit* linkified in case someone doesn't know what I am talking about. Trying not to assume everyone knows everything about the US constitution | ||
|
Taku
Canada2036 Posts
On January 03 2010 13:16 7Strife wrote: [Yes, and I will say it again, having freedom is better than not having freedom. That is so crazy to you isn't it? Having food, shelter, and peace of mind is better than not having it. Funny how all the actually Chinese/Asian people don't have any issue with the current situation (Full Disclosure: I'm CBC[Canadian-Born-Chinese]). Having lived in the States for five years, as well as frequent visits to China, I can personally say I'd rather live in China than America. Could go into a wall of text on this if you prefer. On a note, America seems to love having lawyers and the type in charge, while China's Premier and President are Engineers by training. What does that tell you =P | ||
|
edahl
Norway483 Posts
On January 03 2010 20:47 Taku wrote:On a note, America seems to love having lawyers and the type in charge, while China's Premier and President are Engineers by training. What does that tell you =P That it's OK to be censor slapped as long as the guy is an engineer? | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
On January 03 2010 20:47 Taku wrote: Having food, shelter, and peace of mind is better than not having it. Funny how all the actually Chinese/Asian people don't have any issue with the current situation (Full Disclosure: I'm CBC[Canadian-Born-Chinese]). Having lived in the States for five years, as well as frequent visits to China, I can personally say I'd rather live in China than America. Could go into a wall of text on this if you prefer. On a note, America seems to love having lawyers and the type in charge, while China's Premier and President are Engineers by training. What does that tell you =P I am impressed.There are still people that can see beyond all the things that western media have been feeding them. I feel sick about people that never been to countries like China and always start bashing these countries. Actually living in China in many way is very comfortable. I've been living in Shanghai for a few years now and have nothing to complain | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
If you've ever been to China, then you'd know that it isn't a country where the citizens are constantly oppressed without any freedoms. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of legitimate complaints to be made about China and its government, but please have something to back it up that's a little more substantial than "but they don't have freedom!". Personally, I find it ironic that the ones bashing China for brainwashing the masses are often the ones mindlessly following whatever western media tells them. I don't know how else to explain the people who criticize a country without having the slightest clue what life is like in said country. Just because a country doesn't adopt western values doesn't mean that it's a miserable and barbaric place. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 03 2010 20:42 MamiyaOtaru wrote: The First Amendment was around a long time before those six decades of rampant consumerism. Your assertion is somewhat flawed *edit* linkified in case someone doesn't know what I am talking about. Trying not to assume everyone knows everything about the US constitution ROFL, Oh you mean that first amendment they had while owning slaves? Nice one, dude. That's also the first amendment where women still couldn't vote and only white male landowners had any say in anything. I can google 20 different laws within a heartbeat that show certain forms of speech are curtailed or outright banned by the US government. | ||
|
7Strife
United States104 Posts
Here you can see a map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_nominal_per_capita_world_map_IMF_2008.png Where is all the wealth? A minimum wage of .37 cents in China with less control over their thoughts, actions, speech, and religion. Let me think, this is a hard one on where the quality of life is better... I might need a couple geniuses who are anti-America to help me with this one. Maybe I'd rather have some man shove a sock in my mouth when I want to express my opinion and take a wage reduction from $60,000 to $3500 after all. Haha. Edit: By looking at the map I forgot to mention South Korea, also a democracy. Why is it when you look at that map Democracies light up light goddamn Christmas lights? Is it just me? | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
What you're saying has very very little to do with "democracy" and a lot to do with who won the major wars of the colonial age and the World Wars. Your lack of understanding about your own country is astounding. You're probably the kind of guy who thinks WW1 was fought over an Archduke and WW2 was fought to save the Jews/Hawaii. | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so is ignorant at best. As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money. ...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. | ||
|
7Strife
United States104 Posts
On January 04 2010 04:53 StorkHwaiting wrote: Maybe you should read more about the petrodollar, forex manipulation, the World Bank and IMF, and the many many other ways that the USA/UK have dominated the world economy since WW2. What you're saying has very very little to do with "democracy" and a lot to do with who won the major wars of the colonial age and the World Wars. Your lack of understanding about your own country is astounding. You're probably the kind of guy who thinks WW1 was fought over an Archduke and WW2 was fought to save the Jews/Hawaii. Oh, here comes the conspiracy theory. I don't have time to listen to all of your ridiculously misguided and unsupported opinions. I am having a hard time figuring out if you are trolling me, playing devil's advocate, or just plain stupid. | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
You've got to be a troll. Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you really think democracy itself lead to the US becoming the richest nation, then... yeah, very fail. | ||
|
7Strife
United States104 Posts
On January 04 2010 04:55 Dracid wrote: You're an idiot, and you give Americans a bad name. Seriously, why do so many people simply not understand the concept of freedom? If freedom really trumped not having freedom, then ideally we'd be living in an anarchist state. There are always restrictions upon your freedoms, and for good reason. That one country might choose more restrictions than another is their choice as well as their right. You can censure them for it, but doing so by only using idealist rhetoric and ignoring all the reasons they might have for doing so ignorant at best. As for why democratic countries have more money, I'm just going to pretend that you've never taken a history class. Hint: It's not because social freedoms = money. ...and ironically, I'm somebody who deeply agrees with freedom of speech. I just don't like the American "we know what's best for the rest of the world" attitude. No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 04 2010 04:55 7Strife wrote: Oh, here comes the conspiracy theory. I don't have time to listen to all of your ridiculously misguided and unsupported opinions. I am having a hard time figuring out if you are trolling me, playing devil's advocate, or just plain stupid. lolol There isn't a single thing conspiracy about anything I've said. Hahaha wow dude. You're flat out ignorant. What exactly is theoretical about the petrodollar? OPEC was forced to only accept US currency as payment for their oil. This isn't a wild speculation. It's out there in the open. If you knew half a damn about how commodities worked, you'd be familiar with this term. Forex manipulation is a constant and cumulative process done by all the major banks of the world. Except the modern banking system as we know it was built by the British and then transferred over to the USA with the creation of the Fed. The world money supply was bottlenecked in US currency during WW2, especially because the economies of Europe were depleted by two all-out wars and had nothing left. US foreign investment and US capital spearheaded the economic redevelopment of Europe in the Marshall Plan. This led to a massive profit for the USA and set them light-years ahead of the competition in terms of control of world money supply/economic power. This advantage has been aggregated over the last few decades by a constant trade in national currencies that continually net US banks a profit using more and more advanced algorithms for forex trading. The World Bank and IMF are set up to help develop countries. Except, what they actually do is have the USA print money for the sake of loaning it to people with the full knowledge that these countries will be unable to repay the loan. They then bundle these loans, sell them to private equity groups at a bargain bin rate, and the private equity groups take over collection of interest. They do so for awhile to make their IRR and then when the nation inevitably defaults on the loan, they offer a smaller lump sum settlement and the nation's currency is devalued due to poor credit. The nation then needs to go get another loan to stabilize their currency through use of foreign reserves and start they cycle over again. Too bad you probably don't understand any of this :-S. But FREEDOM baby. FREEDOM is what matters. | ||
|
asianskill
United States289 Posts
On January 04 2010 04:55 7Strife wrote: Oh, here comes the conspiracy theory. I don't have time to listen to all of your ridiculously misguided and unsupported opinions. I am having a hard time figuring out if you are trolling me, playing devil's advocate, or just plain stupid. How are any of those statements conspiracy theories. You're simple-minded and believe that United States joined WWI and WWII to ensure freedom, etc. etc. The reason we're so wealthy and powerful is because we infringe on the freedoms of other peoples. We raped Germany at the end of WWI and raped the rest of Europe so hard that we managed to control a majority of the world's wealth. It has nothing to do with your so called democracy or freedoms. | ||
|
7Strife
United States104 Posts
On January 04 2010 05:01 Dracid wrote: Conspiracy theo... You've got to be a troll. Just because you've never heard of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If you really think democracy itself lead to the US becoming the richest nation, then... yeah, very fail. I already know the little game you are playing right now, basking in the pomposity of your arguments because you seem more worldly by defending "different ways of life." | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
On January 04 2010 05:06 7Strife wrote: No, because Anarchy doesn't work. If you had the freedom to do anything that would entail taking away others freedom. Now, this is where we get into introducing the concept of ethics, which corrects this problem. Again, ethics boils down to a concept of property. Our property consists of our bodies(including our mind to a limited extent), and our belongings. Our laws protect others from removing these from our control(damaging or stealing them.) However, the United States doesn't perfectly model this philosophy but it comes pretty damn close. If you violate this principle, then the punishment is we take some or all of your property in return. So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. | ||
|
7Strife
United States104 Posts
On January 04 2010 05:30 EchOne wrote: So your premise (more freedom > less freedom) holds true except in the face of ethics? Do you realize that ethics, or moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that is still evolving and being debated in the philosophy academia to this day? All current moral theories have critical flaws that make them untenable (or at least vulnerable to legitimate criticism), meaning that relying on specific incarnations of ethics is a shaky platform at best. Just because you believe ethics boils down to x doesn't mean such an assertion can be logically justified. You also need to study more history if you don't yet realize that impetuses for major world events such as the World Wars are often legion. What are you going to say next? That I should prove that my television is really there? How do we know we don't really live in the Matrix? Stalemate. You got me. | ||
|
Dracid
United States280 Posts
Freedom of press and democracy might work for the United States, but that doesn't mean it's fitting for the rest of the world. I actually don't think censorship is the correct answer, but I'm not so arrogant as to presume that I know what's best for the country, especially since you really do seem to have no idea what life in China is like. People in China don't go through life thinking they're poor and oppressed, wishing they had American freedoms. | ||
| ||
