|
Tibet was feudal and a theocracy prior to the Chinese takeover so let's not argue on how crap it is because you need to put things in perspective when you consider at that time, much of China and Asia is probably NOT that much better.
I don't think we need any evidence that Tibet is better off when you consider the rising literacy, infant survival, infrastructure and other shits that a RESPONSIBLE government should provide.
So let's take a step back. What is the alternative? Really, the best we can hope for is that it will turn into another Nepal, at worse another crappy borderland which in either case is unacceptable for Chinese foreign policy.
I personally think that Tibetans should assimilate but I will probably get called names for saying this 
|
Yes, the US government is bad as well and has it's own tyrannical laws.
I've said on multiple occasions that the government is bad to police officers.
It's something you can't do in China. If your life gets in the way of the Party, who gets pushed away?
|
On February 03 2010 04:03 Prozen wrote:
The fact of the matter is, the Western Media tend to censor more than the Chinese do and use that censorship to belittle China and defend the Tibetans when really it should be the other way.
I think that it is more biased than censored imo. It's way easier to tell people China is wrong than explain whats really happening
|
On February 03 2010 04:04 haduken wrote:Tibet was feudal and a theocracy prior to the Chinese takeover so let's not argue on how crap it is because you need to put things in perspective when you consider at that time, much of China and Asia is probably NOT that much better. I don't think we need any evidence that Tibet is better off when you consider the rising literacy, infant survival, infrastructure and other shits that a RESPONSIBLE government should provide. So let's take a step back. What is the alternative? Really, the best we can hope for is that it will turn into another Nepal, at worse another crappy borderland which in either case is unacceptable for Chinese foreign policy. I personally think that Tibetans should assimilate but I will probably get called names for saying this
Nah, they want to be a struggling third world (can they even be considered 3rd world without oil?) country that is "free" (how many theocracies can you point out that is free?).
I am more curious to see how many of the protesters for Tibetan independence would actually live in Tibet should the region ever become fully autonomous again.
|
yeah, the whole perception of tibet is wrong in the US
|
On February 03 2010 04:04 haduken wrote:Tibet was feudal and a theocracy prior to the Chinese takeover so let's not argue on how crap it is because you need to put things in perspective when you consider at that time, much of China and Asia is probably NOT that much better. I don't think we need any evidence that Tibet is better off when you consider the rising literacy, infant survival, infrastructure and other shits that a RESPONSIBLE government should provide. So let's take a step back. What is the alternative? Really, the best we can hope for is that it will turn into another Nepal, at worse another crappy borderland which in either case is unacceptable for Chinese foreign policy. I personally think that Tibetans should assimilate but I will probably get called names for saying this
They would fall apart faster than you could say lama... Then the UN (NATO) would 'intervene' to 'stop' a humanitarian catastrophe, and in the end our tax-dollars will go into sustaining that black-hole of an economy, instead of Chinese money. Oh yeah and after that UN (NATO) will suck Tibet dry of all its resources instead of China
|
On February 03 2010 04:10 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2010 04:04 haduken wrote:Tibet was feudal and a theocracy prior to the Chinese takeover so let's not argue on how crap it is because you need to put things in perspective when you consider at that time, much of China and Asia is probably NOT that much better. I don't think we need any evidence that Tibet is better off when you consider the rising literacy, infant survival, infrastructure and other shits that a RESPONSIBLE government should provide. So let's take a step back. What is the alternative? Really, the best we can hope for is that it will turn into another Nepal, at worse another crappy borderland which in either case is unacceptable for Chinese foreign policy. I personally think that Tibetans should assimilate but I will probably get called names for saying this Nah, they want to be a struggling third world (can they even be considered 3rd world without oil?) country that is "free" (how many theocracies can you point out that is free?). I am more curious to see how many of the protesters for Tibetan independence would actually live in Tibet should the region ever become fully autonomous again.
It's hard to describe a more dysfunctional state than Tibet before it became part of China.
Let's see: Agrarian, theocratic, feudalist, welfare state should sum it up about right. This along with the vast majority of Tibet being illiterate, due to there being zero education system outside the monastic society.
|
pioneer8:
Okay. Explain why that's an essential freedom. I'm a very big fan of freedom of speech, but I do not see it as an essential aspect of life, because it's something I take for granted most of the time. Freedom of speech also is not, and should not, be absolute. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded area, and for good reason. China takes it quite a few steps beyond that, but it's not like it would affect your life in any significant capacity.
As for internet sites: Use a VPN. Chinese people who care enough to access restricted internet content can do so.
Also, please stop explaining what life is like in China, because you really have no idea. People aren't jailed and tortured for making minor criticisms of the government, but it's clear I'm not going to convince you otherwise. You're wrong, and you have nothing to back up your claims, so I don't even know why I'm responding to you.
|
I just found out the other day that Australia despite being a modern democracy do not have a bill of rights so free speech can be taken away at any time LOL.
|
Bah - do you guys assume that the Chinese political leaders who make these sorts of policies don't know what sort of effect they have? Do consider that what people say could be different than what they intend to get you to do. It's could just be a test on how far China can affect another country's leaders by public statements, rather than a desire to actually stop the meeting.
But yeah, China thread on TL. The same ol' arguments.
|
To me it just feels... obligatory really. Of course China's going to tell Obama not to meet with the Dalai Lama, they tell it to everyone else, and from their standpoint it's perfectly understandable that they should.
Obama may or may not pretend to care, but I don't think it matters all too much either way.
|
On February 03 2010 04:27 haduken wrote:
I just found out the other day that Australia despite being a modern democracy do not have a bill of rights so free speech can be taken away at any time LOL.
There may not be an explicit Australian law about it but the right is enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights so it is there.
|
On February 03 2010 04:21 Dracid wrote:
pioneer8:
Okay. Explain why that's an essential freedom. I'm a very big fan of freedom of speech, but I do not see it as an essential aspect of life, because it's something I take for granted most of the time. Freedom of speech also is not, and should not, be absolute. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded area, and for good reason. China takes it quite a few steps beyond that, but it's not like it would affect your life in any significant capacity.
As for internet sites: Use a VPN. Chinese people who care enough to access restricted internet content can do so.
Also, please stop explaining what life is like in China, because you really have no idea. People aren't jailed and tortured for making minor criticisms of the government, but it's clear I'm not going to convince you otherwise. You're wrong, and you have nothing to back up your claims, so I don't even know why I'm responding to you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4326341.stm
"For the past 16 years, she and a few others who lost sons and daughters during the 1989 Tiananmen massacre have been calling on the government to apologise.
But in response, these women, known as the Tiananmen Mothers, have faced imprisonment, house-arrest, phone-tapping and constant surveillance."
I believe that counts as "minor criticism". There are hundreds of other mainstream articles you can pull up yourself. If you are so sheltered and naive as to believe that the Chinese government doesn't do these things, im saddened for you. You are suggesting that the burden of proof is on me, while the mass tortures and imprisonments, heavy persecution of even the mildest dissidents, forced labor camps, secret arrests, police state control grid, etc etc do not exist, while in reality, it has been common knowledge for many years.
On your other point you ask why freedom of speech is an "essential" freedom. You do not understand the term rights and freedom and you should learn more about it. Freedom, ie, political rights, are laws that are designed to protect you from government. There's the philisophical idea of inalienable god given rights that is the foundation of these laws.
Your understanding of both these topics is lacking, though you attempt to pompously direct me. Your denial about the most obvious things reveals how sheltered you actually are and is just mind boggling...
|
See, this would be a good opportunity to discuss world events, on how the world is really like
if more people weren't woefully FUCKING IGNORANT ![[image loading]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3817/kruemelmonsteryn0.gif)
Why da fuck you in here writing a bunch of stuff if you DON'T KNOW SHIT except what you heard on fox or cnn? Why you think you can understand (you're not understanding jack) a foreign culture by casting yourself in the adversarial role? That's what I wanna know.
At the very least switch to BBC where they still do this thing called journalism, and where they provide the opinion of actual Chinese people, you know, in China.
|
On February 03 2010 07:28 .risingdragoon wrote:See, this would be a good opportunity to discuss world events, on how the world is really like if more people weren't woefully FUCKING IGNORANT Why da fuck you in here writing a bunch of stuff if you DON'T KNOW SHIT except what you heard on fox or cnn? Why you think you can understand (you're not understanding jack) a foreign culture by casting yourself in the adversarial role? That's what I wanna know. At the very least switch to BBC where they still do this thing called journalism, and where they provide the opinion of actual Chinese people, you know, in China.
The BBC is CNN's bitch, which means that objective journalism is not a term in their dictionary, all (mainstream) western media are the same. If you want relatively non-biased news watch Al Jazeera English, at least they try to report the truth and not NATO propaganda (except when talking about the middle-east)
|
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there. I don't doubt that they've their own political economic stake in all this. Even among the western media there are lesser evils. Call it a gateway if you want.
|
Lol at the cookie monster.
|
On February 03 2010 08:08 .risingdragoon wrote:
Look, I know where you're going with that. I suggested BBC to laymen cus on average their reporting still contains traces of alternate perspectives, some actual interviewing at the source and with non-partial concerned, and a sense of skepticism like they've not made up their own minds themselves.
Yes they may spend 5 min at the end of a 45 min report on that, but it's still kinda sorta there, instead of this bullshit secret handshake thing where everyone in north american news is in on but nobody's directly verbalizing anything
The sad fact is that they only do that to look like they are non-bias when in fact the way they present the news gives you the illusion that you can make up your mind about the matter without their influence, when in fact they give you only one option.
The BBC is funded by the people, which means they have to listen to their government, they only care about being PC and 90% of the time report everything from a leftist angle, and we all know that the BBC is extremely biased towards china and uses every chance they get to connect them with negative things
|
On February 02 2010 22:11 Manit0u wrote:They don't give a shit about their citizens there. It's the resources Tibet has that are on the line here and China (nor any other sane country) would let go of that easily. I wonder how one thing would play out though, if Obama went to meet DL and China in response would ban all American companies from having their manufacturing done for them there... Whole world would get a heart attack 
I believe that Congress would then say they won't pay back any debt incurred by our borrowing. China would have to write off trillions of dollars as bad debt. Things would become more expensive here, but with no national debt (or very little) taxes could be lowered by alot to help compensate. China's only possible reaction would be war and try to force us to pay them (lul) or seek out our enemies on friendly terms (in which case we can just kill our enemies). Unless I'm missing something China would be the one screwed in this ordeal.
|
On February 03 2010 08:50 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2010 22:11 Manit0u wrote:They don't give a shit about their citizens there. It's the resources Tibet has that are on the line here and China (nor any other sane country) would let go of that easily. I wonder how one thing would play out though, if Obama went to meet DL and China in response would ban all American companies from having their manufacturing done for them there... Whole world would get a heart attack I believe that Congress would then say they won't pay back any debt incurred by our borrowing. China would have to write off trillions of dollars as bad debt. Things would become more expensive here, but with no national debt (or very little) taxes could be lowered by alot to help compensate. China's only possible reaction would be war and try to force us to pay them (lul) or seek out our enemies on friendly terms (in which case we can just kill our enemies). Unless I'm missing something China would be the one screwed in this ordeal.
You're missing the part where the USA defaulting on trillions of debt would make their credit be absolutely worthless on the int'l market, thus devaluing US currency by a ridiculous amount.
That or nobody does anything at all and therefore the int'l financial community is seen as fraudulent which would cause the collapse of international trade as everyone realizes they don't have to play by the rules.
If CHina decides to stop manufacturing US goods, they're well within their sovereign rights to do so. Defaulting on trillions in loans is not a matter of sovereignty, it's a matter of credibility. So, the USA would be screwed pretty hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
