EPTIt shifted cus we know "democracy" is bought and paid for by US's tributary states at high cost to them.
China threatens Nobel committee - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
.risingdragoon
United States3021 Posts
It shifted cus we know "democracy" is bought and paid for by US's tributary states at high cost to them. | ||
|
jackarage
Canada104 Posts
I don't know if communism or democratic are better than the other but if China stay communism they will never make a choice of what the best is for them. We can help China by given them more access to the internet but there are many issues. 1) There are many people in China that can't afford a computer and internet. 2) Rich people in big cites won't care about learning the world, they are to selfish to care about others. 3)I mention poor and rich people but not middle class because they're not really a middle class I don't know why the Communism system is not very working I think it is more a Dictatorship. Communism should be that everyone are equal but china prove the opposite. 4) The government is controlling the web and everything in china so site that talk about democratic are probably ban. I don't think democratic is the best system of all but you have the freedom to chose what to believe. Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best. Thank you for reading until the end and sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes. I tried my best. edit: I'm Chinese so I know what i'm saying | ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
| ||
|
FishForThought
Canada88 Posts
On September 29 2010 14:45 jackarage wrote: I thing China won't change for years because what they teach at school are base only on academic stuff. They don't teach moral, social or any kind of those thing. Student that will be future citizen of China will make choice more oriented on their logic and less on their conscious/imagination. Chinese people in general are better in math but not in literature, art and others. So They won't try to think beyond their limits, they will stay as sheep that follow the Shepperd forever. I don't know if communism or democratic are better than the other but if China stay communism they will never make a choice of what the best is for them. We can help China by given them more access to the internet but there are many issues. 1) There are many people in China that can't afford a computer and internet. 2) Rich people in big cites won't care about learning the world, they are to selfish to care about others. 3)I mention poor and rich people but not middle class because they're not really a middle class I don't know why the Communism system is not very working I think it is more a Dictatorship. Communism should be that everyone are equal but china prove the opposite. 4) The government is controlling the web and everything in china so site that talk about democratic are probably ban. I don't think democratic is the best system of all but you have the freedom to chose what to believe. Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best. Thank you for reading until the end and sorry for grammar/spelling mistakes. I tried my best. Stop being so narrow minded. No school teaches morals or social. Its parents and society that teaches those. Children in China knows family values, they grow up running their parent's business, where as in US, the kids stab their parents for taking away their video games. Chinese people are not worse in literature or art. They just generally don't do well in FOREIGN literature and arts (which is common with every foreign student). You try learning Chinese literature and art, and see how well you do. The majority of people in China don't have the luxury for expression because money and survival is their priority. They only want to express themselves only after they have acquired those two items. You know whats more of a dictatorship? Singapore. They disguise themselves as democratic but the government controls everything. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
China is not ruled by a dictatorship or what ever crap the trolls like to think it is, it is ruled by elite technocrats, smart smart people who think they know what's best for the country but they can still be wrong and that's what the issue is, the society refuse to accept their failures and the need of nationalistic pride means that any time the west try to suggest or demand, it becomes a you versus them situation. Honestly, Chinese people don't give a fuck about you, they are perfectly contend thinking they will restore their place as the centre of the world and given their recent developments they are some what right to think this way but it doesn't mean that they are right. That's where it all come from, the people don't want leaders that give their freedoms or liberties, they see the problems of the society and want some one to step in with a razor knife and perform miracles. That's why you see corrupt, cheating statesmen but what you don't see is that these scum bags actually pull in investments and fix complex shits everyday. They are corrupt because the leadership gave them too much executive power knowing very well that they abuse the system and they know that too but as long as they are still performing they get to keep their job. The ones that under perform gets cut, corrupt or not. That's a institution problem and won't go away until the day when the society develop enough to enact its own change. | ||
|
Masamune
Canada3401 Posts
| ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On September 29 2010 14:45 jackarage wrote: Personally i thing Confucianism is great. If every people learn everything in the world there will be peace but it is to good to be true. I'm not naifs to think that will ever happen. So what system do you think is the best. Confucianism would scare the shit out of Western societies if they actually knew what it said. | ||
|
TymerA
Netherlands759 Posts
On September 29 2010 13:37 kaisen wrote: That doesn't give them the right to threaten a country. well i guess america does have this right... i mean look at all the shit they said and do back in the georgian-russian war | ||
|
Grumbaki
Belgium141 Posts
On September 29 2010 23:51 Judicator wrote: Confucianism would scare the shit out of Western societies if they actually knew what it said. Please enlighten us instead of throwing one liners. Confusianism isn't great in its inital form (sexism, too strict social control for instance) but it evolved a lot (i.e Tang dynasty's evolution on the role of women) and you can hardly ditch like that a lot of its principles (Ethic of reciprocity, meritocracy, loyalty, gentlemanship...) It's the use of confucianism mixed with legalism to support authoritarian empire that was wicked. They often perverted Kongzi's principles (to govern others one must first govern oneself). If you want to scare people just explain old school legalism and you'll get my approval. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On one hand, they value the liberty and spirit of rational inquiry of the West which has given them such personal blessings, and on the other, they know that when the citizens of the West criticize China for not having these virtues, they are wrong. The rest of the explanation is their attempting to untangle the paradox, to their readers and to themselves. Winds of Zephyrus, give answer! They're whimpering to and fro And what should they know of humans beings, who only humanity know? The little armchair critic, that ennui-ridden brag They're lifting their lofty fingers, to type against the Chinese flag! | ||
jpak
United States5045 Posts
Happy B-day Kaisen, poster of 105 posts as of 1:30 on September 30th, 2010. | ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
| ||
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21244 Posts
On September 30 2010 00:14 Grumbaki wrote: Confusianism isn't great in its inital form (sexism, too strict social control for instance) but it evolved a lot (i.e Tang dynasty's evolution on the role of women) and you can hardly ditch like that a lot of its principles (Ethic of reciprocity, meritocracy, loyalty, gentlemanship...) Confucianism wasn't actually the dominant philosophy during most of the Tang dynasty, which was for most of its early parts dominated by Buddhist thought, and then Taoist thought slowly supplanted it, culminating with the 845 decree to persecute Buddhism. It wasn't really until the Song dynasty that Neo Confucianism took hold as the dominating philosophy. Though it can be traced back to the Tang dynasty, it really wasn't a "central" part of Tang thought. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On September 30 2010 00:14 Grumbaki wrote: Please enlighten us instead of throwing one liners. Confusianism isn't great in its inital form (sexism, too strict social control for instance) but it evolved a lot (i.e Tang dynasty's evolution on the role of women) and you can hardly ditch like that a lot of its principles (Ethic of reciprocity, meritocracy, loyalty, gentlemanship...) It's the use of confucianism mixed with legalism to support authoritarian empire that was wicked. They often perverted Kongzi's principles (to govern others one must first govern oneself). If you want to scare people just explain old school legalism and you'll get my approval. Confucius advocates the social self, which translates to you are (almost entirely) defined by your relationships with other "individuals", he claims that individuals have the choice of entering into said relationships except never states what happens to people who are rejected by another or whether there is a true self. So it brings up the do you really have a choice? And not to mention all of the obvious imbalance of power in a relationship in all of his archetypal relationships. Legalism is another beast, but that's more obscure for mainstream cultures. The reason I brought up Confucianism is because despite all of the other principles, when you start losing the "self" in the individual, then it gets scary since Western societies typically place a greater premium on the "unique" self-identity ("be yourself!") than the East. On September 30 2010 02:06 Meta wrote: Regardless of whether or not America or China commit atrocities (they both do), I think it's very apparent that people should not go to jail for writing documents. That's a no-brainer. China throws people in jail for writing documents. That is some 1984 thoughtcrime nonsense. Sorry, Chinese society does not work the same as American society, that's why American foreign policy had to play catch up for the past 20 years or so. We're still waiting on Chinese aggression in the region. If China had a Glen Beck or any of those political pundits (on either side), nothing will get done and they'll have a riot every day. To put it another way, you don't get to martyr yourself and someone else doesn't get to use you as a martyr. | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
I just can't discern how they can ethically justify completely eliminating a human being's natural rights for merely sharing his opinions. I don't care if their "society doesn't work the same", ethics are universal. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
| ||
|
buhhy
United States1113 Posts
On September 30 2010 03:33 Meta wrote: How does any of that have to do with putting people in jail for sharing thoughts and opinions? The way it seems: if China and a Glen Beck he'd be imprisoned for decades for being a perceived threat to the government. I just can't discern how they can ethically justify completely eliminating a human being's natural rights for merely sharing his opinions. I don't care if their "society doesn't work the same", ethics are universal. Read up on Chapter 08: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_08. It's hardly "just sharing thoughts and opinions". It's a manifesto encouraging political reform and democratization. IE, publicly opposing the government. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On September 30 2010 03:33 Meta wrote: How does any of that have to do with putting people in jail for sharing thoughts and opinions? The way it seems: if China and a Glen Beck he'd be imprisoned for decades for being a perceived threat to the government. I just can't discern how they can ethically justify completely eliminating a human being's natural rights for merely sharing his opinions. I don't care if their "society doesn't work the same", ethics are universal. Because for the same reason you have to get a permit to legally hold a rally everywhere in America. Sharing people's thoughts and opinions? How do you think the Xinjiang riots started? Highly organized or some idiots egging people who don't know any better? Herding sheep is harder when you're actually herding sheep, thanks to mass media and the internet, it's pretty easy to move people to action. This isn't some popular movement, this literally just creating incident for the sake of drama. That's not what MLK did, that's not what Ghandi did, that is not what any of the typical peaceful movements have done. Case in point, Tienanmen Square 1989, the protesters wanted political reform but hated the economic reforms. Fast forward 20+ years, that would have worked out great in the globalized market (/s). Also, because I feel compelled to point out that installing a democratic government would start at the top and not at the bottom. America's founding fathers certainly were highly educated men (and only white men), and even they realize the dangers of mob mentality (say hi to your Electoral College). | ||
| ||
