EPTChina threatens Nobel committee - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
pyrogenetix
China5098 Posts
| ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
On September 30 2010 03:40 buhhy wrote: 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. Seems like that charter constitutes its writers' thoughts and opinions, and the fact that it's public indicates that they wish to share them. And for that, the writers are now imprisoned. Yep, still seems ridiculously unethical to me. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On September 30 2010 03:52 Meta wrote: Seems like that charter constitutes its writers' thoughts and opinions, and the fact that it's public indicates that they wish to share them. And for that, the writers are now imprisoned. Yep, still seems ridiculously unethical to me. Funny, because it's pretty obvious that it's advocating a system of government that obviously won't work in China (Taiwan once again rears it's ugly face here), but because someone thinks it will, the rest of the country is suppose to suffer. Best part about Charter 8 is that he isn't even advocating debate and that we're all suppose to think change is automatically good. | ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
but first person who came to my mind is Quyuan | ||
|
soultwister
Poland80 Posts
| ||
|
throttled
United States382 Posts
On September 29 2010 07:22 synapse wrote: That is the worst argument for Obama not deserving the Nobel Peace Prize that I've ever heard. Not only did he take office in the midst of these wars, he also led the withdrawal from these wars. While what you said is true about Iraq, is it the complete opposite for Afghanistan. | ||
|
NukeTheBunnys
United States1004 Posts
On September 30 2010 04:12 throttled wrote: While what you said is true about Iraq, is it the complete opposite for Afghanistan. What made the nobel peace prize lose its credibility is that they gave it to Obama for doing nothing at all. I mean when he was awarded it all he had done is get elected to office. Im sorry but I dont think thats enough. In Afghanistan he is currently increasing troop numbers and expenditures so that we can eventually leave and hopefully not have the country melt down. At least he as given a time table as to when we are going to leave where as previously it was just.... sometime. | ||
|
Grumbaki
Belgium141 Posts
On September 30 2010 03:20 Judicator wrote: 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. Welcome to Sartre's existentialism. You are defined by your social interactions. Just with 2500 years advance And don't read it textually like it didn't evolved. At the time, those were the relations. And Tyler Durden. You aren't a unique beautiful snowflake. (that's to be catchy, but that's one of the tenants of nihilism and postmodernism) On September 30 2010 02:12 Carnivorous Sheep wrote: 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. True but 儒表法裡, Legalism coated with Confucianism. Tang just had an extra coating of buddhism and then taoism. That ended up in the formation of neo confucianism. Point is that Confucianism wasn't resilient to the evolution brought by buddhism and taoism. That's IMHO a good point for this philosophy... Plus you still need to dinstinguish "dominant philosophy" and foundation of empire's structures. Confucianism during Tang was still the way to rule while Buddhism took care of religious, social and philosophical. *** I won't quote but to the one that was wondering how that is relevant to the debate of democracy and Liu's potential prize, ignoring those philosophies when discussing this makes you ignoring a lot of the causes of modern chinese culture way to exercise power and authority. And it leads to plain ethnocentrism, which, once again, isn't the way to make points with chinese people. | ||
|
Starfox
Austria699 Posts
| ||
|
liepzig
Singapore45 Posts
I'm not saying this Liu guy is evil like Osama. I dont actually know anything about him. But just as Osama is a sensitive topic in the US, so this Liu guy must be in China. I've talked to some Chinese friends about him and they all think he's just a drama mama. They don't see him as a revolutionary. Maybe Americans think he's a matyr, but that would be similar to the saudi's lauding bin laden as a hero don't you think? Im not for or against the CCP or Liu or anyone. I just dont think this is a big deal. If Americans can bitch and moan so much just because a mosque is being built in manhattan, I don't see why the Chinese are wrong in voicing their concerns. | ||
|
stenole
Norway869 Posts
| ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On September 30 2010 06:17 liepzig wrote: I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask, what would the US government do if Oslo wanted to give Osama the Nobel peace prize instead? I'm not saying this Liu guy is evil like Osama. I dont actually know anything about him. But just as Osama is a sensitive topic in the US, so this Liu guy must be in China. I've talked to some Chinese friends about him and they all think he's just a drama mama. They don't see him as a revolutionary. Maybe Americans think he's a matyr, but that would be similar to the saudi's lauding bin laden as a hero don't you think? Im not for or against the CCP or Liu or anyone. I just dont think this is a big deal. If Americans can bitch and moan so much just because a mosque is being built in manhattan, I don't see why the Chinese are wrong in voicing their concerns. Problem with that line of thinking? He doesn't advocate peace in any form or shape. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On September 30 2010 08:35 Judicator wrote: Problem with that line of thinking? He doesn't advocate peace in any form or shape. hell if Liu deserve a prize for writing charter 08 and going to jail for it, then every American soldier that refused to be sent to Iraq deserve a prize too! | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
On September 29 2010 06:52 Coagulation wrote: so this guy goes to prison for trying to make life better in china. I wonder if this guys name would of came up as a possible candidate had he not been sentenced to prison. Everybody wanna fuck with China man!! T_T | ||
|
newbornducky
42 Posts
Because of that, I also want to share some of my opinions. First of all, I am Chinese and received my high school and college education in the United States (still live there). Now for those of you who thought China is evil and everyone is bullied by the central government, I can only say that you are very ignorant. It might be insulting to you, and you probably will not listen to me anyway as it is a very common view held by people in the western society, but the sad truth is a lot (if not most) of the people do not know anything about China and developed their idea purely base on information presented by western media, their of values, and their assumptions of what other people's values are. You need to understands that there is a huge difference between China and the western world. You see the fast economical growth and think that China is rich, but you totally forget about the huge population in China. A lot of people in China are still very poor, especially in the rural areas in the west. Also a lot of the people are still very under educated, as pointed out by the previous posters. If you impose a democratic system, it will become a mess. Here is one example (I saw it on an Chinese article, but unfortunately I did not remember where), the central government actually conduct an experiment (they actually do a lot of experiments) in one of the small cities and let people directly elect (to those who does not know, every Chinese over 18 can vote, although it mostly has not effect) their own leader, the winner turn out to be a person who paid everyone who voted him 20 yen. Then the central government quickly called the experiment to an end. Another example (this one I read on newspaper), a fight broke out between two groups from two different village in Hanan. The fight eventually turned into a fight between the two villages (with knives too). Yes, a fight between two villages and the two groups are by no mean gangster, they are just villagers. My point is rumors and lies are very very powerful in China because people generally undereducated. A lot of them do not think (I am not saying that they are stupid, they just don't think), and their reason to support someone is not because that person is right, but is just because they like that person (you see this a lot in Taiwan...). I think this is a good place to bring this up. For some reason, a lot of westerner think that democracy is good in itself (a lot of them also believe it is good as a mean). By good in itself, I mean it is just a good thing to have democracy, or it is a goal that we should work towards. Democracy is just one of the many political systems. In a well educated society, it may be the best system (meaning it is good as a mean) when everyone respect the election result (and most importantly the law that credits the election) as more people who think independently agree on the same thing increase it chances of being correct. I seriously do not understand why people value democracy so much, just like it is a very good thing. I personally think that a goal for a society is to provide everyone good living standard and create their own culture, not to become democratic (although it may help to achieve that goal). Also people seem to be obsess with freedom of speech. I agree that everyone has a right to tell the truth or express their well developed opinion, but why are lies and rumors allowed? A pretty obvious example is the recent medical reform in the US. The politicians are trying to bend the facts around to confuse the general public. And there seems to have no penalty for the media to purposely giving out false information, for example the supposedly Tibetan police beating up the monks. It is pretty obvious that those are not Chinese as you look at their dark skin... By the way, for those of you who only watch mainstream western media, there was actually a Spanish team who manage to stay in the square the whole night and no one was killed as seen in the video while the student leaders claimed that there are thousands of death. For some reason (you can think about the reason yourself), the video never made it to mainstream western media. The death came from the riot outside of Tiananmen Squre. And for some reason again, the videos of people beating up the soldiers, taking away their guns, burning down military vehicles were never shown on western medias. Also, six years after the incident, a documentary featuring the Spanish team's video made in Hong Kong was not allowed to broadcast. The 5 people who participate in making the documentary actually resigned from the TV station to protest against it. I guess China bully the Spaniards to make a fake video right? Here is the links (in Cantonese). The banned documentary, part 3 | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
On September 30 2010 08:35 Judicator wrote: Problem with that line of thinking? He doesn't advocate peace in any form or shape. He was advocating change and no where in the charter or in his personal view did he wanted to start a violent revolution so saying that he's not advocating peace is not entirely correct because if his charter went ahead and were actually implemented, it will solve all the violent riots and other Chinese social problems. I think it's wrong to just dismiss some one like him, a society that doesn't change for the better is a dying society, he has a point and I don't think anyone can deny that and a lot of Chinese people educated or not just instantly dismiss him while turning a complete blind eye to the problems that he brought to surface. Maybe the points that he made don't concern you as the Chinese posters on this forum are relatively wealthy and educated so they are far away from the problems, but don't ignore the problems because we all know they are real and growing. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
Also, there are problems, but what Charter 8 is calling for doesn't solve them; more likely it'll compound them. | ||
|
ArbAttack
Canada198 Posts
I'm posting to inform people that you should be reading this thread for entertainment purposes only. | ||
|
Calidus
150 Posts
On September 30 2010 04:03 soultwister wrote: Does anyone even care about Nobel Peace Prize after Obama got it? It is not so much that he got it, it is more about when he got before he did anything, i don't think he had been in office 6 months before he received it. Notes: I have never really cared about any of the Nobel Prizes in general. Not a big fan of obama either. Edit: i have a agree with a few of the other posters if china would have never said anything most of the world would have not heard or cared about it. | ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
On September 30 2010 12:18 haduken wrote: He was advocating change and no where in the charter or in his personal view did he wanted to start a violent revolution so saying that he's not advocating peace is not entirely correct because if his charter went ahead and were actually implemented, it will solve all the violent riots and other Chinese social problems. I think it's wrong to just dismiss some one like him, a society that doesn't change for the better is a dying society, he has a point and I don't think anyone can deny that and a lot of Chinese people educated or not just instantly dismiss him while turning a complete blind eye to the problems that he brought to surface. Maybe the points that he made don't concern you as the Chinese posters on this forum are relatively wealthy and educated so they are far away from the problems, but don't ignore the problems because we all know they are real and growing. haduken, u have to understand the issue from the Chinese side. such declarations and calls for reform are not new in China and many of those plans turned violent. if you read the Chinese version of the Charter, he isnt just criticizing the communist party, he is demonizing the party - a prelude to overthrow. His language was more bent on crashing the communist party rather than helping the Chinese ppl. China doesnt have a short supply of hot headed ppl like Liu. What China needed are ppl that can DO things constructively, not just shouting the reform slogan. The Charter also fails hard at recognizing the communist party is actually working to implement those reforms. Instead of make valuable recommendations on how those goals can be achieved, the Charter just focus on trashing how the existing system sucks. Basically, the Charter is a whole lot of TALK, not alot of DO. | ||
| ||
