| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
MK
United States496 Posts
On June 08 2009 12:14 Tracil wrote: Um, are you basically saying here that human rights won't improve your life, unless your life sucks? ??? Material lifestyle more important than spirituality ? | ||
|
Cali
139 Posts
| ||
|
saritenite
Singapore1680 Posts
On June 08 2009 11:57 MK wrote: Well, people SCREAM when it's about China but : In France (THE country of freedom... said to be), we actually voted for HADOPI/ This law, in brief, allows SPYWARES to be installed on every PCs in order to track you and cut your internet connection. How about that ? Also, people usually like Singapour. Ok, now, guys, Wiki or Google it and tell me more about Singaporean government. Wanna more ? Ok, I live in Japan (Tokyo) currently and here, many students and I mean REAL STUDENTS FROM GOOD UNIVERSITIES don't even know what really happened during the WW2. Many of them still think Nanking is a joke and Japan are right to try to conquer the world. And the fact is : Japan is the MOST broadbanded country in the world. Everyone has an Internet connection but people still think shit. I ain't pro-China or whatever yet when it comes to China, people are usually harder. Once again, people have the government they deserve. This is the only truth. edit : but yeah, I agree, Chinese Gov. has achieved incredible things but Gov. can't change people. I mean, in the depth, China is still the same (I was born in China and I go there once or twice a year). Singapore's a place of many contradictions, if you really know the place. But our place is safe and sound, no matter what bad things people may say about it. That will ensure we stay around and survive where others could succumb to international pressure. The problem here is people have a skewed perception of democracy. Democracy is not, by all means, the "preferred right way" that the world should adopt just because. Sure, people want to have their own say. Sure, we have to have our own rights. Sure, being ruled by a dictatorship seriously sucks. But for every one wise decision-maker involved in the democratic process, we have maybe two, maybe three, un/misinformed ones whose decisions will be made by following the bandwagon. Just because. If you'd compare the situation to some of the threads in the forums, you can see how the trend just suddenly sways from one side to another because some troll said something about Flash never coming back from his minislump. Democracy is never truly the direction we should take, but the one which we want to take. Who knows what path is right when the opinions of the masses come to drown out the narrow, barely visible fracture point that offers the best chances of survival. I propose we provide opinions on how to improve only when we've considered the position of the government and the other people who will be affected by the changes wanted. Democracy promotes individualism, which gives rise to thoughts like "how will I benefit?" Peoples' priorities nowadays seem to be 1) wants, 2) fairness. Being fair will never triumph over human want, even though democracy used that as a cover to gain momentum and support. It was the best alternative at that point of time; Democracy versus Communism. Communism was far too harsh to be implemented in day-to-day lives. Democracy ultimately won out. I fear, however, that it will be the cause of the end of the world, because humanity will first think for itself on an individual level before looking at the consequences for the wider crowd. It's just a way of life isn't it? | ||
|
Tracil
Australia505 Posts
Although I would agree that from the point of view of the state, it's most important to focus on their material well-being. | ||
|
Cali
139 Posts
| ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
On June 08 2009 12:26 Tracil wrote: I don't know what either of those things has to do with rights. Although I would agree that from the point of view of the state, it's most important to focus on their material well-being. Well when you speak of rights, what kind of rights are you talking about? | ||
|
Tracil
Australia505 Posts
On June 08 2009 12:22 Cali wrote: Well it's opinion based improvement; human rights is all opinion based anyways, anything that can be discussed and never quite proven it is an opinion. Unless you're obviously being given the short end of the stick to see improvement in your life is not going to be as clear. I mean if you've always been able to walk the streets during the day, allowing the people that were not able to wont really improve your life in such obvious bounds but can definitely improve the diversity of people you meet and if you believe that everything you do have see affects your life then it will change your life for better or worse really depends... I don't need to see direct improvement in my life, personally, to support basic rights and priveleges for others. In fact even if I'm completely self-centered this remains true, since if other people are getting screwed with now, it is a shorter step to take to screw *me* later. I think we can agree that basic human rights should include health care, education, freedom of opinion and speech, and freedom of discrimination by race/sex/orientation/etc at the least. You can argue the specifics of those terms but the spirit of the ideas should be clear. | ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
On June 06 2009 16:03 Robinsa wrote: I have a hard time taking Americans seriously when they speak of 1 party states, considering theyre a 2 party state. You guys got 1 party more than communist China. America has more than 2 parties. Sure, there are 2 that hold the most sway, but in many elections others run under different party platforms, see also: Ralph Nader. It's to see hard the benefits of the american system until you've lived in a european, or a typically considered more "progressive" democracy. Many people crucify our large party systems for taking control of large bodies of the government, because it waters down the opinions of the masses into a few categories, when most people don't completely fit into one or the other. What some don't understand is the benefits of this system. The benefit is compromise. In the area I lived in for a brief period (To avert a flame war I'll leave out where), the government had issues pushing through any positive legislature because their lawmakers could not muster enough support, their parties were too small. It made the government slower, and less efficient at moving bills through the proper channels. It seems to me like there are different levels of speed and efficiency that governments can have, and they pay for that speed with fairness and equality. Because the Chinese goverment has firm control over their people, they can enact unbelievable spectacles, such as the enormous dam they're erecting (not bothering to look up the name), or what we saw at the olympics in Beijing. But they also don't take into consideration the feelings of the people very much. In America, more opinions are taken into consideration, relatively, and things move more slowly. In some european countries even more consideration is taken, and it slows things down to a crawl, even past the point where a government can still be useful. I'm not saying that our government is superior to some in Europe, definitly not, I also do not support the type of government in place in China or North Korea. But a slow government can be a burden sometimes, especially when no one will compromise, which is one of the best parts of our government. This has been Rakanishu2, with your Geographical Politics 427 lecture of the week! | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
Which 1 takes piroity? Should you shut your mouth and keep your thoughts to yourself or speak your mind on how this race is better than the other and insight hate? Can we do both? | ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
On June 08 2009 12:25 sArite_nite wrote: Singapore's a place of many contradictions, if you really know the place. But our place is safe and sound, no matter what bad things people may say about it. That will ensure we stay around and survive where others could succumb to international pressure. The problem here is people have a skewed perception of democracy. Democracy is not, by all means, the "preferred right way" that the world should adopt just because. Sure, people want to have their own say. Sure, we have to have our own rights. Sure, being ruled by a dictatorship seriously sucks. But for every one wise decision-maker involved in the democratic process, we have maybe two, maybe three, un/misinformed ones whose decisions will be made by following the bandwagon. Just because. If you'd compare the situation to some of the threads in the forums, you can see how the trend just suddenly sways from one side to another because some troll said something about Flash never coming back from his minislump. Democracy is never truly the direction we should take, but the one which we want to take. Who knows what path is right when the opinions of the masses come to drown out the narrow, barely visible fracture point that offers the best chances of survival. I propose we provide opinions on how to improve only when we've considered the position of the government and the other people who will be affected by the changes wanted. Democracy promotes individualism, which gives rise to thoughts like "how will I benefit?" Peoples' priorities nowadays seem to be 1) wants, 2) fairness. Being fair will never triumph over human want, even though democracy used that as a cover to gain momentum and support. It was the best alternative at that point of time; Democracy versus Communism. Communism was far too harsh to be implemented in day-to-day lives. Democracy ultimately won out. I fear, however, that it will be the cause of the end of the world, because humanity will first think for itself on an individual level before looking at the consequences for the wider crowd. It's just a way of life isn't it? Agreed on many counts. The versus, imo, is : Liberty V Equality. I mean, if you have everything material, what do you want ? Freedom. You wanna be able to speak, to write, to f... whatever. But if you have NOTHING, what do you want ? Well, the same thing than everyone. So you want to share. Of course, this is a very very very basic pov because you can tell me that some very rich people are sharing (Bill gates blablabla) yes, but they are still few and they share only AFTER being free. Never before. I want to share if I have NOTHING to share (so I can benefit from others)... | ||
|
Cali
139 Posts
| ||
|
Cali
139 Posts
| ||
|
Skeptic
United States89 Posts
On June 08 2009 11:55 fearus wrote: There is no way people can fault the Chinese government on anything besides the decade old nit picking on human rights (humans right isn't going to feed your family or improve your quality of life) and freedom of speech (don't taze me bro!!) The Chinese government has done far more to it's own population, to the world's population than any other foreign government hope to have achieved. People don't give enough for improving a quarter of the world's population's quality of life, education, health care and living standards. The one child-policy has done more in the last 40 years to help reduce carbon emission in the long run than any carbon emission scheme still in consideration. Er, carbon emissions? Technically carbon emissions shouldn't be such a high priority on people's minds, after all if it were to be allowed to increase unchecked it would land the system we exist in to reset. @ The square: The Chinese students thought their government was ready for change, and it wasn't. | ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
@ The square: The Chinese students thought their government was ready for change, and it wasn't. This is exactly what my mum told me. | ||
|
Cali
139 Posts
| ||
|
hcliff454
Canada127 Posts
| ||
|
Cali
139 Posts
| ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
On June 08 2009 12:46 hcliff454 wrote: I seriously don't think democracy's effective. The country's educated in politics through manipulated media that skews every message sent out, and the population hardly gets a say in any matter anyways. Nowadays, all politicial parties are mostly the same. There's too many of them to actually get anything done, and most parliaments are just dissolving because no one can agree on anything. So you don't think the execution of the democracy is effective. You didn't present anything contrary to a democracy that is run properly. | ||
|
MK
United States496 Posts
I personally think the best is still a kinda Lumines Hegemony like in Singapour for example. But yeah, 1-have to find the good guy 2-have to prevent the good guy to turn crap 3-omg, what if we strongly disagree and we know we are right and he is wrong ? :/ | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
On June 08 2009 12:51 MK wrote: Since ages (Greeks even told it), Democracy is known to be "not THE best" but it's currently the only thing we have which is not "too bad" :/ I personally think the best is still a kinda Lumines Hegemony like in Singapour for example. But yeah, 1-have to find the good guy 2-have to prevent the good guy to turn crap 3-omg, what if we strongly disagree and we know we are right and he is wrong ? :/ That because Greeks all love to stand around and argue and argue and argue and... yup you guessed it argue. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games tarik_tv16432 summit1g11493 gofns7746 JimRising  597shahzam490 Maynarde139 ViBE122 Livibee75 JuggernautJason29 |
|
Wardi Open
OSC
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
