China, Not our Friend.

[mindseye]

Cockney -
Did you start a new thread for Tibet, Christianity, human rights, etc? I'm struggling to keep up with the diverging arguments here. I'll do my best to reply to your points if you can start another thread. Not trying to dodge the issues you brought up, but I'm hoping we can try to limit the conversation here to the topic, Chinese military strategy (admittedly not doing a very good job).

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
I see the whole FLG matter as thugs beating up on crazies.

That's about it.

By the way, my previous comments in a response to you (about understanding change in China) were not directed at you, you seem to have a broad understanding of China. It was a merely a convenient opportunity to mention some points that I think need to be kept in mind when discussing contemporary China.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by mindseye
Or are you talking about geopolitical influence? Military strength?

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes.

In that case, I can agree!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Having spent years living amongst chinese people I agree completely with Joseph. They dont think like we do.

Having lived in Hong Kong for seven years, I have met a few Chinese people who are ignorant, racist, ill-informed, and narrow-minded. So I have to say that Joseph and SpencerH are wrong.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Actually, yes. The Emporers tried to conquor as much territory as they could which is why modern China controls so much territory. Also look at the history of Korea, Vietnam, Loas, Burma, Tibet, the Chiangti Khonite, and Mogolia. At one time or another the Chinese have conquored or attempted to conquor all of them.

The only reason the Chinese weren't world conquorers on the same scale as the western powers is because they were so much more backwards then the western powers for nearly all of the last 500 years.

Ah, but you point out only the specific policies of one emperor or another. Some emperor may want to invade this place, but if the next guy didn't, well. That differs greatly from the policy of most western states that, regardless of rulers, held expansionistic policies. NOw some rulers may want to expand more than other, but nevertheless. Notice also how all the states you mention border China, and have at times themselves invaded China (Tibet and the MOngolians certainly did). If the Chinese were so expansion crazy, why no attempts by Chinese dynasties (as opposed to Mongol ones ruling China) to take over Japan?

Besides, one does not have to be a modern western power to conquer vast territories. The largest single empire in History was achieved by the Mongols in the 13th century, and the Aras in the 8th century did rather well, as did Timur in the 15th century. So to state that China did not conquers such a vast region simply due to tech backwardness is wrong. It also begs the question why such an expensionistic, worl-conquering state would fall back in tech, having had such a great lead on everyone circa 1400 ad.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Having lived in Hong Kong for seven years, I have met a few Chinese people who are ignorant, racist, ill-informed, and narrow-minded. So I have to say that Joseph and SpencerH are wrong.

I was in Honk Kong many years ago. Living in HK is not living in China. HK is another world than the rest of China. We all saw what happen three weeks ago when the mainland boys tried to get tough on HK. The locals when wild. It will be sometime before the boys can bring HK into line. However they will keep trying, and one day they will rule with a iron hand.
I believed the only reason the boys did not crush HK this time is because the world in watching, and remember they promise the Brits there would be no crack down on HK after they took over.

My father-in-law was very racist.

[Tingkai]

and Joseph scores an own goal.

[:) Smiley]

FLG is kind of a reaction to the utter lack of legit spirituality over a periof of some fifty years. Some crazy guy steps up with this thing that fills all them people's unmet needs, and you've got a huge cult. Just because it's got a lot of people does not mean that its a legit religion.

I would say the point of legitimization for a religion takes place after the death of its founder, at which point its ideology becomes relatively permanent and no longer subject to change by a single person's whims.

[David Floyd]

Mindseye,

Sorry, but your example isn’t even internally consistent. First you posit "society" approving of torture, then have "those in power" using it against those not.

There is no inconsistency, or rather, none was intended. Most people who make the claim that torture can be OK are also the same people who make the claim that might makes right. If might makes right, then those in power must be doing what is right. If torture can be OK if society says so, and if this is right, then if a government can say torture is OK, that's pretty much like society saying that torture is OK.

In any case, you really didn't answer the question. Do you think that torture can be OK? You did say that you feel torture is a major problem in China, so does this mean you agree that torture is never OK?

Besides the inconsistency, your example is so extreme that it's nonsensical. It's akin to asking "If someone decides jabbing a needle into their eye is pleasant, then for that person is jabbing a needle into their eye really pleasant, or is there an independent, objective standard of pleasure?"

Um, it seems you are a moral relativist, because you are saying that something subjective, such as pleasure, is in the same category as morality/right and wrong. If this is the case, then, I don't see how you can condemn torture inside of China - if torture isn't necessarily wrong, who are you to tell China not to do it?

In other words, it's as hard to conceive of a society approving of being tortured by their gov't than it is to imagine someone enjoying eye-jabbing.

That's nice, but I wasn't asking if people enjoyed torture. I was asking if it can ever be OK for a government/society to use torture.

Most human rights abuses by the gov't are, I would agree, indefensible.

Most? You wouldn't say that ANY human rights abuse is indefensible? What an odd sense of right and wrong.

* I could not run for political office in Germany, Brazil, or Japan either, right? I'm a foreigner!

Quite obviously, you missed the point, which was that you have to be a member of the Communist Party to run for office.

You can write critical letters to the editor within limits.

Within limits, huh? Well, excuse me, that just changed my ENTIRE opinion of China

Yes, there is some internet censorship, although it's pretty limited.

Limited, obviously, to what the government doesn't want you to see, as you yourself tell us in your next few sentences.

Some sites related to Taiwan, Tibet, Falun Gong, human rights, etc are blocked.

Uh-huh. So basically, you can access everything except for websites on subjects that are major problems for the Chinese government - that is, issues that most people feel China is in the wrong about.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Mindseye,



There is no inconsistency, or rather, none was intended. Most people who make the claim that torture can be OK are also the same people who make the claim that might makes right. If might makes right, then those in power must be doing what is right. If torture can be OK if society says so, and if this is right, then if a government can say torture is OK, that's pretty much like society saying that torture is OK.

In any case, you really didn't answer the question. Do you think that torture can be OK? You did say that you feel torture is a major problem in China, so does this mean you agree that torture is never OK?



Um, it seems you are a moral relativist, because you are saying that something subjective, such as pleasure, is in the same category as morality/right and wrong. If this is the case, then, I don't see how you can condemn torture inside of China - if torture isn't necessarily wrong, who are you to tell China not to do it?



That's nice, but I wasn't asking if people enjoyed torture. I was asking if it can ever be OK for a government/society to use torture.

careful not to confuse conditionality w/ relativism. it is not necessarily relativist to say torture is ok sometimes.

[David Floyd]

it is not necessarily relativist to say torture is ok sometimes.

Sure it is. Torture is either right, or it's wrong, the same as anything else. YOU be careful not to confuse right and wrong with what is appropriate or advisable.

[Serb]

Re: China, Not our Friend.

Originally posted by Defiant
But even as it tries to rally multinational coalitions and public opinion to oppose "the weaponization of space," Beijing quietly continues to develop its own space-based weapons and tactics to destroy American military assets.

Go, China, go

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
Nah! Our biggest threat is still the Russkies. After all, they are still the only country who can destroy us.

Damn right.
USA isn't a friend for Russia or China and never will be.

Who knows what comes after Putin?

My generation.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sure it is. Torture is either right, or it's wrong, the same as anything else. YOU be careful not to confuse right and wrong with what is appropriate or advisable.

seems to me like ur setting me up for a flood of semantics. either way, relativism is the belief that someone else's reasoning can be just as valid as urs. conditionality is the belief that circumstances matter as well as the arbitrary act itself.

don't confuse the two.

[David Floyd]

Relativism, in this context, is the belief that torture might or might not be wrong - it just depends on your culture, society, personal beliefs, or whatever other criteria you wish to use. Relativism is saying that there is no objective standard by which to judge the rightness or wrongness of an action.

Conditionality and circumstances are really irrelevant. If an action is wrong, objectively, then the circumstances just don't matter. Now, if an action is morally OK, then circumstances can matter, but only in the context of whether or not an action is advisable or appropriate.