Welcome to China.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2013, 06:02 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 05:43 PM)I and I Wrote:  The Nobel peace prize is a joke and is purely a political ideological tool of the west. Obama won it, and he hasn't closed Guantanamo, now can kill people without trial, and hold people indefinitely without trial, and has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all past presidents combined. When someone wins the Nobel peace prize the first question one should ask is. How much does he support imperialism?

Sorry, I am a little too tired to go on this discussion, a night without sleep, busying typing words.

But I know the Bomb Magnate Peace Prize is biased and I am not surprised. Look at the proportion of the Chinese population verses that of the world (1 : 5), and look at the ratio of the number of Chinese Prize Winner to that of the world ( 3 : 500+).

And 2 out of these 3 winners are Liu, Xiaobo (a convicted criminal, discussed in this thread) and Dali Lama (a separatist), both winners of the Peace Prize.

Peace ?! Shame on Nobel !

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 06:58 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 09:09 AM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 08:36 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I think you are being overly critical, in the piece it talks about his wife and says

"No one has told me the reason for this house arrest ... Possibly in this country being the wife of Liu Xiaobo is a crime," she said...His wife is rarely allowed out and is almost never allowed to receive visitors. She has not been convicted of any crime."

See? She's been allowed to live. What more can you ask for?

Indeed. What else do you expect from a lame authoritarian country. It is illogical to do that.

BTW completely trusting one's words without any other evidences is really a good way to improve the reasoning skills.

What else could I expect from ... Silly me.

BTW2, you have every right to ignore me. I strongly recommend this. And so will I.

If you wish to be ignored stop posting.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
14-06-2013, 07:38 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 06:58 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  If you wish to be ignored stop posting.

No, I was just being polite. And I wasn't expecting that you didn't get it. Shame.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 08:48 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 07:38 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 06:58 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  If you wish to be ignored stop posting.

No, I was just being polite. And I wasn't expecting that you didn't get it. Shame.

Just pointing out the obvious. I was expecting you to understand. Shame.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
14-06-2013, 09:36 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
Junyuan,

The central question in this thread is whether and to what degree government should respond to criticism and demands for political reform. West and east can agree I think that violent actions should be dealt with and violent overthrow can be legitimately defended by government... though to some extent violent uprising is justified by violent government oppression. Violence aside, however, regardless of the legal situation it seems ethically unjustified to actively suppress nonviolent dissent. Certainly it seems unethical to violently suppress nonviolent dissent. Legal responses such as indefinite detention also seem unethical.

I know that China's leaders fear that dissent will lead to breakup, and that breakup will lead to political and economic ruin. I know there is a genuine fear that something precious will be destroyed and that although in principle a democracy may be preferred the road there must be slow and deliberate to prevent a nation's collapse. Some in the east and the west I think are not so patient as China's leaders, wishing for more and faster reform and decrying acts to suppress ideas of reform. In the west, in principle, a person can only be prosecuted for their actions or their intended actions - not for their ideas. Taking action against someone for ideas alone seems unethical, even when something precious is at stake. Some look to China's leaders and see men clinging to power, not protecting China's people.

I don't know the case under discussion well enough to comment intelligently on it, but do you have any comment on the general ethical issues here?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
15-06-2013, 01:05 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2013 02:46 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 09:36 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  Junyuan,

The central question in this thread is whether and to what degree government should respond to criticism and demands for political reform. West and east can agree I think that violent actions should be dealt with and violent overthrow can be legitimately defended by government ... though to some extent violent uprising is justified by violent government oppression. Violence aside, however, regardless of the legal situation it seems ethically unjustified to actively suppress nonviolent dissent. Certainly it seems unethical to violently suppress nonviolent dissent. Legal responses such as indefinite detention also seem unethical.

Thank you for targeting at the essence part. And thank you for the way you address the problem. Praise the sky and the earth, something called manners does exist on earth !

==========================

I totally agree with "it seems ethically unjustified to actively suppress nonviolent dissent". I think it IS ethically unjustified to do so.

For example, I agree with this:

Liu (on the streets): Excuse me, do you agree that it is better to have a multiple-party system than the current one ? Look, the USA is doing great under such multiple-party system. If you agree, would you please sign under here ? This is going to be handed to the National Congress of our country after I have gathered 100,000 signatures.

Passer-by A: Werido ! Are you going to be the founding father ? Who the Censored are you ? With any sound qualification to say so ?

Liu : Excuse me ... This is going to be handed to the National Congress of our country after I have gathered 100,000 signatures.

Passer-by B: Great ! I totally agree ! Where should I sign.

Liu : Excuse me ... This is going to be handed to the National Congress of our country after I have gathered 100,000 signatures.

Passer-by C: Whatever ... sign here ?

If this is called "the subversion of the current administration" and enough to put Liu in jail for 11 years, count me one on the dissidents' side.

Hafnof, are we good on this part?

==========================

Liu [1] wrote a private Charter, [2] proclaimed that the ruling party was "wrecking the country and bring ruin to the people", [3] gathered people under a common goal which is to replace the current Republic with a "Chinese Federation", and [4] launched online campaigns (taking scale actions) to promote this private agenda.

Please put the history of the USSR turning into the Russian Federation on your mind, let us be very sincere, Hafnof, do you really consider what Liu has done as "non-violent" in nature ?

==========================

It is a little illogical that you first said "regardless of the legal situation" and then 2 sentences later "legal responses such as indefinite detention also seem unethical", is it ? "Legal response" is part of the "legal situation" here. What do you think ?

If we are going to talk about the law, please note that Liu was sentenced to serve 11 years, NOT indefinite detention.

In case you was talking about the "house arrest", then I will tell you that it is officially called "residential surveillance", a legal right of the police force, and it CAN be revoked through legal processes. To say that Liu and his wife was under "house arrest" or "illegal detention", yet without ANY appeal through LEGAL processes by ANYONE from his multitudes of supporters who cried out loud for Liu's innocence, it is hypocritical and unethical to have done so. What do you think, Hafnof ?

==========================

I think Liu deserves 2-3 years' time for what he has done instead of the 11 years sentence. But hey, I am no judge. And I think respecting that judgement and appealing in legal processes is a symbol of respecting an independent and autonomous legal system, which should be respected, should we ?

==========================

Do you consider the "legal response" itself as "violent suppression" or "active suppression" ?

If we are going to talk about the law, let's remember that Snowden has behaved "non-violently" so far (do you agree?) and I think he is definitely going to be prosecuted by the US. So, ethical or unethical, do you think this is going to be ?

(14-06-2013 09:36 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  I know that China's leaders fear that dissent will lead to breakup, and that breakup will lead to political and economic ruin. I know there is a genuine fear that something precious will be destroyed and that although in principle a democracy may be preferred the road there must be slow and deliberate to prevent a nation's collapse. Some in the east and the west I think are not so patient as China's leaders, wishing for more and faster reform and decrying acts to suppress ideas of reform. In the west, in principle, a person can only be prosecuted for their actions or their intended actions - not for their ideas. Taking action against someone for ideas alone seems unethical, even when something precious is at stake. Some look to China's leaders and see men clinging to power, not protecting China's people.

I will definitely seriously consider myself as a genuine Censored-hole if I say I am not cherishing this right " a person can only be prosecuted for their actions or their intended actions - not for their ideas". What do you think about this argument? Do you trust me on this ?

==========================

Free speech has boundaries, which normally are defined by the law, do you agree?

And according to my one of my statement above and the sources you can find, AM I JUSTIFIED to say that Liu was convicted based on what he did (said, proclaimed, promoted) which was ruled by a judge as against the law ?

==========================

If we think the judgement has any severe problem, we can do a few things both in China and the US, but definitely NOT to tell the judge to rule again and conform to our wishes. What do you think about this, Hafnof ?

==========================

And it is those people's freedom to think in whatever way about the Chinese leaders. BTW, they are not "detained indefinitely" for merely thinking in that way, are they ?

(14-06-2013 09:36 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  I don't know the case under discussion well enough to comment intelligently on it, but do you have any comment on the general ethical issues here?

From my above replies (what a project ! but you are worth my effort. English is not my mother tongue. To express my ideas clearly sometimes is really a pain in the Censored ), you might have an impression about my views on the general ethical issues here.

==========================

I once asked a member on this forum in PM, "Yet, if you don't mind, what made you think what you wrote might offend me, and why ? "

The reply was "One never knows what might be considered offensive."

I then replied "I am really glad the answer isn't ' 'cause I am told to tread lightly when dealing with commie monsters' "

So do you think that I am a dishonest fanatic religious communism believer ?

Do you think I am an idiot, an Censored-hole and an enemy against the precious values about free speech, freedom and human rights ?

I think quite a few members on this forum hold fast to that "commie monster" baggage. If you think such situation does exist on this forum, do you think it is rational to do so ?

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2013, 05:53 AM
RE: Welcome to China.
The observation was made that a Nobel prize winner was incarcerated and his wife is under house arrest. Why do you take this personally? Why are you shooting the messenger?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2013, 06:20 AM
RE: Welcome to China.
The way I would draw the line is roughly as follows:
If the Chinese government has genuine cause to believe Liu is fermenting violent uprising then they are within their rights to take action against him. If the Chinese government believes that only non-violent uprising is planned or reasonably likely then there is an ethical problem with taking any action against him.

There is a lot of grey area between clear recourse to violence and clear non-violent action. Although a person may not have drawn up explicit plans for violence it may be that he is organising groups that do have violence as a core strategy. It may also be that groups who start nonviolently end up in violent conflict. In the west we tend to try to draw this line liberally. If the group has clear, provable plans to perform violent acts then the government can clearly act to detain those involved. If they are merely stoking flames of discontent the government believes might trigger violence then the government has no legal recourse. That speech is generally allowed.

The honesty and accuracy of the information being propagated by the group is also important. If false information - propaganda - is being widely circulated then I think it is ethical to counter this in some effective way. People should be accountable for the false damaging claims they make, and in the West we see this sort of thing in law relating to fraud or defamation. This is a fine line to walk because allowing one group to be responsible for deciding what is "truth" is a recipe for disaster, and free speech is usually preferred over suppressing information that might be true or might be false. Different western nations take different approaches to this set of legal questions. If truth and accuracy are to be an ethical basis for someone's detention then it must be pointed out that the Chinese government itself produces its fair share of propaganda and it too should be accountable for the truth of its claims. Generally in the West fraud and defamation law is only available to individuals, not to the government itself. Openly criticising the government is a right in the West, and even if some of that criticism is false we have generally taken the view that it is better to allow some false information than to suppress some true information.

Finally, although government censure in response nonviolent protest may be unethical is not necessarily the same as saying it is a bad thing. There is a case to be made that China needs another generation or two to establish herself on the world stage before her people are ready to choose their government. I don't like this approach, but it is a common idea I hear from Chinese people who fear that what China has gained over the last 50 years will be squandered over short term political disputes. I understand this anxiety, and I understand wanting to take a long view of this period of Chinese history.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
15-06-2013, 09:08 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2013 10:31 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Welcome to China.
(15-06-2013 05:53 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  The observation was made that a Nobel prize winner was incarcerated and his wife is under house arrest. Why do you take this personally? Why are you shooting the messenger?

observation -- is it ? it all started with a news link earmuffs provided. who observed it ? what is the credibility of the observer ?

incarcerated -- is it ? please refer to my post.

house arrest -- is it ? please refer to my post.

personally -- is it ? I thought when Chas and earmuffs behaved in this way, it was called "confrontational", opposite of "cowardly evading".

shooting -- is it ? By being "confrontational" and "frank" ?

the messenger -- is it ? discussing an convicted case 4 years ago, instead of discussing what happens right now ? OK, I admit I a little overly addressed the Snowden problem.

You see, I think you argument is shooting at me personally, somewhat. What do you think about it ?

==============================================================

Besides, you said this in the beginning part of this thread, "See? She's been allowed to live. What more can you ask for?"

I think you are very prejudiced to have said so. And all your other posts in this thread lack a decent amount of objectivity. Am I correct ?

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2013, 09:57 AM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2013 10:05 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Welcome to China.
(15-06-2013 06:20 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The way I would draw the line is roughly as follows:

If the Chinese government has genuine cause to believe Liu is fermenting violent uprising then they are within their rights to take action against him. If the Chinese government believes that only non-violent uprising is planned or reasonably likely then there is an ethical problem with taking any action against him.

From the written plea from both sides and the final judgement, I think I am going to call it ethical. I think it is ethical by the standards we agree to many others right now in China deserve similar treatment, yet one month to two months' time mostly, instead of something measured in years or ten years.

(15-06-2013 06:20 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  There is a lot of grey area between clear recourse to violence and clear non-violent action. Although a person may not have drawn up explicit plans for violence it may be that he is organizing groups that do have violence as a core strategy. It may also be that groups who start nonviolently end up in violent conflict. In the west we tend to try to draw this line liberally. If the group has clear, provable plans to perform violent acts then the government can clearly act to detain those involved. If they are merely stoking flames of discontent the government believes might trigger violence then the government has no legal recourse. That speech is generally allowed.

Official warning, investigation (sometimes even criminal), surveillance ... these are much more common practices done in front of "the line normally drawn liberally".

Look, from "criticizing Obama in front of the White House" to "they brought in an army to take out a 16-year-old boy", is the distance from ideology to reality.

(15-06-2013 06:20 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  The honesty and accuracy of the information being propagated by the group is also important. If false information - propaganda - is being widely circulated then I think it is ethical to counter this in some effective way. People should be accountable for the false damaging claims they make, and in the West we see this sort of thing in law relating to fraud or defamation. This is a fine line to walk because allowing one group to be responsible for deciding what is "truth" is a recipe for disaster, and free speech is usually preferred over suppressing information that might be true or might be false. Different western nations take different approaches to this set of legal questions. If truth and accuracy are to be an ethical basis for someone's detention then it must be pointed out that the Chinese government itself produces its fair share of propaganda and it too should be accountable for the truth of its claims. Generally in the West fraud and defamation law is only available to individuals, not to the government itself. Openly criticising the government is a right in the West, and even if some of that criticism is false we have generally taken the view that it is better to allow some false information than to suppress some true information.

"The honesty and accuracy of the information being propagated by the group is also important." Point excellently made. And in Liu's case, it is judged that the dishonesty and accuracy of the information propagated by Liu and his peers are at the rumor and instigation level.

"The Chinese government itself produces its fair share of propaganda and it too should be accountable for the truth of its claims." Indeed accountable, but to what extent ?

In the Snowden case, the USA government "itself produces its fair share of propaganda and it too should be accountable for the truth of its claims" and they are dropping criminal charges now, which is, ethical, I guess.

(15-06-2013 06:20 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Finally, although government censure in response nonviolent protest may be unethical is not necessarily the same as saying it is a bad thing. There is a case to be made that China needs another generation or two to establish herself on the world stage before her people are ready to choose their government. I don't like this approach, but it is a common idea I hear from Chinese people who fear that what China has gained over the last 50 years will be squandered over short term political disputes. I understand this anxiety, and I understand wanting to take a long view of this period of Chinese history.

Thank you for your analysis.

I like points put forward rationally like you just did. If there is a handful of Hafnof's gathering together, having an open and insightful discussion on which parts of the Chinese Constitution need to be change, why, and practically how. If they (Hafnof, sorry, I need to borrow your name for the moment) put this list online, and from the easiest part, and have actual things DONE, I will say,

They are respectable, reasonable, and somewhat credible (their credibility grows as they accomplishments are continually made).

And sorry, Liu and his peers are somewhat respectable, not quite reasonable and almost completely incredible, always over-promising and under-delivering.

By saying "not quite reasonable", if you've read my other posts, I mean normally "an IQ/EQ deficiency problem".

You see, Liu, a L.D., very far from a J.D., has written a PRIVATE CONSTITUTION (at least without my agreement to), yet he hasn't achieved any major accomplishment in his lawsuit. Nor has he gone through any legal process to revoke his allegedly "house arrest" ("residential surveillance" is the correct word).

Am I justified to say that this man is "not quite reasonable" and "almost completely incredible" for what he has done stated above ?

Is it fair to say that if I blindly supported Liu regardless of what I stated above, I must have "an IQ/EQ deficiency problem" ?

Looking forward to some feedback. (If I was Earmuffs, I would have said, "you didn't answer my questions, Censored !") Since I was actively involved in this heated discussion, I always like feedback from the outside.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: