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]

Quote:

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]

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.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by 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.

I understand ur a hard liner. I'm just telling u that between the two things u don't like. just don't confuse them. ppl who believe that the circumstances matter don't necessarily like being called relativist.

just a heads up though david. the % of the human population who thinks its morally wrong to lie to save the world is basically u+kant. so enjoy.

[David Floyd]

ppl who believe that the circumstances matter don't necessarily like being called relativist.

I'm not interested in what people want to be called, I'm interested in cutting through the bullshit. I'm gonna cut through the bullshit and say that with regards to torture, you have two options: Either it's morally permissable, or it is not.

Now, if torture IS morally permissable, THEN circumstances become relevant, but only in the context of the advisability/appropriateness of using torture.

the % of the human population who thinks its morally wrong to lie to save the world is basically u+kant.

a)I'm not generally compared to Kant.
b)Who's talking about lying? I only have a problem with lying when it hurts someone (ie, coercion). So don't change the subject. I'm not gonna debate the morality of lying when the subject at hand is Chinese human rights abuses and, specifically, the use of torture.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I'm not interested in what people want to be called, I'm interested in cutting through the bullshit. I'm gonna cut through the bullshit and say that with regards to torture, you have two options: Either it's morally permissable, or it is not.

Now, if torture IS morally permissable, THEN circumstances become relevant, but only in the context of the advisability/appropriateness of using torture.

thats just a circle jerk of semantics. it still leads back to the same conclusion. all u have to do is assume everything is morally permissable then u can look at the circumstances. what a useless way to word a philosophy.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd

a)I'm not generally compared to Kant.
b)Who's talking about lying? I only have a problem with lying when it hurts someone (ie, coercion). So don't change the subject. I'm not gonna debate the morality of lying when the subject at hand is Chinese human rights abuses and, specifically, the use of torture.

sorry its just easier as two posts.

holy crap man, conditional morality in bold type. "lying is only bad when it hurts someone." workin on those conditions?

[David Floyd]

all u have to do is assume everything is morally permissable then u can look at the circumstances.

If everything is, or can be, morally permissable, then you still have no basis for objecting to certain actions on any grounds other than whether the action is appropriate. For example: "While genocide is of course OK, the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not the most appropriate response."

Come on. The point is that some things are NOT morally permissable, and everyone knows this, whether or not they think they do or want to admit it. Now, I think torture is one of those things. Maybe you disagree. Maybe Mindseye disagrees. So we come full circle - Do you think that torture is morally wrong, yes or no?

[David Floyd]

holy crap man, conditional morality in bold type. "lying is only bad when it hurts someone." workin on those conditions?

That's not a conditional thing at all. My whole basis is that coercion is immoral. If lying results in coercion, then the lying was immoral. But the act of lying isn't necessarily immoral if it doesn't involve coercion. It might be inadvisable or inappropriate, but then again, so is cursing in church.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


If everything is, or can be, morally permissable, then you still have no basis for objecting to certain actions on any grounds other than whether the action is appropriate. For example: "While genocide is of course OK, the Final Solution to the Jewish Question was not the most appropriate response."

Come on. The point is that some things are NOT morally permissable, and everyone knows this, whether or not they think they do or want to admit it. Now, I think torture is one of those things. Maybe you disagree. Maybe Mindseye disagrees. So we come full circle - Do you think that torture is morally wrong, yes or no?

how does everyone "know" this? look u setup the rules for the philosophy. u don't get to appeal to common conception or definition. "well something has to be absolutely immoral." why?! its not in ur moral code that something HAS to be absolutely immoral. so a person is perfectly free to say that everything is possibly moral and that the situation must be looked at closer.

then for clarification they could simply state that some things it is very unlikely to create a situation where it is moral. whereas others it is more likely. and u basically have the vast majority of human morality gotten perfectly from ur system.

sure u ****ed w/ em a lil by pleaing that "something has to be immoral." but it still stands w/o breaking any logic they could keep their current moral system w/ urs.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That's not a conditional thing at all. My whole basis is that coercion is immoral. If lying results in coercion, then the lying was immoral. But the act of lying isn't necessarily immoral if it doesn't involve coercion. It might be inadvisable or inappropriate, but then again, so is cursing in church.

fine fine, the basic concept works the same. would u coerce someone to save the world. why did u even make me write this post?

[David Floyd]

how does everyone "know" this?

Find me one person who can create a logical, consistent argument, with the premise being that the Holocaust was perfectly fine. You can find plenty of people who think the Holocaust was OK, but none of them have logical arguments for why that is so.

u don't get to appeal to common conception or definition.

No, but this is useful for pointing out the fact that everyone believes in some absolutes, which is relevant because many of these people try to claim that absolutes don't exist. This doesn't qualify as proof for my position, just as proof that relativists are rather silly.

so a person is perfectly free to say that everything is possibly moral

Sure, you're perfectly free to say that. But that doesn't necessarily make it so. Besides, you're arguing a position you can't possibly accept, unless you want to tell me you think the Holocaust was potentially morally acceptable, or that murder is just fine, in some circumstances.

then for clarification they could simply state that some things it is very unlikely to create a situation where it is moral. whereas others it is more likely. and u basically have the vast majority of human morality gotten perfectly from ur system.

sure u ****ed w/ em a lil by pleaing that "something has to be immoral." but it still stands w/o breaking any logic they could keep their current moral system w/ urs.

I don't follow some of what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that there is no objective moral standard because many people disagree on its existence.

But I'm sorry, that isn't correct. Many people do NOT disagree on the existence of absolute morality. At most, they disagree on what is morally right and wrong.

Again, though, an appeal to what most people think does not constitute proof. All I'm doing is trying to show you that it's stupid for people to make the argument that absolute morals don't exist, because the vast majority of people believe that they do.

[David Floyd]

fine fine, the basic concept works the same. would u coerce someone to save the world.

A better question would be "Would coercing someone to save the world be wrong?" That takes the human element out of it. Would *I* coerce someone to save the world? Sure, probably. Would that coercion be wrong? Absolutely (unless, naturally the person I am "coercing" is the one putting the world in danger, which isn't really coercion at all, but rather self-defense).

But this is still a silly discussion, because there is no conceivable scenario in which I can save the world by "coercing" someone in some way.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Find me one person who can create a logical, consistent argument, with the premise being that the Holocaust was perfectly fine. You can find plenty of people who think the Holocaust was OK, but none of them have logical arguments for why that is so.



No, but this is useful for pointing out the fact that everyone believes in some absolutes, which is relevant because many of these people try to claim that absolutes don't exist. This doesn't qualify as proof for my position, just as proof that relativists are rather silly.



Sure, you're perfectly free to say that. But that doesn't necessarily make it so. Besides, you're arguing a position you can't possibly accept, unless you want to tell me you think the Holocaust was potentially morally acceptable, or that murder is just fine, in some circumstances.



I don't follow some of what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying that there is no objective moral standard because many people disagree on its existence.

But I'm sorry, that isn't correct. Many people do NOT disagree on the existence of absolute morality. At most, they disagree on what is morally right and wrong.

Again, though, an appeal to what most people think does not constitute proof. All I'm doing is trying to show you that it's stupid for people to make the argument that absolute morals don't exist, because the vast majority of people believe that they do.

ok now ur just blatantly cheating. the holocaust is a specific event that carries w/ it specific circumstances. the word u are looking for is "genocide."

plz argue correctly.

no I belive there is an objective moral standard. I am an absolutist in a way. but my moral system is more complex then urs.

there are two requirements to atleast have ppl look at ur philosophy. that it be internally consistent and not useless.

and on another front, ur wrenching the word absolute around till it breaks. again this all goes back to ur fundamental lack of understanding between someone who is objective but believes that circumstances matter. and a true relativist.

[David Floyd]

ok now ur just blatantly cheating. the holocaust is a specific event that carries w/ it specific circumstances. the word u are looking for is "genocide."

I believe I've used the word "genocide" previously, but in either case, it really doesn't matter. The Holocaust does NOT have specific circumstances that distinguish it from any other type of genocide, it's simply an easily recognizable and extreme example that no one can possibly say was morally right, and stay consistent.

there are two requirements to atleast have ppl look at ur philosophy. that it be internally consistent and not useless.

I'm not interested in popularity.

and on another front, ur wrenching the word absolute around till it breaks. again this all goes back to ur fundamental lack of understanding between someone who is objective but believes that circumstances matter. and a true relativist.

Circumstances matter, but not when determining whether or not something is morally right. If you are indeed an absolutist, then surely you have to concede that what you feel is absolutely wrong cannot be right, in certain circumstances.

In any case, enlighten me as to your "complex moral system".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Just answer the question. Is torture OK, or isn't it?

Not so simple, DF. It's like asking the question, "Have you stop beating your wife?" and trying to push the other person into answering either yes or no. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy if you don't know about it already.

Originally posted by David Floyd
So you have no absolute objection to torture, then?

Why don't you answer my non-fallacious question?

Where would these objective rights or "moral truth" stem from?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I believe I've used the word "genocide" previously, but in either case, it really doesn't matter. The Holocaust does NOT have specific circumstances that distinguish it from any other type of genocide, it's simply an easily recognizable and extreme example that no one can possibly say was morally right, and stay consistent.



I'm not interested in popularity.



Circumstances matter, but not when determining whether or not something is morally right. If you are indeed an absolutist, then surely you have to concede that what you feel is absolutely wrong cannot be right, in certain circumstances.

In any case, enlighten me as to your "complex moral system".

no the holocaust was when hitler slaughtered the jews in the 30's and 40's in germany. how can that not be specific? are u just trolling me?

I believe things are absolutely wrong in as far as they are connected w/ their circumstances. I believe the holocaust was wrong. I do not believe there is a way to interpret it that makes it correct. that is absolute. but that is because I know ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. its really not very hard to understand. why is it beyond u?

[David Floyd]

yavoon,

I believe things are absolutely wrong in as far as they are connected w/ their circumstances. I believe the holocaust was wrong. I do not believe there is a way to interpret it that makes it correct. that is absolute. but that is because I know ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. its really not very hard to understand. why is it beyond u?

Because your insistence of knowing about the circumstances implies that you think there is a set of circumstances in which the systematic slaughter of 10 million people would be perfectly acceptable.

UR,

Not so simple, DF. It's like asking the question, "Have you stop beating your wife?" and trying to push the other person into answering either yes or no. Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy if you don't know about it already.

Why won't you just tell me whether or not you think torture is wrong? There is no slippery slope or logical fallacy. Is there some reason you don't want to answer?

Where would these objective rights or "moral truth" stem from?

You're still avoiding the question. If you don't believe in objective moral truth, then you obviously don't believe that torture is morally wrong, so why not just say so, and save everyone a lot of time? On the other hand, if you DO believe torture is morally wrong, then obviously you believe in some objective truth, so what does it matter where I say it comes from? You already believe it's there.