Originally posted by yasawakic at 2009-10-25 23:02
And this: what it is? nepotism? de.m.ocracy? or just deny of basic chinese citi.zen ri.ghts ? or maybe crime against hum.an.ity?:[url]http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/10/22/we-are-afraid-even-loo ...
You'll gain more respect if you don't quote hrw as source of facts, it's a C!A deceit machine.
Originally posted by seneca at 2009-10-27 10:08
Expatter: Since when is it a Westerner's duty to fingerpoint nepots ruling over underdeveloped nations? By the same token you should come down pretty hard on the Maoists that overran T.
How do you believe that these dates are relevant to each other.
You cannot argue that the DL (ahem) self-styled ruing elete are the same as then. Or can you?
And if they have changed then in what way?
In 2009 do they represent the modern world and ideals they espouse or is it just lip-service?
With relation to the Chinese Government, I am sure that I can be justified in saying that there has been a great deal of change over the last 60 years in China. Especially in structure. oranization of government and even policies.
I am very interested that my own personal opinion is considered by you to be "The Party Line".
In effect you seem to make the point that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a rabid communist.
Interesting theory. Albeit one-sided and very obviously flawed in its presentation.
It makes an interesting sentiment that the leaders of China in 2009 should hold themselves directly responsible for all actions by their predecessors rather than take responsibility for their current policies.
I wonder if in the seneca family tree you should be held accountable for your predecessors actions and we might expect a sincere apology on this very forum to satisfy that account.
Of course China has had a difficult path and many past errors are readily available to peruse on the internet and admitted to by modern China. How many apologies will satiate your need? But more interestingly, why do you personally need them?
I very much doubt if the DL would post on this site and therefore that statement is just academic.
China has the right to run its own affairs and is not accountable to delusional western polikspin about nonsensical HR values when the west clearly does not practice these ideals and especially in its own media.
As regards language, in the 'freeworld' all language is permitted unless it breaks the bounds of racism or inciting to violence. Therefore I cannot see a problem with either side of a topic using semantics to address their side of a debate.
What is odd is that you do not seem to be able to see past that and concentrate on the purpose of the utterances rather than the face value of the pragmatics.
The question still remains whether the quasi DL government in India is sufficiently sincere about what a modern democratic government really is..