The conversation isn't about YOU, it's about THEM. Why you, in your arrogance, think you get to define what a citizen is or is not, what such a person may or may not be entitled to in justice, is exactly the problem. You just discarded 2000 years of history in two different cultures and then wonder why China and other Asian cultures look…
The conversation isn't about YOU, it's about THEM. Why you, in your arrogance, think you get to define what a citizen is or is not, what such a person may or may not be entitled to in justice, is exactly the problem. You just discarded 2000 years of history in two different cultures and then wonder why China and other Asian cultures look with increasing skepticism on the West.
As far as stability, you should brush up more on military history. Displays of power and arrogance often lead to peaceful resolutions just as often as conflict; the difference always lies in the status and goals of both sides. I suspect Taiwan will peacefully join China after all the bluster because it's clear the US is a waining military power that throws its allies under the bus while China will quietly buy all the plants, people, and politicians with the whole world distracted by the military bluster.
Actually, the conversation I'm having with you is about me, inclusive. And, it contains no arrogance, only opinion which I give freely. Your knowledge of history may be greater than mine but I still feel good about my opinion knowing that it's based on my western perspective and limited knowledge of history.
Since I'm clear that I'm giving opinion I'm not sure why you insist that I'm "discarding...history" or that I'm "...defining citizen...or, justice...
You have made some definitive statements regarding the aims of the CCP and their role in the world, what is the basis of your knowledge of their intentions?
We've been discussing the Chinese actions with regards to their citizens and goals. Now you're claiming "the conversation I'm having with you is about me, inclusive." So, in your world, all the words we've exchanged about China have nothing to do with China, but only you?
Here I was trying to show that if you want to understand an individual or group's actions, it is helpful to try and understand the viewpoint of where their coming from. Now I see that your own viewpoint is almost unable to do such a thing, because you're explicitly claiming a discussion about China is about you and your opinions, rather than about them, their motivation, and historically why people may believe such a stance.
Actually, no - I asked you why you are making statements of fact regarding the motives of China but you didn't respond. I was clear that my comments were my opinion which is why it's about me. You don't seem comfortable that I can have an opinion that I want to keep despite your efforts at convincing me that I'm wrong. I can live with that.
You responded to comments I made about China caring about its stability and citizens. You then try to project your own personal definitions of those terms, rather than try to understand China, yet you still try to ask me questions about the motivations of China.
You then elusively dance back and forth between making it a conversation about China, which it was, and trying to turn it into a conversation about your opinion, which I never cared about and don't care about.
To repeat, I made statements about China, you responded against them, I pointed out that from historical perspective in Eastern and Western cultures your perspective isn't the one being used, then you start elusively dancing around the subject and your opinions rather than stay on the topic of China.
This being the internet, I'm not sure if you're not able to see the problem with your actions or if you're a sophist snake, so I'm done. Don't bother responding, as I won't respond further in this discussion. I would have ended it without this comment, but am hoping pointing out the way you're going off topic, back and forth to anyone reading will aid others in thinking the situation through due to how difficult it is with the change required in perspectives of culture between East and West, particularly when we have jettisoned our own cultural history in the West.
The conversation isn't about YOU, it's about THEM. Why you, in your arrogance, think you get to define what a citizen is or is not, what such a person may or may not be entitled to in justice, is exactly the problem. You just discarded 2000 years of history in two different cultures and then wonder why China and other Asian cultures look with increasing skepticism on the West.
As far as stability, you should brush up more on military history. Displays of power and arrogance often lead to peaceful resolutions just as often as conflict; the difference always lies in the status and goals of both sides. I suspect Taiwan will peacefully join China after all the bluster because it's clear the US is a waining military power that throws its allies under the bus while China will quietly buy all the plants, people, and politicians with the whole world distracted by the military bluster.
Actually, the conversation I'm having with you is about me, inclusive. And, it contains no arrogance, only opinion which I give freely. Your knowledge of history may be greater than mine but I still feel good about my opinion knowing that it's based on my western perspective and limited knowledge of history.
Since I'm clear that I'm giving opinion I'm not sure why you insist that I'm "discarding...history" or that I'm "...defining citizen...or, justice...
You have made some definitive statements regarding the aims of the CCP and their role in the world, what is the basis of your knowledge of their intentions?
We've been discussing the Chinese actions with regards to their citizens and goals. Now you're claiming "the conversation I'm having with you is about me, inclusive." So, in your world, all the words we've exchanged about China have nothing to do with China, but only you?
Here I was trying to show that if you want to understand an individual or group's actions, it is helpful to try and understand the viewpoint of where their coming from. Now I see that your own viewpoint is almost unable to do such a thing, because you're explicitly claiming a discussion about China is about you and your opinions, rather than about them, their motivation, and historically why people may believe such a stance.
Actually, no - I asked you why you are making statements of fact regarding the motives of China but you didn't respond. I was clear that my comments were my opinion which is why it's about me. You don't seem comfortable that I can have an opinion that I want to keep despite your efforts at convincing me that I'm wrong. I can live with that.
Doug,
You responded to comments I made about China caring about its stability and citizens. You then try to project your own personal definitions of those terms, rather than try to understand China, yet you still try to ask me questions about the motivations of China.
You then elusively dance back and forth between making it a conversation about China, which it was, and trying to turn it into a conversation about your opinion, which I never cared about and don't care about.
To repeat, I made statements about China, you responded against them, I pointed out that from historical perspective in Eastern and Western cultures your perspective isn't the one being used, then you start elusively dancing around the subject and your opinions rather than stay on the topic of China.
This being the internet, I'm not sure if you're not able to see the problem with your actions or if you're a sophist snake, so I'm done. Don't bother responding, as I won't respond further in this discussion. I would have ended it without this comment, but am hoping pointing out the way you're going off topic, back and forth to anyone reading will aid others in thinking the situation through due to how difficult it is with the change required in perspectives of culture between East and West, particularly when we have jettisoned our own cultural history in the West.