5,000 dead in Tiananmen Square? Cite your sources please. That's the first time
I've ever heard that number from anywhere, Chinese or western. In any case, that
event is not nearly as simple as you portray. Your account just parrots that
overused photo of one man in front of a line of tanks, and makes no effort to
show that you understand the underlying political forces that led to the
crackdown in the first place.
Your account of the Cultural Revolution is incorrect. The Cultural Revolution
was not a massacre of the people under Mao's direction but rather a violent
internal party struggle between rival factions. Mao vs Deng Xiaoping and Liu
Shaoqi, and later Lin Biao plus the Gang of Four. Mao wanted to purge the
"rightists," that is true. But what did "rightist" mean? He
did not initiate or order the mass waves of killings that occurred. The
"rightist" label was bastardized by political extremists as a
convenient means to get rid of their own personal enemies. Don't assume that
everything in those days came directly from Mao.
Your view of the One Child policy is also entirely skewed. It was a policy
created to achieve the necessary goal of containing explosive population growth.
If you study Chinese geography, you'll notice that China's land areas suitable
for agriculture is actually extremely small compared to the population this land
must support. Some measure was needed to prevent an unsustainable population.
You can argue whether limiting families to having only one child is the best
policy, but that people abort pregnancies confirmed to be girls is merely a
by-product of a thousands-of-years-old cultural tradition of patriarchy. It is
in no way the government intentionally supporting the killing of girls. And
don't even bother arguing that that is "wrong" or "immoral."
Chinese cultural beliefs differ significantly from the Christian believe in
God-created life at conception.
By the way, in today's China, women can support their parents just as well as
men.
And as for your version of "Communist Philosophy," I only need to
refer you to the nearest library's copy of the Communist Manifesto. Read it, and
then come back and talk to me about Marx's version of Hegel's
dialectic.
Finally, no, bashing China will not help and will not raise awareness. Remember,
the only people who cares about the China-bashing are 1. people doing the
bashing, and 2. the Chinese. Group 1 are already supposedly "aware" of
why they're bashing China, though my experiences tell me that most are just
ignorant prejudicial fools.
That leaves group 2.
If you have ever made even the slightest attempt to read commentary from Chinese
citizens on the recent protests, you will notice that the only thing these
protests have achieved is to inflame Chinese nationalism. In effect, all the
China-bashing and protests have actually empowered hardliners in Beijing and
made it harder for any reform on human rights issues. Any attempt now at reform
will be portrayed as caving in to the west. Beijing can now easily crack down
even harder on human rights activists, and now it will actually have the support
of most Chinese people.
It's telling that before March 14, Beijing's biggest crisis was containing
rapidly rising inflation. Now, you'd be hard pressed to find any one talking
about that issue. And frankly, millions of people not being able to afford
buying foodstuff is a much bigger threat to Beijing's hold on power than
anything Tibet and Dalai Lama can raise. Yet, that's now out the
window.
Think about the approach. It's clearly not working. Don't stubbornly stick to
this method of bashing China and protesting everything China-related under the
sun. In this you'd become just like the Chinese government.
My point, one you seem not to get, is that your argument that Chinese media's
likely anti-American bashing justifies Americans bashing China is based on a
false premise. You're not voicing your distaste in that case. You're saying
"because they probably do it to us we can therefore do it to them."
That's not voicing distaste, now is it?
Mireya do you know anything about China that you learned through your own
research? Do you even know the circumstances that led up to Tiananmen Square?
Better yet, do you know where Tiananmen Square is?
Stop yelling slogans when you don't even know what it is you're protesting, let
alone the underlying issues involved.
The problems in China will not be solved by China-bashing slogans.
As for shoujoboy, there is indeed a problem when protesters unconsciously and
automatically use a blanket "they" when referring to China.
"They" are all communists, "they" pirate goods,
"they" jail their own people. It does reflect an ingrained prejudice
that all Chinese people are the same as the government. You will notice that
those who have studied China and understand its dynamics never use the blanket
"they" but make a clear distinction between the actions of the
government and of the people.
And whether Chinese media bashes the US is irrelevant. Michael Jackson molested
little boys. Does that mean you can do it too?
Quote: By that, I generally have a
distaste for them in general. Massive intellectual censorship,
"mysterious" deaths linked to those who have said things poorly of
China or represented them improperly etc.
Once again we have the ignorance of the difference between China's government
and the Chinese people and two unequal entities become a singular
"them." This is why protests actually enhance Chinese solidarity.
Bashing of China's government becomes bashing of the Chinese in general. And you
wonder why the Chinese people are suspicious of western media. Beijing doesn't
even need to fan nationalism. Comments such as these have done the job.
Not a bug. Saikusa might have gotten confused after sheqel made that new
"not full size" feature, which in my opinion is dumb. I'll let her
know; but I'm not going to restore your scans. That's her decision.
It would seem that some members have either 1) never read the MT Policy or 2)
long since forgotten it. Therefore, a little refresher, and some additional
comments which I deem sorely needed.
I. Ad hominem attacks will result in warnings
and muted status.
Debate the idea, not the person presenting them.
II. Post only when you have a relevant and
intelligent point to contribute.
Members are free to post their views and beliefs. If you disagree, you are
welcome to exercise your freedom of not reading that thread. Do not post to
denigrate another's views or ideology.]
These two rules are all that is needed. Follow them, and we can have
constructive, thought-provoking discussion. Break them, and you will lose your
right to post in the forums.
Do read the policy. I should not have to make this thread in the first place.
Well, since our friend Kingray got muted (I wasn't even the one who muted him,
go ask misa), you guys get back on topic of the relevant importance of science
and religion.
Quote: Yes the Declaration is a
founding document of the US however it does not define the governance of our
nation. It is a declaration to Britain that we refuse to treated unjustly and we
are going to start our of independant nation. The inclusion of God in the text
is more a reflection of the fact that it was sent from one predominantly
Christian nation to another predominantly Christian nation. The real meat of how
our nations government is supposed to work is spelled out in the Constitution of
the US where it mentions several times that relgion is not the purview of the
state and that religious affiliations shall not be held against anyone applying
to hold positions in the governement, as well as the Freedom of religion spelled
out explicitly in the text.
The Constitution stipulates that Government cannot impose any restrictions on or
support any religion. It makes no mention of religion exerting influence on
government, hence the power to the religious right.
Kingray, I'm going to make this extra large font
so that it will not escape your attention.
Please don't mock our intelligence with the claim that you don't know how to
quote specific passages without first quoting the entire post. You have shown
that you know how to do it in this very thread, 10 posts above this current one
I'm writing.
If you don't want to respond to everything is
someone's post, DON'T QUOTE IT. Quote only the part you are responding
to.
I am warning you again, if you don't stop creating unnecessarily long posts with
unnecessary quotes, you won't be able to post at all.
Kingray, stop quoting an entire post, then quote again the specific sections
individually. Just quote once, and only the sections individually. You're making
your posts unnecessarily long and that's half spamming.
Quote: That is true the country
itself is not really secular due to the amount of influence by Christianity (the
Founding Fathers time) and various religions (today). However even our founding
fathers intended the government to be secular if nothing else to protect the
religions from being exposed to the graft and corruption that is rampant in
politics. I would also point out that most of the Christian symbolism in
government (currency, seals, etc...) has been added post the founding of the
country. In fact some of it such as the currency is actually a fairly recent
addition respective to the age of the US.
The intent of the Founding Father, if not set forth explicitly, will not have
nearly as much weight as the presence of the word God in the Declaration itself.
That is how the Christian right have been able to push for great religious
presence in politics. They see that this nation is founded by a document that
recognizes God and can claim, with legitimate documentary support, that this
nation was never intended to separate God from government.
I know this argument first hand. I attended a lecture by Justice Scalia and a
devout Catholic friend passionately agreed with his argument that faith ought to
play a large role in governance.
Faith in politics is not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on how it is
"spun," as the political world goes.
The United States is not a secular country, in case anyone hasn't noticed. The
word God is featured prominently in the founding documents. As long as this
nation is "endowed by the Creator," the evangelical Christians in this
nation will have ammunition to push for an expansion of religion into political
life. Just look at their power now. An ignorant pastor farmer is in hot pursuit
of the presidential nomination, simply because he can cite the Bible verbatim.
Quote by SpystreakThe last Grand Thefy
Auto game I believe created a huge controversy because of a sex minigame or
something that was hidden within the game. Some games have outright been banned
because of the over usage of violence and blood. So to say that violence and
blood yet ecchi is not is not at all true.
Wasn't that the ruckus created by a homebrew mod? I.E. something Rockstar had no
hand in creating at all, or am I thinking of something else? In all honesty, I
haven't really paid much attention to that because I'm not overly fond of the
GTA games, so I might very well be wrong about this.
I don't really have anything against the GTA games -- people should be able to
see the satirical aspect of the game's contents -- I just don't play them
myself.
No Rockstar made the sex scenes. It is not accessible through normal game play,
but nonetheless was put there by the original studio. The mod was merely code
injected to make that scene accessible.
Which gallery item? Post a link.
5,000 dead in Tiananmen Square? Cite your sources please. That's the first time I've ever heard that number from anywhere, Chinese or western. In any case, that event is not nearly as simple as you portray. Your account just parrots that overused photo of one man in front of a line of tanks, and makes no effort to show that you understand the underlying political forces that led to the crackdown in the first place.
Your account of the Cultural Revolution is incorrect. The Cultural Revolution was not a massacre of the people under Mao's direction but rather a violent internal party struggle between rival factions. Mao vs Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, and later Lin Biao plus the Gang of Four. Mao wanted to purge the "rightists," that is true. But what did "rightist" mean? He did not initiate or order the mass waves of killings that occurred. The "rightist" label was bastardized by political extremists as a convenient means to get rid of their own personal enemies. Don't assume that everything in those days came directly from Mao.
Your view of the One Child policy is also entirely skewed. It was a policy created to achieve the necessary goal of containing explosive population growth. If you study Chinese geography, you'll notice that China's land areas suitable for agriculture is actually extremely small compared to the population this land must support. Some measure was needed to prevent an unsustainable population. You can argue whether limiting families to having only one child is the best policy, but that people abort pregnancies confirmed to be girls is merely a by-product of a thousands-of-years-old cultural tradition of patriarchy. It is in no way the government intentionally supporting the killing of girls. And don't even bother arguing that that is "wrong" or "immoral." Chinese cultural beliefs differ significantly from the Christian believe in God-created life at conception.
By the way, in today's China, women can support their parents just as well as men.
And as for your version of "Communist Philosophy," I only need to refer you to the nearest library's copy of the Communist Manifesto. Read it, and then come back and talk to me about Marx's version of Hegel's dialectic.
Finally, no, bashing China will not help and will not raise awareness. Remember, the only people who cares about the China-bashing are 1. people doing the bashing, and 2. the Chinese. Group 1 are already supposedly "aware" of why they're bashing China, though my experiences tell me that most are just ignorant prejudicial fools.
That leaves group 2.
If you have ever made even the slightest attempt to read commentary from Chinese citizens on the recent protests, you will notice that the only thing these protests have achieved is to inflame Chinese nationalism. In effect, all the China-bashing and protests have actually empowered hardliners in Beijing and made it harder for any reform on human rights issues. Any attempt now at reform will be portrayed as caving in to the west. Beijing can now easily crack down even harder on human rights activists, and now it will actually have the support of most Chinese people.
It's telling that before March 14, Beijing's biggest crisis was containing rapidly rising inflation. Now, you'd be hard pressed to find any one talking about that issue. And frankly, millions of people not being able to afford buying foodstuff is a much bigger threat to Beijing's hold on power than anything Tibet and Dalai Lama can raise. Yet, that's now out the window.
Think about the approach. It's clearly not working. Don't stubbornly stick to this method of bashing China and protesting everything China-related under the sun. In this you'd become just like the Chinese government.
My point, one you seem not to get, is that your argument that Chinese media's likely anti-American bashing justifies Americans bashing China is based on a false premise. You're not voicing your distaste in that case. You're saying "because they probably do it to us we can therefore do it to them." That's not voicing distaste, now is it?
Mireya do you know anything about China that you learned through your own research? Do you even know the circumstances that led up to Tiananmen Square? Better yet, do you know where Tiananmen Square is?
Stop yelling slogans when you don't even know what it is you're protesting, let alone the underlying issues involved.
The problems in China will not be solved by China-bashing slogans.
As for shoujoboy, there is indeed a problem when protesters unconsciously and automatically use a blanket "they" when referring to China. "They" are all communists, "they" pirate goods, "they" jail their own people. It does reflect an ingrained prejudice that all Chinese people are the same as the government. You will notice that those who have studied China and understand its dynamics never use the blanket "they" but make a clear distinction between the actions of the government and of the people.
And whether Chinese media bashes the US is irrelevant. Michael Jackson molested little boys. Does that mean you can do it too?
Once again we have the ignorance of the difference between China's government and the Chinese people and two unequal entities become a singular "them." This is why protests actually enhance Chinese solidarity. Bashing of China's government becomes bashing of the Chinese in general. And you wonder why the Chinese people are suspicious of western media. Beijing doesn't even need to fan nationalism. Comments such as these have done the job.
Not a bug. Saikusa might have gotten confused after sheqel made that new "not full size" feature, which in my opinion is dumb. I'll let her know; but I'm not going to restore your scans. That's her decision.
It would seem that some members have either 1) never read the MT Policy or 2) long since forgotten it. Therefore, a little refresher, and some additional comments which I deem sorely needed.
I. Ad hominem attacks will result in warnings and muted status.
Debate the idea, not the person presenting them.
II. Post only when you have a relevant and intelligent point to contribute.
Members are free to post their views and beliefs. If you disagree, you are welcome to exercise your freedom of not reading that thread. Do not post to denigrate another's views or ideology.]
These two rules are all that is needed. Follow them, and we can have constructive, thought-provoking discussion. Break them, and you will lose your right to post in the forums.
Do read the policy. I should not have to make this thread in the first place.
Priincess created this thread to share the lyrics of a song. Yet the latest posts are nothing but sarcastic acrimony directed against her.
If you don't wish to read these threads, you are free to leave. She has the right to post threads such as this and be free from harassment.
If I see anyone else posting ad hominem attacks, I will freely use the mute option.
You've been here for a year and you STILL don't know what ripping is?
Well, since our friend Kingray got muted (I wasn't even the one who muted him, go ask misa), you guys get back on topic of the relevant importance of science and religion.
The Constitution stipulates that Government cannot impose any restrictions on or support any religion. It makes no mention of religion exerting influence on government, hence the power to the religious right.
Kingray, I'm going to make this extra large font so that it will not escape your attention.
Please don't mock our intelligence with the claim that you don't know how to quote specific passages without first quoting the entire post. You have shown that you know how to do it in this very thread, 10 posts above this current one I'm writing.
If you don't want to respond to everything is someone's post, DON'T QUOTE IT. Quote only the part you are responding to.
I am warning you again, if you don't stop creating unnecessarily long posts with unnecessary quotes, you won't be able to post at all.
Kingray, stop quoting an entire post, then quote again the specific sections individually. Just quote once, and only the sections individually. You're making your posts unnecessarily long and that's half spamming.
The intent of the Founding Father, if not set forth explicitly, will not have nearly as much weight as the presence of the word God in the Declaration itself. That is how the Christian right have been able to push for great religious presence in politics. They see that this nation is founded by a document that recognizes God and can claim, with legitimate documentary support, that this nation was never intended to separate God from government.
I know this argument first hand. I attended a lecture by Justice Scalia and a devout Catholic friend passionately agreed with his argument that faith ought to play a large role in governance.
Faith in politics is not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on how it is "spun," as the political world goes.
The United States is not a secular country, in case anyone hasn't noticed. The word God is featured prominently in the founding documents. As long as this nation is "endowed by the Creator," the evangelical Christians in this nation will have ammunition to push for an expansion of religion into political life. Just look at their power now. An ignorant pastor farmer is in hot pursuit of the presidential nomination, simply because he can cite the Bible verbatim.
Oh angry angry children. Would you like a cookie?
No Rockstar made the sex scenes. It is not accessible through normal game play, but nonetheless was put there by the original studio. The mod was merely code injected to make that scene accessible.
Don't bump old threads with spam.
Closed.
Good. Problem solved.
Closed.
Did her semi-nudity ever cross your mind as a reason for deletion? If not, it should have.
I can see images just fine. Try clearing your cache. Then go browse some other sites and come back to MT later.
Don't bump old threads.
Closed.
This thread has absolutely no point.
Closed.
When you're involved with 3 different women at the same time, aren't you the one with sincerity issues?