Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

A question for those who support China's atrocities in Tibet

Page 4 of 5 [ 75 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ion
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 476
Location: Sweden

25 Mar 2008, 12:50 am

pbcoll wrote:
ion wrote:
Spare me the logical fallacies.


I challenge you to expose them.


Straw man:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
You keep putting words in my mouth and discredit what I say based on it.

Red herring:
Topic A (The Chinese government) is under discussion.
Topic B (Theocracies and fundamentalists) is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.
You keep bringing up things that are not relevant to what I am saying.
I'm not debating whether theocracies are good or bad. I'm saying that I personally think that the CCP are worse than people who are only hurting other people physically.

Appeal to emotion:
Favorable (or unfavorable) emotions are associated with X.
Therefore, X is true (or false).
It's too bad that women are being raped and stoned and get their hands cut off, etc, but it's just sensationalistic.
It's too bad for all the people you know that you mentioned, but it's not really relevant to the subject.

Appeal to ridicule
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.
Using morbid sarcasm. ("though you do not need hands to be spitirual", etc.)

Guilt by Association:
It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
Ad Hominem:
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
By using the label "spiritual people", you group me together with all manner of creeps that would more accurately be described as religious charlatans, and then make a generalization appealing to emotion and ridicule.

Insufficient/Biased Sample:
Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P.
Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S.
I work part time as a tutor for Chinese students here and meet a lot of Chinese people, and they are not uncreative robots either. But they're still not a representable sample.

Now, this bores me and it's way past bedtime.
I have shared my personal opinion on the CCP and explained exactly why I think so.
If you still don't understand, I can't do much about that so I see no reason to keep arguing.
Check out the videos or read the articles yourself instead.


_________________
Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willnae be fooled again!


wsmac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,888
Location: Humboldt County California

25 Mar 2008, 1:00 am

Well, this thread has jumped all over the place hasn't it? :wink:

I quickly read over all the posts and this one comment stuck out the most to me....

Psychlone wrote:
That's what I think should be done in Tibet. The old religious theocracy should be abolished, and instead there should be a modern democracy and then the Dalai Lama would just be a ceremonial leader with no real power. Like the Emperor of Japan or the Queen of England. If this worked for Japan after the war then why couldn't it work for Tibet?


Some would say you are entitled to your own opinion Psychlone, but when you argue that China has no right to tell Tibet how to handle their lives/affairs how do you come about doing the same thing yourself?

I am an American, yet I have never been shown any evidence that our system is the best in the world and should be adopted by all people.

You assume that people who's cultures are vastly different from ours would be better off living life like us?

You should spend some of your youth traveling the world and getting to know these other cultures in person.
You should ask these people who are still living in their own countries if they want to be just like the U.S. and whether they truly understand our form of government or not.

This is one example of what some people call American Colonialism... among other things.
Somehow too many Americans have gotten this notion that our form of government is the one for EVERY nation in the world and they actually support 'exporting' it to other nations.

Take a look at what is happening in the Middle East right now... we are trying to establish a pseudo-democratic nation from the end of a barrel... a gun barrel that is.
It's not working.
Look at other countries around the world.


On one hand you cry foul when a foreign country takes rule over a smaller country... China vs Tibet.
Yet you come right back and spout off about what YOU wish to do with Tibet yourself.
Same thing.
You are willing to push your agenda on Tibet without having been there or having talked with the people there... right?

It doesn't matter whether you claim you would not use force against the people of Tibet... you are still saying you have some ability to decide for the people of Tibet what is good for them.

Anyway... it's just something I noticed amongst all the arguments here. :wink:


_________________
fides solus
===============
LIBRARIES... Hardware stores for the mind


D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

25 Mar 2008, 1:13 am

Psychlone wrote:
D1nk0 wrote:
Psychlone:Disagreeing with you and refusing to give in to you does NOT make me a "Troll"! :evil:
You cant expect others to automatically give in to you just because you have a strong opinion and you argue it so.


Pbcoll and others in this thread disagree with me, but they are able to do so in a respectful manner. You seem to just want to provoke a reaction because you keep rubbing it in how great China is and you laugh at the plight of the Tibetans. Pbcoll may not support Tibetan independence, but at least he doesn't laugh at their situation as you've done. He also didn't call the Dalai Lama a dictator, that I can recall.


It was not my intention to laugh at the Tibetans grievances against China. But I seriously call into question that what the Chinese have done justifies the Tibetans to use any means necessary to get their independence. Part of my feelings on the matter have to do with the fact that THIS time the Chinese goverment DID show a great deal of restraint-the goverment's martial response was Delayed and the Tibetans themselves took advantage it in a very distasteful way by targetting unarmed chinese civilians in Lhasa since the police werent there to stop them. The more restraint the chinese goverment shows the more violent the Tibetans behave. Im wondering what makes you so convinced that the all of the Tibetan claim against China are airtight and completely accurate. I also wonder how many of the 100 reported dead are actually Tibetans and not Han chinese civilians who were killed by mob violence.



pbcoll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,892
Location: the City of Palaces

25 Mar 2008, 7:07 am

ion, given that a Tibet under the lamas would be a theocracy, I think a discussion of theocracy is not irrelevant - but in any case I brought it up when you said the Chinese government is the most evil organisation in the world and I brought up the Saudi monarchy and al-Qaeda as counterexamples. I am not equating the Dalai Lama with the Taliban, but I am pointing out that there are worse governments than that of China, i.e. I gave counterexamples to your hyperbole. Neither did I say that what I said applied to all spiritual people, just to the fundamentalist subset. An attack on some members of a set does not equate to an attack on every single member of that set.
You ignore my points about the indoctrination and ideological conformity under fundamentalist rule, as well as the point about the purpose of torture not being solely to produce physical pain but also to produce terror and break your spirit. The fundamentalists don't just hurt people physically (indeed, they're not so much interested in your body as in your spirit), but that does not seem to be something you're willing to address (my guess is that that is because you have no refutation for it). Brainwashing is far from a secular monopoly.


_________________
I am the steppenwolf that never learned to dance. (Sedaka)

El hombre es una bestia famélica, envidiosa e insaciable. (Francisco Tario)

I'm male by the way (yes, I know my avatar is misleading).


monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

25 Mar 2008, 8:17 am

pbcoll wrote:

More likely, it would be like Kosovo or East Timor - a beggar nation incapable of providing for its own security. Nobody had a strategic interest in annexing or controlling Mongolia (no uranium), but that does not appear to be the case with Tibet. But China is no Colombia, and Tibet is no Panama.


Or like Nepal.

But if China wasn't menacing it, why would it have many security worries?



ion
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 476
Location: Sweden

25 Mar 2008, 9:07 am

pbcoll wrote:
ion, given that a Tibet under the lamas would be a theocracy, I think a discussion of theocracy is not irrelevant - but in any case I brought it up when you said the Chinese government is the most evil organisation in the world and I brought up the Saudi monarchy and al-Qaeda as counterexamples. I am not equating the Dalai Lama with the Taliban, but I am pointing out that there are worse governments than that of China, i.e. I gave counterexamples to your hyperbole. Neither did I say that what I said applied to all spiritual people, just to the fundamentalist subset. An attack on some members of a set does not equate to an attack on every single member of that set.
You ignore my points about the indoctrination and ideological conformity under fundamentalist rule, as well as the point about the purpose of torture not being solely to produce physical pain but also to produce terror and break your spirit. The fundamentalists don't just hurt people physically (indeed, they're not so much interested in your body as in your spirit), but that does not seem to be something you're willing to address (my guess is that that is because you have no refutation for it). Brainwashing is far from a secular monopoly.


I mentioned the lamas as a quite probable lesser of two evils that I neither condone nor support.
I didn't mention them to bring up theocracies. They're far from the best solution, but could still never be as evil as the CCP.

The Saudis and Al-quaeda and other evil ones hurt people physically and I can agree that they hurt people spiritually as well, but what I'm coming at is more the difference between giving someone bad water to drink or not giving them any water at all.
Spiritual doesn't mean nice, and while what the Saudis do is bad, it still sates a persons thirst for spirituality. Al-quaeda are very spiritual, when you think about it. Their members commit suicide for the cause so they can get their promised virgins and so. Totally bad water, yes, but still water.
I find that the Chinese people I've met all seems thirsty, though.


_________________
Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willnae be fooled again!


D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

25 Mar 2008, 10:32 am

ion wrote:
pbcoll wrote:
ion, given that a Tibet under the lamas would be a theocracy, I think a discussion of theocracy is not irrelevant - but in any case I brought it up when you said the Chinese government is the most evil organisation in the world and I brought up the Saudi monarchy and al-Qaeda as counterexamples. I am not equating the Dalai Lama with the Taliban, but I am pointing out that there are worse governments than that of China, i.e. I gave counterexamples to your hyperbole. Neither did I say that what I said applied to all spiritual people, just to the fundamentalist subset. An attack on some members of a set does not equate to an attack on every single member of that set.
You ignore my points about the indoctrination and ideological conformity under fundamentalist rule, as well as the point about the purpose of torture not being solely to produce physical pain but also to produce terror and break your spirit. The fundamentalists don't just hurt people physically (indeed, they're not so much interested in your body as in your spirit), but that does not seem to be something you're willing to address (my guess is that that is because you have no refutation for it). Brainwashing is far from a secular monopoly.


I mentioned the lamas as a quite probable lesser of two evils that I neither condone nor support.
I didn't mention them to bring up theocracies. They're far from the best solution, but could still never be as evil as the CCP.

The Saudis and Al-quaeda and other evil ones hurt people physically and I can agree that they hurt people spiritually as well, but what I'm coming at is more the difference between giving someone bad water to drink or not giving them any water at all.
Spiritual doesn't mean nice, and while what the Saudis do is bad, it still sates a persons thirst for spirituality. Al-quaeda are very spiritual, when you think about it. Their members commit suicide for the cause so they can get their promised virgins and so. Totally bad water, yes, but still water.
I find that the Chinese people I've met all seems thirsty, though.


I wonder if you understand the social function of religion; because its quite clear that you're living in a fantasy world along with the rest of those religious extremists :P .



ion
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 476
Location: Sweden

25 Mar 2008, 10:43 am

D1nk0 wrote:
I wonder if you understand the social function of religion; because its quite clear that you're living in a fantasy world along with the rest of those religious extremists :P .


o_O

Elaborate.


_________________
Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willnae be fooled again!


Gromit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,302
Location: In Cognito

25 Mar 2008, 1:11 pm

wsmac wrote:
Psychlone wrote:
That's what I think should be done in Tibet. The old religious theocracy should be abolished, and instead there should be a modern democracy and then the Dalai Lama would just be a ceremonial leader with no real power. Like the Emperor of Japan or the Queen of England. If this worked for Japan after the war then why couldn't it work for Tibet?


Some would say you are entitled to your own opinion Psychlone, but when you argue that China has no right to tell Tibet how to handle their lives/affairs how do you come about doing the same thing yourself?


Psychlone's suggestion is also the official position of the Tibetan government in exile. pbcoll's worry that
pbcoll wrote:
Tibet under the lamas would be a theocracy

is not based on the stated positions of either the government in exile or the Dalai Lama. Here are some excerpts from the web site, with some bits cut to make it shorter, and the parts most relevant to the question of a theocracy highlighted:
The Dalai Lama wrote:
People's Deputies (the Tibetan legislative body), was introduced in India. Since then we have had eleven such Assemblies. In 1961, I promulgated a constitution for future, free Tibet, based on the principles of modern democracy. In general, this Constitution received overwhelming support from the Tibetans. The Tibetans, however, strongly opposed one provision, which stipulated that if circumstances demanded, the power of the Dalai Lama could be taken away according to the Constitution. Therefore, this provision had to be revised.

In 1963, an even more comprehensive draft constitution was announced. In an attempt to democratise the exile Tibetan Administration, the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies was entrusted with the authority to abolish the traditional bipolar system of appointing monk and lay officials to each position. The Assembly also annulled all the hereditary titles and prerogatives granted to small groups of people under the old system. In its place, new guidelines were introduced by which government officials would be appointed in a democratic fashion.

The 1963 draft constitution also authorised a Council of Regents to assume the powers of the Dalai Lama under specific circumstances if that was seen to be in the highest interest of the nation. In deference to the wishes of the people, as I stated earlier, and circumstances prevailing at that time, the constitution gave the ultimate authority of the government to the Dalai Lama. Naturally, I was not satisfied with this clause. I felt that this constitution fell far short of my aim for a genuine democracy.

Therefore, in my speech of the March 10 Anniversary in 1969, I declared that when the Tibetans regained their right to rule themselves, the people must decide for themselves as to what kind of system of government they wanted. I also stated that it was not certain whether the system of government with the Dalai Lama as the supreme head would continue or not.

...

I believe that in future, Tibet should have a multi-party system of parliament, and that it should have three organs of government - legislature, executive and judiciary - with a clear separation of powers between them, each independent of the other and vested with equal powers and authority. As I have often said, Tibet belongs to Tibetans, and especially to those who are in Tibet.

...

Personally, I have made up my mind that I will not play any role in the future government of Tibet, let alone seek the Dalai Lama's traditional political position in the government. There are important reasons why I have made this decision. There is no doubt that Tibetans, both in and outside Tibet, have great hope in, and reverence for, me. From my side too, I am determined to do whatever I can for the well-being of my people. The fact that I am in a position to do this is due to my karma and prayers over past lives. However, in future I will not hold any official position in the government. I will most likely remain a public figure who may be called on to offer advice or resolve some particularly significant and difficult problems which could not be overcome by the existing government or political mechanisms. I think I will be in a better position to serve the people as an individual outside the government.

Moreover, if Tibet is to survive as an equal member of the modern international community, it should reflect the collective potential of all its citizens, and not rely on one individual. In other words, people must be actively involved in charting their own political and social destiny.

If you want the complete text, find it on the web site of the Tibetan government in exile: http://www.tibet.com/

If I remember correctly, the reforms of the old theocratic system started before 1959 (the year the Dalai Lama and his government fled from Tibet) and he has credited the Chinese for getting the reform process started. The kind of political system he and the government in exile have in mind now is far more democratic than anything either Tibet or China have seen since the invasion in 1955, and I suspect that is part of the problem the Chinese have with negotiations. I doubt they want democracy in Tibet. It might set a tempting example for others. It's also worth remembering that the government in exile are not asking for full independence, but for autonomy within China.



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

25 Mar 2008, 4:51 pm

To Elaborate Ion: You people talk about "spiritual yearnings" and Religion seeks to satisfy these yearning Not ONLY with fairytales but by establishing social institutions based on the belief in these fairytales(such as The Catholic Church).
These fairytales are used time and time again to legitimize and justify the social order and why resources are distributed so unequally(and unfairly).



ion
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 476
Location: Sweden

25 Mar 2008, 5:11 pm

D1nk0 wrote:
To Elaborate Ion: You people talk about "spiritual yearnings"


Who are we?


_________________
Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willnae be fooled again!


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

25 Mar 2008, 7:46 pm

In the USA, we are indebted to China. Deeply, deeply, indebted to China. China is nice enough to loan our government tons of money at a loss, so that we can enjoy lower taxes. China is also nice enough to keep on sending us low cost, high quality manufactured goods.

So, okay, we can say "Naughty! Naughty!" to the Chinese leaders for enslaving Tibet, and pretend to be morally superior. But, that is about it.



D1nk0
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,587

25 Mar 2008, 10:00 pm

pandabear wrote:
In the USA, we are indebted to China. Deeply, deeply, indebted to China. China is nice enough to loan our government tons of money at a loss, so that we can enjoy lower taxes. China is also nice enough to keep on sending us low cost, high quality manufactured goods.

So, okay, we can say "Naughty! Naughty!" to the Chinese leaders for enslaving Tibet, and pretend to be morally superior. But, that is about it.


Tell me about it! :wink:
Thats the whole thing; the US is really in NO position to get on the moral highhorse when it comes to imperial rule of other nations. A good example is the Mexican wars where the United States (successfully)made a land grab and took California and Tejas(BKA Texas)from Mexico by force mind you!



Psychlone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 713
Location: Michigan

26 Mar 2008, 1:26 am

While the Mexican war was wrong, I would point out that at least half of Mexico was left independent so that Mexican culture could survive. The Chinese won't even allow one inch of Tibet to be independent. Another American atrocity was what we did to the Native Americans, but at least our government did allow some of the tribes to keep some territory as a reservation. But Tibetans have no safe pockets where their culture can be preserved. That's what makes this such a tragedy. I think they'll never have as much of their country as they once did, but why can't they at least have a tiny bit of it? :cry:



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

26 Mar 2008, 9:54 am

You're from Michigan, which has some very tiny Indian reservations. All of Illinois' Indians were exiled to Oklahoma.



Psychlone
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 713
Location: Michigan

26 Mar 2008, 11:00 am

pandabear wrote:
You're from Michigan, which has some very tiny Indian reservations. All of Illinois' Indians were exiled to Oklahoma.


And there were many tribes which were just wiped out entirely. Like that book the Last of the Mohicans which tells about the last three members of a tribe and how they are killed off in the French and Indian war. It is a terrible tragedy when an entire people are snuffed out. :cry:

What is happening now is "Last of the Tibetans". :cry: