Taiwan president warns of ‘catastrophic consequences’ if island falls to China

[Foinikas]

so you are saying a hereditary tyrant is OK if they love the country. I can accept that. I don't agree but can understand why someone would choose to believe that.

Mao wasn't a hereditary tyrant and he didn't want to be. None of his children have any power. They're all just ordinary citizens today. He was trained as a librarian and attended a Confucian school. He wasn't a military dictator like Chiang Kai Shek. He only overthrew Chiang because Chiang stabbed him in the back twice.

But that's 50-100 years ago. What about, as you said, Deng and everyone since Deng? None of them are military dictators who overthrew others by force. None of them are hereditary tyrants. Every one of them came to power peacefully through merit. So what's the problem?

One thing I'm trying to make you understand and you don't: Our kings were not tyrants. Mao was.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

As I have repeated so many times, too many people fell to the white lies spinned by China government, like socialistic market economy. The success of China DID NOT challenge the fundamentals of the Western world. On the contrary, it proves the validity of the Western world since what China did was basically the same path that the Western world had treaded before. What China is doing is to take the credit of market economy and give it to its socialism. What the Western world is doing is to block the extend of China's market economy and force China to practice socialism. You want the credit for the socialism? Practice socialism!

This is hilariously wrong. Tons of countries practice fundamentalist market economics following the exact dictates of the Washington Consensus.

Argentina, Russia, India are among them. Where are they now?

 

[nang2]

One thing I'm trying to make you understand and you don't: Our kings were not tyrants. Mao was.

He doesn't understand the difference between kings and tyrants, monarchy and authoritarian.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

One thing I'm trying to make you understand and you don't: Our kings were not tyrants. Mao was.

A tyrant holds power for it's own sake. A king is a literal tyrant: no qualifications for power other than being born, no purpose other than to continue holding power.

 

[nang2]

This is hilariously wrong. Tons of countries practice fundamentalist market economics following the exact dictates of the Washington Consensus.

Argentina, Russia, India are among them. Where are they now?

You really should learn some history about how the Western world itself developed, instead of something they suggest other people to do.

A tyrant holds power for it's own sake. A king is a literal tyrant: no qualifications for power other than being born, no purpose other than to continue holding power.

@Foinikas, see what I just said.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

You really should learn some history about how the Western world itself developed, instead of something they suggest other people to do.

You made the claim. You have the burden of proving your claim, not me. That is the western way of debate.

It is hilarious that for all the shilling you do, you actually don't understand how westerners think at all. You have learned nothing of western democracy, reason or logic other than politically aping your masters.

 

[Foinikas]

A tyrant holds power for it's own sake. A king is a literal tyrant: no qualifications for power other than being born, no purpose other than to continue holding power.

A king's duty is to serve his country and nation and uphold the religion. That is the difference between modern politicians and kings.

 

[Paul2]

I think the recent aggressive posture from the mainland China is mostly a show for domestic consumption. There won't be a conflict any time soon. In the meantime, Xi has two biggest goals to achieve: Winter Olympics and his "re-election" next year. He won't risk anything to mess them up.

Or he will do so if the later is at threat

Xi looks unshakeable now, but only because he can't afford to not to. It's 2021, and Xi still has at most 20-30 loyal lieutenants. A very top heavy structure is prone to toppling.

 

[nang2]

You made the claim. You have the burden of proving your claim, not me. That is the western way of debate.

It is hilarious that for all the shilling you do, you actually don't understand how westerners think at all. You have learned nothing of western democracy, reason or logic other than politically aping your masters.

From the history of the Western world, you would see that prosperity came when the society was largely in peace and the government was not heavy-handed and meddling. In another word, you need a peaceful environment with sufficient freedom left to people. That was exactly China did after 1980, with heavy focus on stability and more freedom to people, either willingly or through corruption that allows people to buy their freedom. Democracy wasn't even a requirement.

Is that what you learned from Washington Consensus?

Or he will do so if the later is at threat

Xi looks unshakeable now, but only because he can't afford to not to. It's 2021, and Xi still has at most 20-30 loyal lieutenants. A very top heavy structure is prone to toppling.

Possibly when he sees the need to assert himself to prop up his position, like Deng did in 1979 when he launched the attack on Vietnam.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

A king's duty is to serve his country and nation and uphold the religion. That is the difference between modern politicians and kings.

So a king also must be a theocrat?

Well in China the President and Premier also must swear to serve the people, and they have to prove it with decades of prior service, so how are they tyrants?

From the history of the Western world, you would see that prosperity came when the society was largely in peace and the government was not heavy-handed and meddling. In another word, you need a peaceful environment with sufficient freedom left to people. That was exactly China did after 1980, with heavy focus on stability and more freedom to people, either willingly or through corruption that allows people to buy their freedom. Democracy wasn't even a requirement.

Is that what you learned from Washington Consensus?

Ah ok so British Empire had tons of freedom because working 16 hour days as a child laborer is freedom for the British, getting starved for profit is freedom for Irish, getting drugged up for profit is freedom for Chinese, and the most unspeakable torment and horrors for Africans and Indians is the most freedom of all.

The British Empire thrived because of all this freedom. It has nothing to do with imperialism.

 

[nang2]

Ah ok so British Empire had tons of freedom because working 16 hour days as a child laborer is freedom for the British, getting starved for profit is freedom for Irish, getting drugged up for profit is freedom for Chinese, and the most unspeakable torment and horrors for Africans and Indians is the most freedom of all.

The British Empire thrived because of all this freedom. It has nothing to do with imperialism.

Well, if you just believe in Karl Marx's exploitation idea, then I have nothing to say. By the way, he also believed that labor condition was getting worse from slavery to capitalism. Just for your reference.

I think the later socialists would say that China became world power on the back of poor cheap labors who toiled under 996, heavy pollution, etc, and had to be separated from their own children in the villages. At least that is what Karl Marx would say. He would certainly ignore the hard work and ingenuity of Chinese, particularly those Chinese entrepreneurs/capitalists who exerted themselves immensely in the little freedom they had finally been granted by CCP.

 

[Dungeness]

As I have repeated so many times, too many people fell to the white lies spinned by China government, like socialistic market economy. The success of China DID NOT challenge the fundamentals of the Western world. On the contrary, it proves the validity of the Western world since what China did was basically the same path that the Western world had treaded before. What China is doing is to take the credit of market economy and give it to its socialism. What the Western world is doing is to block the extend of China's market economy and force China to practice socialism. You want the credit for the socialism? Practice socialism!

If that doesn't matter, why does every person from Hong Kong, when he speaks on some Chinese TV, he would say "China Hong Kong", instead of just "Hong Kong"? No other Chinese people do that. If I am from Beijing, I would just say "I am from Beijing", not "I am from China Beijing".

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, Chinese system is their own creation that people like you may not be able to comprehend, but so far its results are there for anyone with an open eye to see. The world is not just about black and white.

There is no point of arguing what the pure form of capitalism or socialism should be, all forms of governance are nothing more than some artificial sets of rules, and they are not engraved in stone nor frozen in time.

 

[Foinikas]

So a king also must be a theocrat?

Listen bro,in Europe we had the tradition of King by the Mercy of God.
The monarch is the unity of the nation. The protector of God's Church on earth. The keeper of tradition,the one who is raised as a child to love his country and care for his people.

It didn't always work. But it did work very very often.

I understand this concept is foreign to a Chinese who was raised with communist ideals.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Listen bro,in Europe we had the tradition of King by the Mercy of God.
The monarch is the unity of the nation. The protector of God's Church on earth. The keeper of tradition,the one who is raised as a child to love his country and care for his people.

It didn't always work. But it did work very very often.

I understand this concept is foreign to a Chinese who was raised with communist ideals.

OK I can accept this belief. Even though I disagree with monarchy, I can understand why it appeals to people.

So why is it hard for you to accept that a politician who worked for his country for decades, who had to work in the poorest areas before being allowed to take national office, would also love their country and aren't tyrants?

Ok, let's ignore Mao and Deng (since neither came up through the actual PRC system and have been dead for decades). How were Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, or Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, tyrants? They all spent decades working their way up from the bottom with no guarantee of power. They also believe themselves to be carrying the torch of progress for China. Their decisions are made through committees, not as individuals. So how are they tyrants?

 

[Foinikas]

How were Jiang Zemin and Zhu Rongji, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, or Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang, tyrants?

I don't know about them,I'm talking about Mao and those who possibly used heavy Maoist elements to oppress China. Maybe Apollon meant overall?