2 ms·

>? his is extremely poor reasoning. An overall "bad" thing does not become "good" or justified because it has improved conditions in some way. By the very same

by darawk 8y ago

>? his is extremely poor reasoning. An overall "bad" thing does not become "good" or justified because it has improved conditions in some way. By the very same token, slavery has both good sides and bad sides, and by your dismissive style, we ought not to consider the bad sides - the slaves should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards (having food and shelter provided by the master) and the slave owners should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in profits in human history - isn't it clear that everyone wins? It's pretty clear that the question is whether a thing is good on balance. We all agree slavery is bad on balance. China, on the other hand, who has authoritarian policies, but has simultaneously lifted billions of people out of extreme poverty, is much more mixed.

wrs 8y ago
I have to say that "authoritarian policies" is a deceptively weak phrase for the stuff China is doing lately. In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed".
- darawk 8y ago
  > I have to say that "authoritarian policies" is a deceptively weak phrase for the stuff China is doing lately. Sure, call it what you want. I'm no fan of the Chinese government. > In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed". So, should the cotton gin makers of their day not have sold cotton gins to the plantation owners? What good would that have done?
  - wrs 8y ago
    The analogy is getting out of hand, but the question here is more like making ankle trackers for the slaves than making cotton gins.
    - darawk 8y ago
      Except that there is already a company making ankle trackers and selling it to the slave owners, but their ankle trackers chafe the slaves ankles and Google's do not. That is my point.

by darawk 8y ago

wrs 8y ago

I have to say that "authoritarian policies" is a deceptively weak phrase for the stuff China is doing lately. In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed".

darawk 8y ago
> I have to say that "authoritarian policies" is a deceptively weak phrase for the stuff China is doing lately. Sure, call it what you want. I'm no fan of the Chinese government. > In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed". So, should the cotton gin makers of their day not have sold cotton gins to the plantation owners? What good would that have done?
- wrs 8y ago
  The analogy is getting out of hand, but the question here is more like making ankle trackers for the slaves than making cotton gins.
  - darawk 8y ago
    Except that there is already a company making ankle trackers and selling it to the slave owners, but their ankle trackers chafe the slaves ankles and Google's do not. That is my point.