4 ms·

no, the scariest part is this: anywhere in this world there are people are scared of different ideas and believes; there are people believe by the power of thei

by wangii 8y ago

no, the scariest part is this: anywhere in this world there are people are scared of different ideas and believes; there are people believe by the power of their perfect system no other opinion worthy of existence. now you may start to explain any idea other than yours not really ideas.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> Since no one is capable of forming his own opinion without the benefit of a multitude of opinions held by others, the rule of public opinion endangers even the opinion of those few who may have the strength not to share it. This is one of the reasons for the curiously sterile negativism of all opinions which oppose a popularly acclaimed tyranny. [...] public opinion, by virtue of its unanimity, provokes a unanimous opposition and thus kills true opinions everywhere. -- Hannah Arendt
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Ah yes, the relativism argument. Surprise! Almost nobody believes the West is perfect (or any other system) is perfect. Shoot - I'll bet you could get a lot of people to buy into an authoritarian system that maintained peace. But the issue of Han nationalism which extends to the extermination of Tibetans, to the incarceration of 100's of thousands of Uighers etc., to the total lack of democracy ... combined with the fact that the system is still hugely corrupt ... I mean, it would be one thing if China were at least a well ordered machine, but it's not, there's corruption from top to bottom which completely undermines any legitimacy in whatever 'system' they have. Summary: 1) Nobody really thinks any system is perfect. 2) Most people would prefer the rule of law, basic democracy, and low levels of corruption, and at least basic human rights. Those are almost universal.
- redial 8y ago
  > 1) Nobody really thinks any system is perfect. You should have stopped there. Basic democracy is so ambiguous really anything qualifies, and by all accounts, China has basic democracy. In fact, they have infinitely more democracy pre-revolution France did. And the fact that even in the world of today, more than 2000 years after the Greeks, democracy is not universal prove your second point is not such a sure thing as you wanted it to be.

by wangii 8y ago

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> Since no one is capable of forming his own opinion without the benefit of a multitude of opinions held by others, the rule of public opinion endangers even the opinion of those few who may have the strength not to share it. This is one of the reasons for the curiously sterile negativism of all opinions which oppose a popularly acclaimed tyranny. [...] public opinion, by virtue of its unanimity, provokes a unanimous opposition and thus kills true opinions everywhere. -- Hannah Arendt

sonnyblarney 8y ago

Ah yes, the relativism argument. Surprise! Almost nobody believes the West is perfect (or any other system) is perfect. Shoot - I'll bet you could get a lot of people to buy into an authoritarian system that maintained peace. But the issue of Han nationalism which extends to the extermination of Tibetans, to the incarceration of 100's of thousands of Uighers etc., to the total lack of democracy ... combined with the fact that the system is still hugely corrupt ... I mean, it would be one thing if China were at least a well ordered machine, but it's not, there's corruption from top to bottom which completely undermines any legitimacy in whatever 'system' they have. Summary: 1) Nobody really thinks any system is perfect. 2) Most people would prefer the rule of law, basic democracy, and low levels of corruption, and at least basic human rights. Those are almost universal.

redial 8y ago
> 1) Nobody really thinks any system is perfect. You should have stopped there. Basic democracy is so ambiguous really anything qualifies, and by all accounts, China has basic democracy. In fact, they have infinitely more democracy pre-revolution France did. And the fact that even in the world of today, more than 2000 years after the Greeks, democracy is not universal prove your second point is not such a sure thing as you wanted it to be.