4 ms·

I knew my comment would draw exactly this response. My comment was simply stating that the past abuses of one side should not be compared to future, hypothetic

I knew my comment would draw exactly this response. My comment was simply stating that the past abuses of one side should not be compared to future, hypothetical abuses of the other (referring to the sentence "just wait till you see what China is going to do"). One may compare the historical abuses of one side to the historical abuses of the other. Is that fair and reasonable?

PavlovsCat 7y ago
Totalitarianism is a scorpion that cannot but sting. So no, in my books that's just suicidal playing for time I have no patience for and will take no part in.
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  > Totalitarianism is a scorpion that cannot but sting. I'm 100% onboard with this notion. Our opinions differ only with respect to where we think China is headed, which was the premise of my original comment. Yours is the pessimistic view, mine is the optimistic one. I happen to believe that as China continues to modernize, it will reach a point where its government will no longer feel the need to resort to totalitarian policies to ensure the stability and prosperity of its society. You and many others will disagree. The point is, we won't know until we're actually there.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > it will reach a point where its government will no longer feel the need to resort to totalitarian policies to ensure the stability and prosperity of its society Do you have an example from history of a totalitarian society voluntarily undergoing such transformation?
    - tepidandroid 7y ago
      There are many, many such examples in history which you are free to spend time reading about. At the moment, I am not particularly inclined to research and type up a report for your personal consumption. I hope you understand.
      - smsm42 7y ago
        Yet, you - with all the massive reading you have already done - failed to name even one. I understand completely.
smsm42 7y ago
> referring to the sentence "just wait till you see what China is going to do" It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experiencing this abuse". The validity of this statement can be confirmed by looking into past and present abuses by Chinese government, and concluding that if that government becomes as powerful and dominant as US government is now, it's lust for human rights abuses is not likely to diminish. Thus, we are not comparing present to the future. We are comparing the level of dominance and level of abusiveness at the same level of dominance, while assuming that more dominance would allow the government to be more abusive to more people.
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  > It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experiencing this abuse". I understood the phrase completely. The OP's original sentence is very unambiguous. My interpretation, or re-phrasing of it is: > If you think America is bad right now, wait till you see what China is going to do in the future. It's a very clear comparison of America's present abuses to China's future potential ones. As I have said many times already, that is not a fair comparison. One can compare America's past or present abuses to China's past or present abuses. One cannot make a comparison based on future abuses, unless one is a time traveller or has possession of a crystal ball. I'm actually very surprised that this is such a point of contention. > The validity of this statement can be confirmed by looking into past and present abuses by Chinese government, and concluding that if that government becomes as powerful and dominant as US government is now, it's lust for human rights abuses is not likely to diminish. > We are comparing the level of dominance and level of abusiveness at the same level of dominance, while assuming that more dominance would allow the government to be more abusive to more people. I'm not sure that the OP speaks with the same voice as you do. Regardless, to repeat the point again, you are condemning China for future, hypothetical abuses it will possibly carry out as a possible future world hegemon based on past and present actions. The assumption is invalid because they are based on the premise that countries are static and do not evolve over time. You're saying because a country has done X and is doing Y, it will continue to do so in the future. History trivially shows this to be untrue. If you follow that train of thought, there will never be enough countries in the world for you to condemn. Anyways, I feel like this conversation is not very productive and we're not supposed to engage in political battles, so I will end this thread here.

PavlovsCat 7y ago

Totalitarianism is a scorpion that cannot but sting. So no, in my books that's just suicidal playing for time I have no patience for and will take no part in.

tepidandroid 7y ago
> Totalitarianism is a scorpion that cannot but sting. I'm 100% onboard with this notion. Our opinions differ only with respect to where we think China is headed, which was the premise of my original comment. Yours is the pessimistic view, mine is the optimistic one. I happen to believe that as China continues to modernize, it will reach a point where its government will no longer feel the need to resort to totalitarian policies to ensure the stability and prosperity of its society. You and many others will disagree. The point is, we won't know until we're actually there.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > it will reach a point where its government will no longer feel the need to resort to totalitarian policies to ensure the stability and prosperity of its society Do you have an example from history of a totalitarian society voluntarily undergoing such transformation?
  - tepidandroid 7y ago
    There are many, many such examples in history which you are free to spend time reading about. At the moment, I am not particularly inclined to research and type up a report for your personal consumption. I hope you understand.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      Yet, you - with all the massive reading you have already done - failed to name even one. I understand completely.

smsm42 7y ago

> referring to the sentence "just wait till you see what China is going to do" It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experiencing this abuse". The validity of this statement can be confirmed by looking into past and present abuses by Chinese government, and concluding that if that government becomes as powerful and dominant as US government is now, it's lust for human rights abuses is not likely to diminish. Thus, we are not comparing present to the future. We are comparing the level of dominance and level of abusiveness at the same level of dominance, while assuming that more dominance would allow the government to be more abusive to more people.

tepidandroid 7y ago
> It is hard to believe you didn't understand this phrase, but just in case I'll explain. It means "if China had been the dominating power to the measure the US is, their abuses would be much more massive than whatever abuses US has done or is accused of. And if China will achieve such dominant position, we will have the misfortune of experiencing this abuse". I understood the phrase completely. The OP's original sentence is very unambiguous. My interpretation, or re-phrasing of it is: > If you think America is bad right now, wait till you see what China is going to do in the future. It's a very clear comparison of America's present abuses to China's future potential ones. As I have said many times already, that is not a fair comparison. One can compare America's past or present abuses to China's past or present abuses. One cannot make a comparison based on future abuses, unless one is a time traveller or has possession of a crystal ball. I'm actually very surprised that this is such a point of contention. > The validity of this statement can be confirmed by looking into past and present abuses by Chinese government, and concluding that if that government becomes as powerful and dominant as US government is now, it's lust for human rights abuses is not likely to diminish. > We are comparing the level of dominance and level of abusiveness at the same level of dominance, while assuming that more dominance would allow the government to be more abusive to more people. I'm not sure that the OP speaks with the same voice as you do. Regardless, to repeat the point again, you are condemning China for future, hypothetical abuses it will possibly carry out as a possible future world hegemon based on past and present actions. The assumption is invalid because they are based on the premise that countries are static and do not evolve over time. You're saying because a country has done X and is doing Y, it will continue to do so in the future. History trivially shows this to be untrue. If you follow that train of thought, there will never be enough countries in the world for you to condemn. Anyways, I feel like this conversation is not very productive and we're not supposed to engage in political battles, so I will end this thread here.