Advertisement
by Tuthina » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:33 am
Ethel mermania wrote:Tuthina wrote:Probably a good proof that most people in NS should not be entrusted with authority of any significant kind, considering the ramification of how many suggest to further that particular agenda.
We will wind up in a war with China eventually, may as well call them now.
14:54:02 <Lykens> Explain your definition of Reno.
11:47 <Swilatia> Good god, copy+paste is no way to build a country!
03:08 <Democratic Koyro> NSG senate is a glaring example of why no one in NSG should ever have a position of authority
by Novus America » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:34 am
Emperyo wrote:I do have a feeling this is a ploy to root out users who use Chinese propaganda on NS.
Side note: Though I do know full well that the only thing Communist about China is their party.
by StarArmy » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:37 am
by Ethel mermania » Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:58 am
by Thermodolia » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:21 am
by Ethel mermania » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:26 am
Tuthina wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:We will wind up in a war with China eventually, may as well call them now.
I found that unlikely unless either PRC is being chased to a corner or, arguably even worse, become truly democratic before the rabid nationalism and idealism that still seem to dominate Chinese political landscape waned.
by Tuthina » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:53 am
Ethel mermania wrote:Tuthina wrote:I found that unlikely unless either PRC is being chased to a corner or, arguably even worse, become truly democratic before the rabid nationalism and idealism that still seem to dominate Chinese political landscape waned.
The current government encourages and whips up that nationalistic feeling.
14:54:02 <Lykens> Explain your definition of Reno.
11:47 <Swilatia> Good god, copy+paste is no way to build a country!
03:08 <Democratic Koyro> NSG senate is a glaring example of why no one in NSG should ever have a position of authority
by The Empire of Pretantia » Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:59 am
by Ethel mermania » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:01 am
Tuthina wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
The current government encourages and whips up that nationalistic feeling.
Fittingly, we have an idiom describing just that. As far as I can tell, the general population have since become more nationalistic than the government can reign. Seeing that it tend to be a self-perpetuation cycle, removing the current government would not magically stop nationalism from existing. If anything, it would probably be more similar to removing the brake on nationalism of the population by removing the autocracy that oppress them.
by Tuthina » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:07 am
Ethel mermania wrote:Tuthina wrote:Fittingly, we have an idiom describing just that. As far as I can tell, the general population have since become more nationalistic than the government can reign. Seeing that it tend to be a self-perpetuation cycle, removing the current government would not magically stop nationalism from existing. If anything, it would probably be more similar to removing the brake on nationalism of the population by removing the autocracy that oppress them.
Possibly, but this government uses it to control the population, and has no interest in teachijg its people the truth. So to expect the government to stop using the tool of nationalism is just sillh.
14:54:02 <Lykens> Explain your definition of Reno.
11:47 <Swilatia> Good god, copy+paste is no way to build a country!
03:08 <Democratic Koyro> NSG senate is a glaring example of why no one in NSG should ever have a position of authority
by Ethel mermania » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:16 am
Tuthina wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
Possibly, but this government uses it to control the population, and has no interest in teachijg its people the truth. So to expect the government to stop using the tool of nationalism is just sillh.
Yes, but at the same time, removing them at this moment and give the power to the general population, which seems to be the common proposal for plans pertaining to topple PRC, is quite likely to only make the situation worse unless the successor state is significantly weakened and contained. Of course, in the eyes of surviving residents of China, it probably would look a lot like the 19th century all over again, and might become another breeding ground for even more revanchism.
Personally, I suspect the best solution is probably to support PRC and keep it in power long enough so that it figures out something else that would pacify the population better. In a sense, it might worth sacrificing Taiwan in the process if enough nationalistic sentiment hinges on it.
by Tuthina » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:24 am
Ethel mermania wrote:Tuthina wrote:Yes, but at the same time, removing them at this moment and give the power to the general population, which seems to be the common proposal for plans pertaining to topple PRC, is quite likely to only make the situation worse unless the successor state is significantly weakened and contained. Of course, in the eyes of surviving residents of China, it probably would look a lot like the 19th century all over again, and might become another breeding ground for even more revanchism.
Personally, I suspect the best solution is probably to support PRC and keep it in power long enough so that it figures out something else that would pacify the population better. In a sense, it might worth sacrificing Taiwan in the process if enough nationalistic sentiment hinges on it.
Kissenger would be proud. (And I do not mean that as an insult).
That said I do not see any incentive for the PRC to do so.
14:54:02 <Lykens> Explain your definition of Reno.
11:47 <Swilatia> Good god, copy+paste is no way to build a country!
03:08 <Democratic Koyro> NSG senate is a glaring example of why no one in NSG should ever have a position of authority
by Lhagatse » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:32 am
Tuthina wrote:Lhagatse wrote:What makes you believe that I didn't read the string of comments? Just because Crockerland posited his question, that doesn't somehow make his point innately unassilable. Reductio ad absurdum does not make for wholesome arguments. While I understand the point being made, I think the ISIS example is inplying a moral quandary that shouldn't exist.
Crockerland asked whether ISIS should exist with popular support. I'm arguing that his question itself is inherently fallacious on grounds of (a) ISIS is being presented as a distasteful option, implicitly on grounds of shocking human rights abuses and (b) ISIS not actually enjoing domestic support because of said abuses.
The fact of the matter is that the very abuses ISIS perpetuates, that permits it to be presented as the distasteful option, innately precludes it from actually having said support from the populace. ISIS, almost inherently, cannot have the support of the populace save by threat of force. It is an illogical hypothetical that cannot ocurr, and by positing it in a way that forces one to equivicate supporting Taiwan with dupporting ISIS, you're asking a tremendously unfair question.
Asking if he'd support a widely-supported ISIS is not at all like asking if he supports Taiwanese independence. Crockerland was attemtping to undermine his position with an illogical hypothetical. Crockerland's question is like asking a McDonald's frycook if he would torture dogs to death because they do torture dogs at Yulin dog meat festival, and the frycook also works with meat. Clearly ISIS is a very different situation, and to be asked fairly, thq question requires some nuance instead of drawing crude parallels that forces us to endorse a group that engages in ethnic cleansing on sheer hypothetical.
Also, apologies for bad spelling. This was written on a phone. I am currently out.
Except that the original statement of Salandriagado, as you would no doubt notice if you read the entire string of comments, is that popular mandate is the only qualifying factor for whether independence of a polity is permissible. As such, the scenario that, while stretching credibility given the use of the Islamic State, posited by Crockerland would still be a valid question that emphasise on the absurdity of what Crockerland consider to be a badly-justified statement. While it is obviously that the action of the government of Republic of China is nowhere as contemptible as that of Islamic State, the flaw lie not in Salandriagado's stance on Taiwan independence, but the methodology, or lack thereof, of supporting that view. For all we know, Crockerland might as well support "free Taiwan" as much as Salandriagado.
by Ethel mermania » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:38 am
Tuthina wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
Kissenger would be proud. (And I do not mean that as an insult).
That said I do not see any incentive for the PRC to do so.
You are too kind.
As for incentive for PRC, I think a possible one would be their realisation of nationalism among the population becoming increasingly difficult to control. While the government still occasionally rile up nationalist sentiment, it appears that more and more often the government have to put down the resulting chaos and riots. If the situation continued to deteriorate (which it probably will), the government will have to seek other ways to divert the people from both domestic issues and nationalism itself - if they have not already begun the process.
Of course, the big question is what would be the substitute: communism or socialism with Chinese characteristics obviously did not work, nationalism becomes too difficult to reign, and reconstruction of Chinese traditions did not seem to be making a lot of progress either. A small comfort is probably that with the rise of young, middle class generation who have ample contact with the outside world, and the death of the older generation that lived through the age of nationalism, the sentiment could wind down in the following decades.
by Lhagatse » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:48 am
Tuthina wrote:Ethel mermania wrote:
Possibly, but this government uses it to control the population, and has no interest in teachijg its people the truth. So to expect the government to stop using the tool of nationalism is just sillh.
Yes, but at the same time, removing them at this moment and give the power to the general population, which seems to be the common proposal for plans pertaining to topple PRC, is quite likely to only make the situation worse unless the successor state is significantly weakened and contained. Of course, in the eyes of surviving residents of China, it probably would look a lot like the 19th century all over again, and might become another breeding ground for even more revanchism.
Personally, I suspect the best solution is probably to support PRC and keep it in power long enough so that it figures out something else that would pacify the population better. In a sense, it might worth sacrificing Taiwan in the process if enough nationalistic sentiment hinges on it.
by Dmitry II » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:48 am
by Lhagatse » Tue Dec 06, 2016 9:51 am
Dmitry II wrote:I strongly feel that there should be a Free Taiwan.
China is a large country, with over 1.3 billion people. Every person is weighed down by the authoritarian government. China's loose industrial regulations result in major pollution to the point where the air conditions are toxic and where factory workers are given little to no safety precautions when working on hazardous machinery.
Taiwan wants to free itself from this oppressive and inefficient government, and I strongly support Taiwan's decision to do so.
by Salandriagado » Tue Dec 06, 2016 10:44 am
Emperyo wrote:I've noticed the overwhelming support for Taiwanese independence in the polls.
If China were not communist, it would be the reverse.
by Crockerland » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:17 pm
Cetacea wrote:Crockerland wrote:
Maybe you should actually read the conversation before trying to add to it. Salandriagado claimed that the only thing that needed to be considered was the will of the majority of people in Taiwan, so Taiwan not being a terrorist enclave occupying bits of another country would, according to Salandriagado, be irrelevant, hence the whole point of my post.
Obviously Taiwan is in no way equivalent to ISIS, that's the entire point of the question, because they are nothing alike, and Salandriagado's method for determining a state's right to secede grants benign democracies like Taiwan and the the control zones of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, etc. the same right to independence; Salandriagado even confirmed that he would support ISIS independence if the majority of IS residents supported it.
um I did read it and still don't think its valid. This is page 12 of a discussion on Taiwan Nationhood and raising ISIS ignores the fact that ISIS isn't a nation and has no 'people'. I agree with his/her Yes if the majority of people in a nation overwhelmingly want a certain outcome then it should be granted (I stated earlier that 80% of the people of Taiwan consider themselves Taiwanese and that to me is the only criterion)
It would be the same criterion for Daesh - if 80% of the people living in the area they control identify themselves as ISILites and overwhelmingly want to be a state then sure. That doesn't mean Daesh can't still be condemned for human rights abuses and foreign nations can't still attempt exterminate them with extreme prejudice. Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Cuba, Israel even North Korea have a right to exist...
Lhagatse wrote:Crockerland asked whether ISIS should exist with popular support.
Lhagatse wrote:I'm arguing that his question itself is inherently fallacious on grounds of (a) ISIS is being presented as a distasteful option, implicitly on grounds of shocking human rights abuses and (b) ISIS not actually enjoing domestic support because of said abuses.
The fact of the matter is that the very abuses ISIS perpetuates, that permits it to be presented as the distasteful option, innately precludes it from actually having said support from the populace.
Lhagatse wrote:ISIS, almost inherently, cannot have the support of the populace save by threat of force. It is an illogical hypothetical that cannot ocurr, and by positing it in a way that forces one to equivicate supporting Taiwan with dupporting ISIS, you're asking a tremendously unfair question.
Lhagatse wrote:Asking if he'd support a widely-supported ISIS is not at all like asking if he supports Taiwanese independence.
Lhagatse wrote:Crockerland was attemtping to undermine his position with an illogical hypothetical. Crockerland's question is like asking a McDonald's frycook if he would torture dogs to death because they do torture dogs at Yulin dog meat festival, and the frycook also works with meat.
Lhagatse wrote:Clearly ISIS is a very different situation,
Lhagatse wrote:and to be asked fairly, thq question requires some nuance instead of drawing crude parallels that forces us to endorse a group that engages in ethnic cleansing on sheer hypothetical.
by The Flutterlands » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:20 pm
by Noraika » Tue Dec 06, 2016 12:32 pm
LOVEWHOYOUARE~TRANS⚧EQUALITY~~ Economic Left -9.38 | Social Libertarian -2.77 ~
~ 93 Equality - 36 Liberty - 50 Stability ~Democratic Socialism ● Egalitarianism ● Feminism ● LGBT+ rights ● Monarchism ● Social Justice ● Souverainism ● StatismPronouns: She/Her ♀️⛦ Pagan and proud! ⛦⚧Gender and sex aren't the same thing!⚧
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Katinea, Post War America, Spirit of Hope, Turenia, Unmet Player
Advertisement