cyberfish

It's easy to get educated if you have the money. In pure capitalism, government doesn't collect taxes, and won't pay for schooling.

And then the parents need to be educated, too. If they are not educated, especially if they have no money, they would rather have their children working as early as possible, instead of going to school, because they don't see the value of education. And the cycle goes on. So first, you'll have to educate the parents.

mike_g

That depends on economic growth. Currently there is a lot of foreign investment, which props things up. Its not an unlimited fund though.

Yeah, charity is big business over there. When you have 20 crippled kids all trying to poke their arms, or stumps into your car, you will start to learn how offensive it can get. In many cases they are not even born crippled - they get mutilated by someone else to make money for them.

The whole charity thing is a fallacy. Its a sales job. Many beggars in India earn more than people with jobs. You should go out there, see the sights, and learn to appreciate the way things work outside of America.

__________________
Senior highbrow doctor of authority.

whiteflags

If you think I'm arguing for pure capitalism, you need to stop yourself. Capitalism is motivated by the invisible hand of avarice, and I know how that can destroy a country. I just don't think it's fair to sit and judge predominately capitalist nations because that's what they are.

Whatever we're even arguing about: China v. America, capitalism v. communism, democracy v. regime, it doesn't make a difference when people are honestly writing that the end option is to kill rich people. You barbarians. This conversation lost all meaning forever ago, and we all need reality checks.

__________________
Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam
Et lingua eius loquetur indicium

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." (Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II scene ii)

http://www.myspace.com/whiteflags99

bithub

Every time you make a good argument, it is immediately offset by smug comments like this which simply portray you as an elitist jerk. At any rate, it's comments like this that get threads closed. Next time, attack the argument -- not the person.

__________________
bit∙hub [bit-huhb] n. A source and destination for information.

mike_g

:Lol, yeah, maybe. I just get annoyed by some things sometimes. No-one should really take it personally.

Edit: and I hope you don't take my sig seriously

Edit2: Actually I don't think theres anything wrong with it. I'm arguing against Abachler and he always wusses out when he can't handle things w/o conceding defeat. Giving him a poke might help continue his fascist tirade.

__________________
Senior highbrow doctor of authority.

Akkernight

Has anyone on here thought about that this guy comes on the forums, says hi and is all 'neutral', but then a sudden war starts about Chinese policies just 'cause he's Chinese, how'd you feel about that if it happened for you? xP

__________________
I deny the Holy Spirit; burn me.

http://blasphemychallenge.com/ <- Do you dare?

Mario F.

I don't think anyone attacked the chinese people in particular. Arguments are against their government. And if there is a country where there is a "us" and a "them", that country is China.

But answering your question directly, I'd be somewhat annoyed if a sudden attack at Portuguese politics started. It's because of that inbreed pride we all are born with, even I who am totally incapable of any feeling of patriotism. However, I would also be grateful because it would only confirm what I already know. And that is, my country sucks big time.

---

One comment about that 1 rich people vs. 10 poor people thing:

Absurd and allegoric fables cannot serve as the basis for any kind of argument. These type of examples serve no purpose and reduce the debate to the point it becomes ridicule. But if there was an answer that could minimally satisfy our government system since immemorial times, then that would be if there is a country where 1 person is rich and 10 people are poor, that means the rich person is the government.

__________________
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Sebastiani

This whole business of condemning the culture for of the actions and policies of their government is just plain wrong. Moreover, it may be quite natural to view those who act differently than ourselves as inferior (prejudice is a very basic human instinct, after all), but to truly appreciate a culture you really need to be objective about it and look a little deeper.

I have personally known many Chinese in my lifetime. Like any race, they have their share of good and bad. But by and large, they seem to me to be a well-disciplined, humble people, with very rich traditions. They have much to be proud of, and we really shouldn't be stomping on that, deriding them as a people, simply because we don't agree with the way their country is currently being run.

cyberfish

How about this hypothetical question? -
If you are a government of a developing country of 10 un-educated people, who are by no means wealthy but have food and shelter. And 1 person decides to start a riot. If you allow him to start it, 5 people will die. If you kill/detain him, people will get angry and start rioting. If you kill him silently, no one will know, and only he will die.

What would you do?

I think both of my questions boil down to be,
is killing someone to save others from dying good or bad? or does it not matter as long as you don't kill people directly with your hands? isn't that a little irresponsible?

If all lives are equal, shouldn't we just try to minimize the total number of deaths? or what exactly are we (or what should governments be) optimizing for?

Note that I am just playing devil's advocate. I don't like what they are doing, but I certainly do see their argument.

cyberfish

Oh hey I think I am addicted to making hypothetical questions now.

How about this one?

If you have a boat in the middle of the ocean, with 10 people on it, and it's overloaded and sinking. If you push 1 person off the boat (killing him), the rest will live. If you don't, all 10 people will die. Should you? Or will you not feel guilty as long as you didn't directly kill someone, and let nature kill all 10 instead?

Mario F.

You insist on this approach. Can't you see that you are defining the rules within your own allegory and that fixes the result?

Let me be clear as to why you can't use these: I'm going to change your very question and produce one that serves some other purpose. (i.e. I'm going to fix the question to fit my own interests.)

If you are a government of a developing country of 10 un-educated people, who are by no means wealthy but have food and shelter. And 1 person decides to start a riot. If you allow him to start it, 5 people will die. If you detain him, people will lose heart and go home. If you kill him silently, no one will know, and only he will die.

So the question now is: Being you the government of a developing country, will you be a criminal government, or a government that will try to build a nation that follows a judicial system founded on basic Human Rights principles?

...

So Don't do this. Don't try to establish anecdotical premises. If it is your desire to try and explain why China government operates as it does, do it based on hard evidence (the country history). What you will not find however on this thread is anyone denying the fact China government is what it is because the country history made it like this. So, that's a mute exercise you are doing there.

Everyone understands why it is the way it is. What was being discussed however was why (or not) it is wrong.

__________________
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

cyberfish

If I understood correctly, what you are saying is, killing is wrong, no matter what, or for what reason. Is that correct?

What they are saying is, they are killing people to save the lives of more people.

How do you define killing?

Which is essentially my third hypothetical question. The first 2 have too many allusions to a real situation. So I think this one is better, since it's purely ethical.
I am not arguing whether killing people (to save more people) is the only way or the best way, to optimize whatever function we are trying to optimize (minimum deaths, maximum wealth, "happiness", etc). It's a too-many-faced problem that I know too little to argue about.

My question is, ASSUMING it's the best way (to minimize deaths, for example), is it ethical to do it?

Sebastiani

I don't think that would be very ethical, no. If the boat is sinking then give everyone the option to jump out if they so wish to save the rest. If noone jumps - fine - everyone dies. If someone pushes someone else out then push him out as well, just to keep things fair. Besides, suppose the boat contained a father and his 9 infant sons. If he jumps out, the infants die, but to kill ones own child would be unthinkable (to me, at least), so they may as well die together.

But the most dangerous thing about these analogies, and real-life choices as well (and you've already touched on this), is that they makes assumptions that are often illusory. Alternatives exists, but they just aren't being considered. Incidentally, the people who are making these life-and-death decisions should probably be the first out of the boat anyway.

cyberfish

I see, and I agree. I wouldn't kill anyone, either. But that's a purely ethical and emotional thing, and really has no rational explanation. It's just the way we have been educated.

Apparently the Chinese government doesn't agree. And I can certainly see their side of the argument. It's a poorly defined optimization problem to begin with, and we are just optimizing for different things.

We want fairness and freedom, they want to save people. Whether we agree or not, I don't think we should talk about them so harshly as if they are just blood-seeking monsters trying to kill as many people as possible for their pleasure.

What are other people's opinions?

Once we get this ethical question out of the way, we have essentially simplified the question down to, if what they are doing is the best way (and consider alternatives).

happyclown

This thread has drifted far from it's initial purpose.

__________________