China in crisis?

Jun 2014
5,802
Lisbon, Portugal
there is a project in UN, specifically for african descendants. you could find the infor by quick google.
Did you even bother to read the reasons for t?

about minority in china, you think there is policies to label out for the so called "disadvantage". you are right and wrong.
minorities had faced benefit, in most concerned case, the additional scores for exams.
it is not a policy splits the people.
it is rather a policy for easy practice. minortities had been in a less economic developed state. and in an other way, we found many people in less developed places were minorities. it is important to give people who can only recieve lower education levels additional score, to help them develop their local economy, and hence other social aspect. how to find the people need addtional support? family based survey is expensive, not feasible. however, the id card of each citizen is clear and easily accessible, their ethnic group infor is easily accessible. using recently popular deep learning concepts, ethnic group is only a feature or a fingerprint that marks who is receiving lower level education, and thus who need support.

indeed, when this feature is no longer correlated with the education level, we have already changed the fingerprint. now, being a minority student not necessarily give one addtional scores. the background of local educational level, which is not feasible to be colleted is used for supporting with additional scores.
Ok, how's that not spliting?
 
Apr 2013
6,065
China
Did you even bother to read the reasons for t?



Ok, how's that not spliting?
you doubted whether the project existed. i tell you it existed. i have to assume you acknowledg its existence when you ask me "the reason for it". the reason for it is just another story, presumed due to historical oppression against african originated people, such as various slave acitivities, which is larged induced by the west. to the historically uninvolved nations, such as china, african people are just another group to be welcomed or protected according either to our laws for foreigners or to our laws for chinese citizens in case their parents leave them a chinese citizenship. no difference. we will not pursue a special treatment for a specific group. and there is no historical backgroun for us to.

as for the case of minorities, it has been mentioned clearly, no split has been made on basis of specific ethnic label, but rather on the basis of local inbalance of development. i have mentioned how the practice of addtional score evolve when the situation of inbalance of development change.
 
Aug 2009
5,033
Londinium
to sum-up, when make it so long, and when make it too many "freedom of A" "freedom of B", you unnecessarily makes conflict with people you do not usually listen to.
So let’s take this away from a particular culture or people and apply as universally as possible. If you were to look for a country to emigrate to, a change in your culture, would you not want as many of those freedoms and rights as possible for yourself and family? With all other things being equal, would you choose to move to a country where, for example, a Chinese person cannot vote (even if they wanted to), start a newspaper or have the right to education, whereas someone from Russia in that country can?

Would being able to enjoy such freedoms without there being further restrictions based on ethnicity or religion not cover dignity equally i.e. all are treated equally so all are afforded dignity under the law equally as one is respect for being a person not for being a particular type of person.

Freedom of thought could be quite a wide-ranging area. In my mind, it simply means the ability to voice your issues to others and to consider them publicly or privately without worry, talking about ones issues in a pub, within a newspaper you started or on YouTube would all count as freedom of thought, as these thoughts can be expressed openly and without fear of government oppression. There are clearly some lines that cannot be crossed but these are hardly a barrier to the majority of people, only a very tiny minority would pursue this for purely violent means, and the law is quite well considered in this approach - indeed, it is constantly being challenged, which is a good sign that freedom of though is practiced.

I’m quite surprised that someone can object to having such freedoms and rights as per my previous list – and more importantly that removing these would not diminish ones quality of life. Is there any right or freedoms that you deem to be critical to yourself and your quality of life?
 
Apr 2013
6,065
China
So let’s take this away from a particular culture or people and apply as universally as possible. If you were to look for a country to emigrate to, a change in your culture, would you not want as many of those freedoms and rights as possible for yourself and family? With all other things being equal, would you choose to move to a country where, for example, a Chinese person cannot vote (even if they wanted to), start a newspaper or have the right to education, whereas someone from Russia in that country can?

Would being able to enjoy such freedoms without there being further restrictions based on ethnicity or religion not cover dignity equally i.e. all are treated equally so all are afforded dignity under the law equally as one is respect for being a person not for being a particular type of person.

Freedom of thought could be quite a wide-ranging area. In my mind, it simply means the ability to voice your issues to others and to consider them publicly or privately without worry, talking about ones issues in a pub, within a newspaper you started or on YouTube would all count as freedom of thought, as these thoughts can be expressed openly and without fear of government oppression. There are clearly some lines that cannot be crossed but these are hardly a barrier to the majority of people, only a very tiny minority would pursue this for purely violent means, and the law is quite well considered in this approach - indeed, it is constantly being challenged, which is a good sign that freedom of though is practiced.

I’m quite surprised that someone can object to having such freedoms and rights as per my previous list – and more importantly that removing these would not diminish ones quality of life. Is there any right or freedoms that you deem to be critical to yourself and your quality of life?
you are misleading the topic to a wrong area that: whether freedom shall be concerned.

freedoms should be concerned

but that does not mean a freedom is same for everyone with same criteria.

a very tiny example could be listed. it is generally not accepted to dry the cloth in the US cities, especially the undercloth. in some cities it is even illegal.
apparently, it has nothing to do with any violence line that should not be crossed.
it is common new chinese immigrants be punished for drying cloth outside, because it is the history we enjoy the work of nature to do the drying work.
however, in US, not only it could be illegal, one would be laughed at and warned.

how the difference is generated is no longer important. the fact is we have even different freedoms on drying cloth!

your listed items unfortunately already pushed into the concepts belongs to your sphere.
you may love your standard.
but that is not commonly shared, because so much difference is there on the tiny definitions you think is granted same.

-------------------------

last, chinese actually vote. anyway, we do not vote for western witness, so if you keep your stubborn opinion, we do not care. but you'd better talk more on things you know better.
 
Aug 2009
5,033
Londinium
you are misleading the topic to a wrong area that: whether freedom shall be concerned.

freedoms should be concerned

but that does not mean a freedom is same for everyone with same criteria.

a very tiny example could be listed. it is generally not accepted to dry the cloth in the US cities, especially the undercloth. in some cities it is even illegal.
apparently, it has nothing to do with any violence line that should not be crossed.
it is common new chinese immigrants be punished for drying cloth outside, because it is the history we enjoy the work of nature to do the drying work.
however, in US, not only it could be illegal, one would be laughed at and warned.

how the difference is generated is no longer important. the fact is we have even different freedoms on drying cloth!

your listed items unfortunately already pushed into the concepts belongs to your sphere.
you may love your standard.
but that is not commonly shared, because so much difference is there on the tiny definitions you think is granted same.

-------------------------

last, chinese actually vote. anyway, we do not vote for western witness, so if you keep your stubborn opinion, we do not care.
We have been discussing quality of life and as such legally guaranteed freedoms are well on-topic. Within a particular nation, freedoms should be (for the majority of cases, with some exemptions such as prisoners) universal – in direct contradiction to what you say, I hold that freedom IS the same for everyone when subject to the same law.

There is no right to work illegally, cloth dying as you describe is not a right and by definition not a legal practice. Indeed, just drying cloth is not a specific right and as no one is saying you can’t dry cloth, just saying you can’t dry it in whatever way your example relates to. This is conflating various activities and because of this and your previous posts, I’m not even sure if you fully understand the concept of what a right and freedom is.

There is nothing in “my sphere” as all my rights would apply to yourself (or any non-Brit) should they become a citizen, not based on ethnicity or age, gender etc.

I really think that we are just coming at completely different angels here, I don’t fully understand your position and your posts are hard to follow, also your accusations that I’m misleading aren’t conductive to an open and free conversation. My posts are perfectly clear and easy to follow. If you’d like clarifications then please ask and I’ll happily provide

As one example of not understanding your posts, you say that Chinese vote and “we do not vote for western witness” – as I understand it, there is no universal suffrage in China and the government/ruling party is not elected by popular vote, rather those eligible to vote is limited and controlled by the government. But this is another conversation as I think we are having trouble discussing the basic concept of freedom and rights!
 
Apr 2013
6,065
China
We have been discussing quality of life and as such legally guaranteed freedoms are well on-topic. Within a particular nation, freedoms should be (for the majority of cases, with some exemptions such as prisoners) universal – in direct contradiction to what you say, I hold that freedom IS the same for everyone when subject to the same law.

There is no right to work illegally, cloth dying as you describe is not a right and by definition not a legal practice. Indeed, just drying cloth is not a specific right and as no one is saying you can’t dry cloth, just saying you can’t dry it in whatever way your example relates to. This is conflating various activities and because of this and your previous posts, I’m not even sure if you fully understand the concept of what a right and freedom is.

There is nothing in “my sphere” as all my rights would apply to yourself (or any non-Brit) should they become a citizen, not based on ethnicity or age, gender etc.

I really think that we are just coming at completely different angels here, I don’t fully understand your position and your posts are hard to follow, also your accusations that I’m misleading aren’t conductive to an open and free conversation. My posts are perfectly clear and easy to follow. If you’d like clarifications then please ask and I’ll happily provide

As one example of not understanding your posts, you say that Chinese vote and “we do not vote for western witness” – as I understand it, there is no universal suffrage in China and the government/ruling party is not elected by popular vote, rather those eligible to vote is limited and controlled by the government. But this is another conversation as I think we are having trouble discussing the basic concept of freedom and rights!
a freedom is only in effect when it can be realized into a right.

drying cloth in a place where can bee seen by others, even if it is within one's own house, is illegal in several but NOT ALL US cities. however, it is generally forbidden, that people from nowhere would stop you, despite of allowance of law in corresponding cities. it is an example illustrate the conflicts of concepts of freedom.

as known most westerners do not understand how vote in china run. so i have beyond the stage be amused by the "no universal suffrage" stuff.
 
Aug 2009
5,033
Londinium
a freedom is only in effect when it can be realized into a right.

drying cloth in a place where can bee seen by others, even if it is within one's own house, is illegal in several but NOT ALL US cities. however, it is generally forbidden, that people from nowhere would stop you, despite of allowance of law in corresponding cities. it is an example illustrate the conflicts of concepts of freedom.

as known most westerners do not understand how vote in china run. so i have beyond the stage be amused by the "no universal suffrage" stuff.
Your example doesn’t illustrate the conflict of freedom concepts but how the law can and does govern (up to the extent of banning) a certain practice or expression of your freedom. Your freedom would be played out by your right to firstly speak of any occurrence or restriction placed on you in a public context (“I cant dry cloth in the city”) and then be able challenge this without fear of government restriction (your historum post, or any other means – you can even start a new political party which is solely campaigning for the right to dry cloth in US cities).

So I can now clearly infer that you would look for a country or a set of rights/freedoms in which one can object to the current laws in a public context (as you have done here) and then challenge them (using a method of your choosing, such as a forum post, starting a newspaper, political party etc) with the aim of finding a resolution to your satisfaction i.e. I can now dry my cloth in a city. And this process is only possible if one is free from government restrictions. If you were to emigrate, would you not therefore choose a nation which allowed this process?
 
Apr 2013
6,065
China
Your example doesn’t illustrate the conflict of freedom concepts but how the law can and does govern (up to the extent of banning) a certain practice or expression of your freedom. Your freedom would be played out by your right to firstly speak of any occurrence or restriction placed on you in a public context (“I cant dry cloth in the city”) and then be able challenge this without fear of government restriction (your historum post, or any other means – you can even start a new political party which is solely campaigning for the right to dry cloth in US cities).

So I can now clearly infer that you would look for a country or a set of rights/freedoms in which one can object to the current laws in a public context (as you have done here) and then challenge them (using a method of your choosing, such as a forum post, starting a newspaper, political party etc) with the aim of finding a resolution to your satisfaction i.e. I can now dry my cloth in a city. And this process is only possible if one is free from government restrictions. If you were to emigrate, would you not therefore choose a nation which allowed this process?
your logics had already been refuted by chinese philosopher thousands of years ago.

one argued if one could contribute a single fine hair to save the nation, would one do it?

no answer shall be given. "theoretical measurements" is not solution.
talking about mechanisms of so called "western democracy" but ignoring the fact "western democracy", just as all existed and existing systems, similarly has problems, especially is not perfectly self-correcting, is an ignorance of fact.
 
Aug 2009
5,033
Londinium
your logics had already been refuted by chinese philosopher thousands of years ago.

one argued if one could contribute a single fine hair to save the nation, would one do it?

no answer shall be given. "theoretical measurements" is not solution.

talking about mechanisms of so called "western democracy" but ignoring the fact "western democracy", just as all existed and existing systems, similarly has problems, especially is not perfectly self-correcting, is an ignorance of fact.


I have never said that western democracy’s are perfect, so therefore I’m not ignorance of facts (yet another accusation). No system is perfect, I’m simply looking for means and methods used to ensure my quality of life is increased or maintained and that I am able to change said system (as per drying cloth example) if I choose too.



All systems of government are self-correcting, it’s just that in democracy’s, citizens can self-correct their government rather than a government/junta etc by themselves and to their own need/desire.



Saying my logic has been refuted is not refuting my logic, and neither is the rest of your post. There is nothing theoretical about what I’m saying, the drying cloth example (my previous post) is a perfect illustration of how the basis of the western democracy’s (and their legal systems) work.



Perhaps you and I just don’t agree on my previous example, the need for citizens to be able to correct their government or some other aspect you seemingly object to?
 
Apr 2013
6,065
China
apparently, when i use the word "perfect", i mean the current system is not always self correcting.
to some degree, it is more the case in the west.
massive protesting in street gives no implication on ability of self correcting.
many western people appear to be confused by the two differed stuff.
 

Similar History Discussions