Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
It is everyone’s right to choose whether or not to read an article. But if he decides to comment on an article, particularly if he wants to jump into the conclusion that something was missing altogether, perhaps it would be better to read the whole article first.
First of all, Google auto-translation does a reasonable job in the Italian to English mode, and you could have had some idea if China Daily distorted it badly. The point is, maybe you can’t judge on the credibility of these Italian journalists, but you can at least verify the veracity of Chinadaily’s translation fairly easily.
Secondly, not all things were reported in English or French, but they could still be happening.
.
Considering globalization, most things are reported at least in English.
Second, do what you will, I'm not taking anything from Chinadaily, of falundafa.org (and their Epoch time bullshit) and anything that obviously biased. Your onus, your responsibility to use credible citation. I don't have to run around and get crappy computer generated translation for your point.
Quote:
Anything relating to China is controversial? Didn’t you find that statement a little bit, eh, over-generalizing?
Also, I think the best way to learn something is to view it from different angles. Not understanding one’s opponent’s stance puts him at disadvantage most of the time.
Since the wide acceptance of liberalism almost every where in the world except in a few key ideologies in China, yes, almost all of the CCP's action are controversial because they are not elected.
Quote:
Tell that to Washington Post, the Guardian and Die Zeit (it’s called Westliche Medien in German). I didn’t invent the word. It existed long before the current standoff between Chinese netizens and some western media.
It's predominantly used by Chinese people nowadays. I don't care who uses it. The Washington post can use race to organize people, it doesn't mean that the concept of race is at all significant or meaningful in any serious conversation.
Quote:
You are certainly good at twisting words. Do you remember why I cited CNN? I quoted an article by an Italian journalist, and you responded that “Wow… if it is in Italian, it must be valid.” implying that I put blind faith into foreign media, right? As far as I am concerned, Italian media is part of the “western media”. I quoted CNN to show you that I am aware of the media distortion in the west, hence I know that the Italian quote could also be distorted representation of the interview. Furthermore, I said some western media have a history of biased reporting. Does this sound like a gross over-generalization? I didn’t say ALL, I said SOME. Are you going to argue against that statement?
I am not twisting words, even though you said CNN you use it to exemplify the whole of a false entity (that of western media). You even did it right there in that post.
And I just said wow Italian not because I thought you had blind faith in the western media, but because that's all I could say to a bunch of Italian paragraphs.
I'm done debating this. In English please. Period.
Quote:
Define Chinese media. Does it include those written/spoken in Chinese, or by Chinese? Or does it only include those state-run newspapers and TV stations? If it’s the latter, of course there’s only one source, by definition (state-run). Have I ever questioned this? There is no need for you to set this up as a straw man to beat up in our debate here. If it’s the former, your statement is way off the mark. Since you have shown your (rudimentary, maybe?) understanding of Chinese in a few occasions, you may try the following internet nexus (add http://www. to the front), particularly the blogs and political forums within:
MITBBS.com (未名空间)
CREADERS.com （万维）
HUAREN.us（华人）
WENXUECITY.com（文学城）
TIANYA.com.cn（天涯）
Main stream media, that available and easy to access by the majority of people in China. From old to young. Meaning CCTV and the few other state ran newspaper. The internet is censored in China, which serves little as a viable more objective alternative than mainstream media.
Quote:
These are all maintained by Chinese, most of which are pro-China. Several are accessible from within China; some are even based in the mainland. Yet, one will have no problem finding all sorts of information there, including sharp criticism of the government, even those advocating Tibetan Independence.
Yes, a few people got away talking about Tibet independence....WOW!!! What a liberal society. Now legalize the free Tibet website (and all others for that matter) and we can then start with this whole China tolerates opposition talk
Now if you don't understand Chinese enough to access those popular Chinese news sites, then your conclusion of Chinese media having one source is a severely underinformed one.
You can criticize CCTV-x all you want, but it doesn’t mean that Chinese posters here necessarily know less about China than your average Joes. Many young Chinese people nowadays, both inside and outside of China, get their information from sources other than the official mouthpieces. If you include the foreign language media, they can certainly obtain a lot more information than what you thought (they could).
Quote:
So, is there such thing as “western media”? It seems to me that you just defined “western media” here. A little bit self-inconsistent, wasn’t it?
Do you know what a contingency is? That's hardly valid for a definition, it's rather the opposite.
Quote:
You are right. Let’s all float to the level of not citing anything at all, as you seemed to prefer. Hey, you don’t have to believe in youtube videos, but you could at least still find useful information that you can verify if you so desired.
I can only provide the facts. How people view these facts is their own problem. CIA was involved in a lot of other subversive acts, such as the infamous Pinochet’s coup and repression in Chile. I am sure some people also love these.
And the CIA was never something I advocated but only came up as yet another of the so liked fallacy "if Rob steals a car, I can steal a bike" by CCP apologists.
[quote=LostInTranslation;175546]Why limit it to those living in China? Many restaurants here used one-time use wooden chopsticks as well. Japan is one of largest importers for these chopsticks.
Here is an article I found online showing you efforts of Chinese to go green. It was originally published on Washington Post:
Why even bring up other countries doing this? WHY? WHY? WHY? To further promote your reliance on fallacies?
China does it far more than Canada and there isn't a giant growing desert in Canada due to deforestation. It's not nearly as urgent, but it's not like I ever advocated their use elsewhere. Who said anything about limits? It's for the self-interest of Chinese people. Fine, have a big freaking desert of a country, and you can bicker all you want about the wrongs other countries do in the middle of sand dunes. That's really smart.
This article dates to February 2001!! Last time I went to China, it was 2006 and every single restaurant I went to (and it's a lot considering I didn't have a kitchen so 3 times a day for 2 months, plus 3 times a day for 8months in 2004) used disposable chopsticks. That just proves the inefficiency of the central government.
Quote:
I don't think deforestation is something that the Chinese government advocate. Reforestation is something Chinese government and Chinese people work hard to achieve. There is even a "Plant-a-tree" Day in China.
Exactly, plenty of re-forestation campaigns in China, but nothing concerning the stop of deforestation. Trimming weeds instead of getting rid of their roots.
Quote:
Personally, I am glad you brought this issue up. I support your action of convincing those restaurant owners to switch to reusable ones. This is much more productive in helping China to solve its problems than standing on the high moral ground criticizing China.
This would go a LOT faster if there was a democratic process to take care of these issues. We're reduced to going restaurant to restaurant, asking for their owners to act out of civil virtue. Your article proves how inefficient that is.
Quote:
For that matter, why don't we discourage the use of disposable plastic cups, utensils and lunch boxes? They are made out of petroleums. Honestly, let's save the planet, by doing little things that we can. Bring our own dinning wares, eh?
Sure why not, but deforestation is much alarming in China.
Innovation and pollution. I'm sure alot of industralized countries have these issues, including countries like the US (I don't know much about canada though) It happens in democratic or authoritian countries. China does address those 2 issues though, though not as much as you expect.
Most of the authoritian decisions made by China is building the basic infrastructure, railroad lines, water lines, dams, roads, schools, hospitals... etc...
OH MY GOD!!!
Again with the freaking comparisons. I don't give a shit about the US or Canada or ANYONE else in this conversation.
Your method means (as I said previously); bickering in the middle of sand dunes the wrongs of other countries. It doesn't matter if the US decides to kill all male newborns tomorrow, China still has a shitty government system and a growing desert. We're talking about China and what the CCP needs to do and is, not what the CCP is like in comparison to other countries.
Plus chopsticks have such a simple, comprehensive and sensible substitute: reusable chopstick -- it's even more "traditional". It costs how much to pay for a dishwasher in China to clean chopsticks? 5 yuan an hour maybe? I'd give an estimate of .5 yuan an hour for the marginal costs of washing chopsticks every hour...
Now all of you, if China is criticized, it doesn't matter the wrongs other countries. If you want to defend the CCP, then do it without resorting to this fallacy. My God, is there ANY substance to the arguments of apologists beside that giant fallacy?
Considering globalization, most things are reported at least in English.
Most but not all.
Quote:
Since the wide acceptance of liberalism almost every where in the world except in a few key ideologies in China, yes, almost all of the CCP's action are controversial because they are not elected.
Since when did "anything related to China" become "all of the CCP's actions"? Are you trying to switch the subject here?
Quote:
It's predominantly used by Chinese people nowadays. I don't care who uses it. The Washington post can use race to organize people, it doesn't mean that the concept of race is at all significant or meaningful in any serious conversation.
They (Chinese people) didn't invent the concept of western media either. Go after the source, prove that it was wrong.
Quote:
I am not twisting words, even though you said CNN you use it to exemplify the whole of a false entity (that of western media). You even did it right there in that post.
Do you know what a contingency is? That's hardly valid for a definition, it's rather the opposite.
What you called a contingency, I regard it as a collection. By saying "western media", I am referring to a collection of media existed in the west. What's wrong with including everything that shares a similar trait in a set, and giving it a name? Is it wrong to give the collection of 2, 3, 5, 7... a name of primary numbers?
Quote:
And I just said wow Italian not because I thought you had blind faith in the western media, but because that's all I could say to a bunch of Italian paragraphs.
I'm done debating this. In English please. Period.
Thanks for clarifying.
Quote:
Main stream media, that available and easy to access by the majority of people in China. From old to young. Meaning CCTV and the few other state ran newspaper. The internet is censored in China, which serves little as a viable more objective alternative than mainstream media.
You will be surprised how many Chinese people get their information from internet in China.
Quote:
Yes, a few people got away talking about Tibet independence....WOW!!! What a liberal society. Now legalize the free Tibet website (and all others for that matter) and we can then start with this whole China tolerates opposition talk.
What the heck are you talking about? Why do you want me to defend things that I didn't say? I argued that Chinese people can get information from more than one source. Where did I say that "China tolerates opposition talk"? Don't switch the subject.
Quote:
And the CIA was never something I advocated but only came up as yet another of the so liked fallacy "if Rob steals a car, I can steal a bike" by CCP apologists.
YOU ASKED for proof of CIA's involvement in the Free-Tibet movement, and I gave you precisely that. Did I say since CIA is involved in a lot of subversive acts, that it is OK for others to follow suit? Why do you want to accuse me of being a CCP apologist? I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE for other posters' comments, even though you might think we think alike, since many of us do not agree with some of your views.
__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL
Why even bring up other countries doing this? WHY? WHY? WHY? To further promote your reliance on fallacies?
China does it far more than Canada and there isn't a giant growing desert in Canada due to deforestation. It's not nearly as urgent, but it's not like I ever advocated their use elsewhere. Who said anything about limits? It's for the self-interest of Chinese people. Fine, have a big freaking desert of a country, and you can bicker all you want about the wrongs other countries do in the middle of sand dunes. That's really smart.
Why did you have to give a negative spin on my comment? I said "don't limit that to people living in China", not because I think it is not important to bring awareness to them, but because I think this issue is so important that all of us should be aware and do our parts to prevent it from happening. I agree with your proposal, and I further suggest that people who are not living in China (that means many of the forum posters here) can also contribute. What's wrong with that??? I can do my part by not using single-use chopstick when I go out for dinner in the future, and I AM ONE of those people who are not living in China.
Why did I bring up Japan? Because the great majority of the single-use chopsticks in Japan are made in China, which contributes to the deforestation in China! Not in Japan, certainly not in Canada! Is it so hard to understand this point? I acknowledged that China needs to do its part, and I proposed that other countries can help as well. Why is it a reliance on fallacies?
Quote:
This article dates to February 2001!! Last time I went to China, it was 2006 and every single restaurant I went to (and it's a lot considering I didn't have a kitchen so 3 times a day for 2 months, plus 3 times a day for 8months in 2004) used disposable chopsticks. That just proves the inefficiency of the central government.
Every single one of them? I noticed that a lot of mama-and-papa restaurants used disposable ones last time I went to China, but some decent restaurants had silverwares and hard plastic chopsticks that I assume would be reused. But yes, a lot of policies don't get enforced efficiently in the local level.
Quote:
This would go a LOT faster if there was a democratic process to take care of these issues. We're reduced to going restaurant to restaurant, asking for their owners to act out of civil virtue. Your article proves how inefficient that is.
I can't change China's political system. I can only do my part to help.
__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL
The reason why I ask is that I feel that a China based media outlet that expressed a pro-Taiwan-independence view would get in a lot of trouble. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
You are correct. However, you might also be aware that the great majority of mainland Chinese are not in favor of Taiwan-independence. So it would be difficult for such media to attract enough readers to survive regardless.
Quote:
I'd say that when the riots first started there was a strong presumption in the West that the Chinese authorities would crack down forcefully, and also a presumption that the rioters represented genuine grieveance amongst ordinary Tibetans. That presumption was based in part on knowledge of previous government crackdowns on public protest, and to some extent encouraged by the lack of independent media reporting from Tibet and the surrounding provinces. I think you could justifiably call that a Western bias, although the CCP has not done its appearance any favours in the past with the way it has acted towards dissidents.
That initial presumption in the western media has since been counteracted to some extent by better information from Tibet and negative stories about the Tibetans. It has been counteracted to some extent by Chinese people explaining errors and providing information. And to some extent, western prejudices have been reinforced by some of the shriller reaction from Chinese nationalists, that reinforces the supposition that dissent will not be tolerated in China. C'est la vie - we all have our embarassing compatriots.
Great summary. I must say that your posts are often of high quality and show your good understanding of many China-related issues.
__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL
I'm still interested though in what's the specific charges against the BBC. From what I recall, their factual accuracy was reasonably good.
I don't watch BBC often. But IIRC, one of the charges against the BBC was that they used a picture showing rescue workers helping injured people into the ambulance, and gave it a title resembling something like "heavy military presence in Tibet".
More recently, a BBC correspondent in Beijing criticized China for trying to cover up the protests during London's torch relay, which turned out to be a false accusation. BBC's editor Jon Williams published a blog apologizing to that mistake: BBC NEWS | The Editors
And this is the response from some Chinese:
Overall, I think BBC is better than CNN, but I still prefer NPR.
__________________
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. --CHL
You are correct. However, you might also be aware that the great majority of mainland Chinese are not in favor of Taiwan-independence. So it would be difficult for such media to attract enough readers to survive regardless.
Ok, but I wonder whether if there were open debate of the Taiwan issue then more people would be sympathetic to the Taiwanese. In other words, although several people here have claimed that everyone knows the Chinese media is restrictive, in fact people are being brainwashed by only getting one side of a debate.
Quote:
Great summary. I must say that your posts are often of high quality and show your good understanding of many China-related issues.
Well thank you, I appreciate that, but I pick up stuff as I go really. I didn't know all that much about Tibet three months ago, for example.
__________________
No Fear No Hate No Pain No Broken Hearts
) It happens in democratic or authoritian countries. China does address those 2 issues though, though not as much as you expect.
Linear Mode
