freediver wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 3:32pm:


On the contrary,  I live in one (guess which one), and I see a progressive government about to be dumped by a disaffected electorate who can't see that the opposition is even less capable/interested in reducing poverty and homelessness.

Quote:


Nonsense, the Chinese people at that time had no time to feel sorry for "poor starving Americans", they were reading Mao's Little Red Book and hoping their own standard of living would improve.

But even if Mao's book DID posit "starving Americans" to keep the Chinese in line (your assertion) while the CCP was attempting to lift them out of poverty, the CCP remained steadfast in pursuit of that goal. 

Which it achieved - spectacularly, from the 1980s on, achieving  the fastest rate of poverty alleviation in the history of the world (according to the Word Bank).

And creating the world's most competive green industries and products.

And the first nation to retrieve soil samples from the far side of the moon. (needless to say, NASA isn't pleased...) 

Even Modi wants to improve relations with China now, for the sake of the Indian economy.   

Quote:


So you keep saying, while BRICS keeps attracting more an more members, hoping to share in the "Chinese miracle".

Do try to keep up

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2024 at 8:13am:


This thread is a wondeful expose' of the blind, Conservative mind's capacity for illogicality, self-delusion, and diversion.

Poor FD, unable to defend his delusional "individual rights/freedom" values which are responsible for the chaos in the world including Palestine  (while the CCP since 1980 has lifted more people out of poverty at the fastest rate in history), has  diverted to another thread, (see above) , in an attempt to defend himself, presumably because he thinks he is on more solid debating ground re the Israel-Palestine conflict.

[FD is seems exercized by my observation; namely



So FD considers international law can't be instituted by a 'benevolent authority', whereas it indeed  CAN be, see the UNUDHR for an example of 'benevolent law';  while law according to the OT's  'jealous god' (the same god who authorized genocide)  is somehow preferable to international law.

Naturally,  FD failed  to make his case, and thought he was entitled to conclude with: 

Quote:


THe UNUDHR isn't a 'dictator who  tells lies".

It's a statement defining  universal human rights  based on morality justice and fairness.

Not on the contending scriptures of different religions.

Now, back to the declining functionality and social cohesion of the democracies....compared to the steady advance of China under the CCP. 

Stay tuned.....

Quote:


I did not say it was. Guess who I was talking about?

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2024 at 8:48am:


Lets have another look.  You said:

" ." 

You forgot to say HOW my comments about the pariah state of Israel which is led by a wanted criminal  who is claiming all of Palestine  while conducting ongoing  genocide against Gazan women and children.....in short, how are these comments related to my concept of "benevolent authority"? 

btw, Israel has the capacity to be a great nation, but not while it's led by criminals who are defying international law, aided and abetted by blind "Chosen People" ideologues in the US in cahoots with RW Christians who are expecting the return of Christ - an 'unholy' alliance if ever there was one: extremist (ie, biblical literalists)  RW  Christians who hate the Jews for murdering Christ....but they see a general ME war as the Armageddon which will signify Christ's return (Pompeo loves it...)

Oh..."the tangled webs we weave...."

Anyway,  over to you....how is any of the above related to "a dictator who tells lies"?

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2024 at 12:14pm:


Hoookaaay...let's read on, to see if we can find the cconnection between my contention Israel is a  criminal state while it rejects international law;  and my promotion  of the concept of "benevolent authority".   

Quote:


I support the most complete proclamation of human rights in our world, namely,  the UN UDHR.

Is that proclamation an "alien concept" of human rights?
(Will be interesting to see your explanation ...)


Quote:


Let's sort of out the question of "human rights" - enumerated in the UNUDHR - without reference to the disasters of human history ie, whoever was/is responsible for transgressions of human rights.   

lee wrote on Dec 8^th, 2024 at 1:25pm:


Ah...a deft move.....

but:

1. You haven't stated whether you agree the UNUDHR is the most complete compilation of human rights in our world, or something else (apart from your assertion it is a failure, with  which I will agree for the sake of the argument).

2. If you don't agree the UNUDHR is a summation of human rights, what is your conception of human rights, and how does it differ from the UNUDHR?

Over to you.....

lee wrote on Dec 8^th, 2024 at 4:00pm:


You claimed my understanding of human rights is "alien".

Such a claim is worthless if you aren't prepared to defend the claim. 

Quote:


"It" (the process of debating) makes  ALL the difference.

The question needs an answer, if you want to defend your claim.

Otherwise keep stalling and reveal your mental incompetence...

(although I feel sorry for you - you can already feel the rope tightening around your neck, as you duck and weave, while claiming debate in search of truth re human rights "makes no difference"....; I will do you slowly, to borrow a phrase from Paul Keating).   

   

Quote: