What's new

COMMENT : Democracy and Indian Muslims

The champion of pats on the backs from the British has come...how charming..?

Sorry, but we are not all mental slaves nor do we take pride in serving the white man.

There are many types of mental slavery, including being inarticulate in any but the White man's language, if that, and being dependent for one's views on uniform hatred of all that 'White men' represent, without any independent judgement.
 
.
There are many types of mental slavery, including being inarticulate in any but the White man's language, if that, and being dependent for one's views on uniform hatred of all that 'White men' represent, without any independent judgement.

Is this Joe's wife on the forum?

Otherwise there is no reason to get as catty as you are??
 
.
I mentioned Hong Kong because I know it better, but cities in the mainland like Shanghai are very similar to Hong Kong in terms of development. And they developed under the PRC government.

Does it not seem odd, that out of the many democracies in the developing world... the number 1 best performing economy in the developing world is China?

This suggests to me that implementation is more important than ideology. Living in a non-democratic city like HK that constantly beats world records in various fields of development lends further evidence to this idea.

No, it does not seem odd. Democracy is not about economic progress, it is about freedom of thought, about human rights and about equality of all citizens in a political context. In an economic context it is not able to outperform a benevolent progressive autocracy, the example that you provided.

Incidentally, I want to draw your attention to the last paragraph of my cited post, which was particularly for your attention. It makes a ready contest for what we are discussing at the moment: that freedom under a regressive regime is not better than lack of freedom under a progressive regime.

LOL.

Defending a pat from westerners.. :cheesy:


Many of us were not a part a of the crown, nor would we take pride in such an affiliation.

That no doubt means something profound in LOL LOL land.
 
. .
India does not have any democracy. In name of democracy we have sickularism, which is higher than nationalism.
We all know in the end of day majority of these people are going to vote in name of religion. And when a community self interest is over the nation then how can democracy survive ?
Their religion is a major obstacle to that. And until they become patriotic, respectful and secular, we can not have democracy.
 
.
That's fair enough. :tup:

There is a theory that East Asian countries have done well under autocracies because our populations tend to be more homogenous.

Well, historically speaking, it does seem that Chinese culture has shown a readiness to work together as a country under strong leadership very successfully.
 
.
No, it does not seem odd. Democracy is not about economic progress, it is about freedom of thought, about human rights and about equality of all citizens in a political context. In an economic context it is not able to outperform a benevolent progressive autocracy, the example that you provided.

Yes, but for a person in the developing world in absolute poverty, do they want advanced civil liberties first or do they want economic development first?

Incidentally, lack of freedoms in China are overblown. The average person on the street has no worries about insulting the Chinese Government or Chinese leaders, in fact that is probably one of the most common things they do. Some protestors recently even stripped the clothes off the Mayor of Qidong and threw him out onto the street without any repercussions. In fact it was the government who backed down in that case, and shut down the pipeline.

Incidentally, I want to draw your attention to the last paragraph of my cited post, which was particularly for your attention. It makes a ready contest for what we are discussing at the moment: that freedom under a regressive regime is not better than lack of freedom under a progressive regime.

I agree with what you have said here.

But people will fiercely disagree on whether a particular regime is progressive or regressive, especially when it comes to the CPC. Check out some of the arguments the Chinese members here have with each other.
 
.
What do I need to prove to a western nokar about my knowledge?

I mean by golly, you've impressed me with the fact that you've specified that greek democracy is also known as athenian democracy.

Jeez I wish I was as smart as you.

:rolleyes:

I guess those classes I've taken at NYU are now void because of Joe Shearer.

Oh noes...

Take a hike pal.

Those classes that you may have taken at NYU don't seem to have taught you the difference between training and education. You are certainly well trained.
 
.
No, it does not seem odd. Democracy is not about economic progress, it is about freedom of thought, about human rights and about equality of all citizens in a political context. In an economic context it is not able to outperform a benevolent progressive autocracy, the example that you provided.

Incidentally, I want to draw your attention to the last paragraph of my cited post, which was particularly for your attention. It makes a ready contest for what we are discussing at the moment: that freedom under a regressive regime is not better than lack of freedom under a progressive regime.



That no doubt means something profound in LOL LOL land.

Being the old tool that Joe Shearer is, will defend democracy and glorify the situation of Indian Muslims because it brings esteem points to himself for being a white man's slave.

Indian Muslims are living the best because of Indian democracy, which is not even considered a true democracy by any criteria that defines a democracy.

The premise of the article is ridiculous and laughable at best.

You blindly support it because of either a vendetta against me, or a pledge to your white masters in the crown.

How much funnier, can it get?

Good game Joe.

May the bhartee sheeple continue following you.

They will follow a slave.
 
. . . .
@Joe, it seems like your cheerleaders have come on queue. :lol:
 
.
Yes, but for a person in the developing world in absolute poverty, do they want advanced civil liberties first or do they want economic development first?

Incidentally, lack of freedoms in China are overblown. The average person on the street has no worries about insulting the Chinese Government or Chinese leaders, in fact that is probably one of the most common things they do. Some protestors recently even stripped the clothes off the Mayor of Qidong and threw him out onto the street without any repercussions. In fact it was the government who backed down in that case, and shut down the pipeline.



I agree with what you have said here.

But people will fiercely disagree on whether a particular regime is progressive or regressive, especially when it comes to the CPC. Check out some of the arguments the Chinese members here have with each other.

This is perhaps the most interesting and richly endowed post so far. Allow me to respond in some detail.

I believe we agree on almost all points, although our universal tendency to assume that a response must contain an element of refutation is getting in the way.

A person living in poverty will first look for survival, for herself and her family. Is that not human nature? For such a person, economic development- actually, the security of life - undoubtedly comes first. If I may recall the thought I keep going back to, freedom under a regressive regime is not better than lack of freedom under a progressive regime.

There may be some confusion about what regressive and progressive mean in this connection. By regressive, I mean a regime that is oriented towards an other-worldly theology, or is oriented towards the betterment of a segment of society at the cost of the bulk of citizens, or is punitive and vindictive in nature. These are obviously inimical to the security of life that we started with. A progressive regime would look to the welfare and betterment of its citizens and their security from the mass deaths inherent in war. That seems like a reasonable description of the PRC, progressive but not democratic. It fits my formulation rather well, I thought.

Second, I did not mean to imply, as some do in error, that lack of western democracy goes hand in hand with a repressive regime. If we go back to my 'formula', you will notice that regressive hurts people; progressive fosters people. I take your point about freedom of action in China very readily, and in turn point out that the concept of the Mandate of Heaven is embedded in Chinese political thought at the most fundamental level. If the Mayor of Qidong lost the Mandate of Heaven (if we might playfully extend it down to his level), he no longer has credibility. The CPC then has no option but to get rid of him!
 
.
No, it does not seem odd. Democracy is not about economic progress, it is about freedom of thought, about human rights and about equality of all citizens in a political context. In an economic context it is not able to outperform a benevolent progressive autocracy, the example that you provided.Incidentally, I want to draw your attention to the last paragraph of my cited post, which was particularly for your attention. It makes a ready contest for what we are discussing at the moment: that freedom under a regressive regime is not better than lack of freedom under a progressive regime.


.

It is NOT about human rights in subcontinent , it is only about equality of one vote per person and thats where this political equality ends under subcontinental democracy.

thats all its not going to change the situation unless the familycracy ends.

looking at the affairs in Pakistan, India, BD its far better to have Chinese system.

regressive-progressive are only catchy words sans any reality in context of subcontinent. both are the same
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom