> First thing first, I didn't downvote you or anyone else - because
> I simply don't have enough karma to downvote anyone.
> Please check my public profile before pointing fingers, that
> would be a much more civilised move.
I apologize if my words made you think that I was saying that you double downvoted me...I was just trying to put my observation in its context...but I did not mean you.
> The problem is you seem to be forcing your definition of
> freedom onto many people. You can value your free speech,
> your democratic system etc etc, I'd perfectly happy to respect
> that. However, it it seems that you refuse to even acknowledge
> the cultural differences widely observed. To give you a quick
> hint, majority vote is the preferred way in the west, but apparently
> Chinese and many Asian cultures value more on consensus
> based on compromises.
Thanks for stating your argument in details...
The meta-assumption that you are making in your argument is that there exists a general will in both western society and Chinese society -- which is equivalent to saying that there is a higher intelligent wisdom above all the western people or all the eastern people, represents their collective will and thus having a single voice that "they want democracy" or "they want totalitarian"...
This assumption is too big to discuss here, but from what I observe, many people in China are trying to get across the Great Fire Wall while another group of people (i.e. the government) are trying to forbid the first group to do so, which seems to me is hardly a consensus, not to mention any compromise...
> Your arguments on "propaganda and censorship" are quite rude
> because you are basically arguing that Chinese living in China
> can not figure out what is truth and what is propaganda,
> you are basically suggesting that Chinese as a population
> of 1.4B can be easily manipulated.
Well, I am afraid so...Or, has anyone figured out how many people starved to death during the Great Famine between 1959 to 1961, or how many students had been shot dead during the TianAnMen square protest in 1989 -- and that does not seem to be a consensus nor a compromise...
And from my own experience, many young people born after 1990 in China even do not know that TianAnMen square protest and the shooting even have ever happened...And what about the dramatic increase in the number of people that have been diagnosed with lung cancer or other types of life-threatening illness as a result of the air pollution caused by profit-driven manufacturing planning?
It seems to me that you are fairly funny, and rude, to speak for 1.4 billion individuals, without a validated assumption on the very existence of "general will", without any action or even intention to obtain their opinion, while enjoying all the freedom of speech and convenience of western life, and make a speech that all the 1.4 billion individuals have a consensus based on their compromise -- but more to the fact, a self-narcissus based on other people's extraordinary sacrifice...