Spielberg snubs Chinese Olympics

[dong20]

Monitoring doesn't constitute censorship

When it's done for the intent of enforcing behaviour based on fear of retribution, yes it does.

The US will be leaving Iraq; Will China be leaving Tibet?

Domestic political appeasement?

As far as I know, the US public was not requesting the invasion of Iraq; If the Chinese citizenry were requesting the invasion of Tibet, I doubt the PRC leadership would have cared.

You don't think there was popular support (as well as much dissent) for this, and beforehand Afghanistan. Where you living in a cave?

You don't appear to understand the meaning of political appeasement, the actions taken don't necessarily need to relate to the problems at had. For example, Argentina invaded the Falklands primarily because the Junta was unpopular and had screwed up the economy not because they were asked to. Appease one problem with the solution to another.

Again, the US forces will be leaving Iraq; Will the Chinese evacuate Tibet?

You asked for a comparison, I gave you one (illegal occupations). Again you're clearly unable to distinguish between analogy and comparison.

The US government is shooting US citizens for being Americans?!?!?!

"Loud mouths" means giving voice to thoughts contrary to the Chinese regime, and being executed as a result -- how can you be so airy about it?

Where did I say the US Government was shooting Americans for being Americans? I was talking about Americans being killed in Iraq (and elsewhere) merely for being American, and being there. This was in response to the initial Iraq connection by another poster. Which I had explained and you either missed, or ignored.

You're free to assign whatever definition of 'Loud Mouth' you wish, of course but as you merely threw in the term without any context so it's hard to use your definition this way now, isn't it.

The correct term for what you're describing is dissent, sedition etc, volume isn't always a factor. I don't know what you mean by my being 'airy' again you will need to explain the origin of that one.

Do you always think in such a linear fashion?

 

[B_Nick4444]

When it's done for the intent of enforcing behaviour based on fear of retribution, yes it does.

I am unaware of any instances where criticism of George Bush, and his policies, foreign, or domestic, are being curtailed by monitoring of internet postings, or behavior.

Compare and contrast that with internet access and postings in the PRC.

Again, no comparison.

 

[B_Nick4444]

You don't think there was popular support (as well as much dissent) for this, and beforehand Afghanistan. Where you living in a cave?

You don't appear to understand the meaning of political appeasement, the actions taken don't necessarily need to relate to the problems at had. For example, Argentina invaded the Falklands primarily because the Junta was unpopular and had screwed up the economy not because they were asked to. Appease one problem with the solution to another.

At the time of the initial incursions into Afghanistan, the support that existed was in striking back at the Taliban, holed up in Afghanistan.

The American public clearly distinguished Afghanistan from the Taliban;
Definitely more problematic was the incursion into Iraq; and again, I am among those who do not feel it was necessary, indeed something of a disaster and abuse of US military power.

I am well aware of using one diplomatic or military action to try to resolve another, having studied for my Bachelors and Masters in Political Science and history ... so I'm curious about the logic of the stratagem that you imply existed -- could we have an elaboration?

 

[B_Nick4444]

You asked for a comparison, I gave you one (illegal occupations). Again you're clearly unable to distinguish between analogy and comparison.



Where did I say the US Government was shooting Americans for being Americans? I was talking about Americans being killed in Iraq (and elsewhere) merely for being American, and being there. This was in response to the initial Iraq connection by another poster. Which I had explained and you either missed, or ignored.

You're free to assign whatever definition of 'Loud Mouth' you wish, of course but as you merely threw in the term without any context so it's hard to use your definition this way now, isn't it.

The correct term for what you're describing is dissent, sedition etc, volume isn't always a factor. I don't know what you mean by my being 'airy' again you will need to explain the origin of that one.

Do you always think in such a linear fashion?

These I think clarify our respective positions and don't deserve further dissection

 

[dong20]

I am unaware of any instances where criticism of George Bush, and his policies, foreign, or domestic, are being curtailed by monitoring of internet postings, or behavior.

You think I mean the sort of bitching and whining that occurs in online fora such as this one? Don't make me laugh.

I'll also add - you assume that I was only referring to or considering America - a little of that America-centric thinking going on there?

Compare and contrast that with internet access and postings in the PRC.

Again, no comparison.

Again with the compare and contrast - this isn't a junior school term paper.

Your thinking appears very linear, constrained by what you think you see in front of you and it seems, a naive belief that cause and effect apply, Newtonian fashion when applied in the socio-political arena.

Now for an analogy of the way you and I seem to consider this issue; a comparison of apples and oranges may lead one person (me in this example) to the conclusion while they appear quite different, on closer inspection they are in fact both fruit, and have many characteristics in common. Another (you in this example) may conclude that they are in fact totally dissimilar merely by virtue of having a different outward appearance and look no deeper, dismissing the process with "no comparison".

Finally - you just did compare (and contrast), so can you not see your final comment is somewhat nonsensical. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere as we're clearly considering this on two very different levels, but thanks for the time.

 

[B_Nick4444]

I agree -- a bit on the fruitless side

You think I mean the sort of bitching and whining that occurs in online fora such as this one? Don't make me laugh.

I'll also add - you assume that I was only referring to or considering America - a little of that America-centric thinking going on there?



Again with the compare and contrast - this isn't a junior school term paper.

Your thinking appears very linear, constrained by what you think you see in front of you and it seems, a naive belief that cause and effect apply, Newtonian fashion when applied in the socio-political arena.

Now for an analogy of the way you and I seem to consider this issue; a comparison of apples and oranges may lead one person (me in this example) to the conclusion while they appear quite different, on closer inspection they are in fact both fruit, and have many characteristics in common. Another (you in this example) may conclude that they are in fact totally dissimilar merely by virtue of having a different outward appearance and look no deeper, dismissing the process with "no comparison".

Finally - you just did compare (and contrast), so can you not see your final comment is somewhat nonsensical. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere as we're clearly considering this on two very different levels, but thanks for the time.

 

[dong20]

I am well aware of using one diplomatic or military action to try to resolve another, having studied for my Bachelors and Masters in Political Science and history ... so I'm curious about the logic of the stratagem that you imply existed -- could we have an elaboration?

Well good for you. I really don't know what you're asking for there but see my post above (Edit: sorry two above). ^^^^^

I've generally found that it's a telling sign when someone has to cite their 'qualifications' as justification for their stance, don't you think?

P.S. I wish you would learn to (or choose to) multi-quote it makes things so much easier.

 

[B_Nick4444]

that time of the month, is it?

I always find it telling when emotions overtake ...

 

[dong20]

that time of the month, is it?

I always find it telling when emotions overtake ...

I wouldn't know, I'm not using them right now. But I'll keep you informed if you like. That's code for what on earth are you talking about?

Also, your comment could easily be taken as a offensive, sexist and emotionally loaded itself, just in case you missed the irony within it.

But, let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

 

[B_Nick4444]

ta! ta!