This weekend's classic news story. I suppose I should really think this is outrageous, but as I live in the teenage pregnancy capital of the south, I have found myself wondering in the past whether a similar (but not the same) approach should be adopted over here.

Times wrote:China tries to sterilise 10,000 parents over one-child rule

Family planning authorities have detained hundreds of people against their will in a campaign to sterilise 10,000 men and women suspected of trying to violate China’s strict birth control policies.

About 1,300 people were being held in cramped and poor conditions in offices throughout the small town of Puning in southern Guangdong Province and are forced to listen to “lectures” on state rules limiting the size of families, the Nanfang Countryside Daily said.

In the years after China launched its strict “one couple, one child” family planning policy in the late 1970s, abuses such as forced later-term abortions, sterilisations and even the killing of newborn babies were widely reported.

But such practices have fallen sharply in recent years as the policy has become quite widely accepted and exceptions have been introduced.

The county intends to sterilise 9,559 women or their husbands who are suspected of planning to have a second or third child. So far about half that number have agreed to comply, the newspaper said.

Officials have detained the elderly parents of those who do not submit voluntarily to the surgery or who try to evade the authorities to force them to comply, the newspaper said. It reported that on April 10 some 100 people, mostly elderly, were seen inside a damp 200 square metre building at a township family planning centre.

The newspaper said: “There were some mats on the floor, but the room was too small for all people to lie down and sleep, so the young ones had to stand or squat. Due to the lack of quilts, many cuddled up to fight the cold.”

Among those being held was the 64-year-old father of Huang Ruifeng, who already has three daughters. Mr Huang said: “Several days ago, a village official called me and asked me or my wife to return for the surgery. Otherwise they would take away my father.”

Rules in Puning, as in most rural areas of China, allow farmers to have a second child if the first is a daughter. After that couples are supposed to stop.

An official at the Puning Population and Family Planning Bureau, who declined to be identified, told the Global Times: “It’s not uncommon for family planning authorities to adopt some tough tactics.”

Family planning officials are appraised on their success in enforcing birth control policies and sometimes employ such extreme methods if they fail to meet state-set targets. Authorities in Puning have already adopted a tough stance against couples who flout the rules.

They and their relatives who apply for permits to build a house are rejected. They are also being denied a local cash bonus. Illegal children are denied residency registration, a penalty that means they are excluded from a place in school.

One official told the newspaper that an investigation would be launched to establish whether authorities in Puning had exceeded their remit. A state-level regulation stipulates that couples who violate the family planning policy must not be punished without proper authorisation.

And yet as I encounter more and more Burberry clad scratters with oddly monickered chavlets, I find myself wondering if China indeed has a point.

What I consider to be a fair solution would be to offer teenagers from certain sections of the populace the injection (makes you sterile for a year or so). If they turn it down and subsequently get pregnant, no benefits & definitely no free house either.

Indeedy. And as someone currently homeless, that might help sort me out as well.

They and their relatives who apply for permits to build a house are rejected. They are also being denied a local cash bonus. Illegal children are denied residency registration, a penalty that means they are excluded from a place in school.

Given chinas immense population issues I understand on a logical level the concept of enforced curbs on childbirth. Their methodology though is barbaric and idiotic in many cases.

Man, this makes the American Planned Parenthood groups like like a bunch of pu****es.

ShumaGorath wrote:

They and their relatives who apply for permits to build a house are rejected. They are also being denied a local cash bonus. Illegal children are denied residency registration, a penalty that means they are excluded from a place in school.

Given chinas immense population issues I understand on a logical level the concept of enforced curbs on childbirth. Their methodology though is barbaric and idiotic in many cases.

Definitely barbaric, although consistent within logical boundaries, given the context, as it would be the defining factor.

Lame... Glad I'm not within that 10 grand section of people.

Its not exactly unique to china, India did a very similar thing in 70's.

ShumaGorath wrote:

They and their relatives who apply for permits to build a house are rejected. They are also being denied a local cash bonus. Illegal children are denied residency registration, a penalty that means they are excluded from a place in school.

Given chinas immense population issues I understand on a logical level the concept of enforced curbs on childbirth. Their methodology though is barbaric and idiotic in many cases.

More ignorant words were seldom spoken.

China has huge population issues, and is forced to confront them out of necessity. Population drives land and energy, with tremendous cost. As a third world country, an unlimited population is a luxury that they cannot afford.

China uses carrot (cash) and stick (NO free education, NO housing permits). If you have money, you can pay your own way. If not, you follow the rules. Same as in any other country. This isn't rocket science, folks.

One imagines that China would love to be rich enough to afford an unlimited population. Perhaps you'll cede land (and China needs a *lot* of land) and then subsidize their energy needs to support such a population?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

China uses carrot (cash) and stick (free education, housing permits). If you have money, you can pay your own way. If not, you follow the rules. Same as in any other country. This isn't rocket science, folks.

Just to nitpick the carrot and stick method refers to using a reward (the carrot) and a punishment (the stick) to motivate something rather than what you said which appears to be either reward/reward or two options.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

They and their relatives who apply for permits to build a house are rejected. They are also being denied a local cash bonus. Illegal children are denied residency registration, a penalty that means they are excluded from a place in school.

Given chinas immense population issues I understand on a logical level the concept of enforced curbs on childbirth. Their methodology though is barbaric and idiotic in many cases.

More ignorant words were seldom spoken.

China has huge population issues, and is forced to confront them out of necessity. Population drives land and energy, with tremendous cost. As a third world country, an unlimited population is a luxury that they cannot afford.

China uses carrot (cash) and stick (free education, housing permits). If you have money, you can pay your own way. If not, you follow the rules. Same as in any other country. This isn't rocket science, folks.

One imagines that China would love to be rich enough to afford an unlimited population. Perhaps you'll cede land (and China needs a *lot* of land) and then subsidize their energy needs to support such a population?

Ok, now tell me captain DD kings of the good ship "CHINA DOES WHAT IT HAS TOO" how exactly is it a good idea economically or socially to create an underclass of ill educated and untracked children? How is it moral to deprive children education because of the status of their birth? And how is it conducive to the construction and wellfare of a nation state to en masse release "citizens" into the wilds of ill educated obscurity? This sounds like a great way to create crime, poverty, and even more idiotic it creates a systemic issue with regards to population control given that the ill educated and poor statistically bear more children in agregate than the more cosmopolitan in society.

At least try and read the PARTS OF MY POST THAT I EVEN TAKE CARE TO BOLD when you want to insult my intelligence by cracking open conservapedia and talking about chinas issues.

Heh, yeah, that needed clarifying. Thanks, corpses.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
China uses carrot (cash) and stick (NO free education, NO housing permits). If you have money, you can pay your own way. If not, you follow the rules. Same as in any other country. This isn't rocket science, folks.

I don't believe that was being disputed. I do believe it was being judged on moral grounds. That doesn't make the argument ignorant, though it might render it naive.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
China uses carrot (cash) and stick (NO free education, NO housing permits). If you have money, you can pay your own way. If not, you follow the rules. Same as in any other country. This isn't rocket science, folks.

I don't believe that was being disputed. I do believe it was being judged on moral grounds. That doesn't make the argument ignorant, though it might render it naive.

Barbaric is a term with moral connotations. Idiotic is not. I used both and I also stated "in many cases" which implies specific circumstances.

Something becomes idiotic when the commenter views the consequences of a given action as negative, which is not an empirical judgment, but something which depends on valuation. Well, at least in those situations where the consequences of possible actions are not directly comparable, which seems to be most situations.

dogma wrote:Something becomes idiotic when the commenter views the consequences of a given action as negative, which is not an empirical judgment, but something which depends on valuation. Well, at least in those situations where the consequences of possible actions are not directly comparable, which seems to be most situations.

Semantics aside value judgements are not inherently moralistic and given that social contexts typically lack empirical evidence anyway I'm pretty happy with my assessment. They prosecute a campaign of population control but sometimes do it barbarically and idiotically. I have lined out why I used the value judgement of idiotic in my response to DD if you want me to empirically compare first second and third world birthrate statistics pooled historically from regimes of educated and ill educated then contrast it against current peoples party practices you're welcome to send me 250$ dollars for my trouble.

I'm definately on Shuma's side here. No matter what problems they are having with their population they are definately going about it the wrong way. This is Stupid, Idiotic, and Ludicrous....

Though I suppose the good news is is that we don't have to worry about their competition as a super power in a couple years......

Wow, Shuma - you speak as if No Child is Left Behind in the US, that education is a great success here, and if only we could have China do the same...

Education is expensive, and those parents aren't banned from educating their children - they just won't have it provided by the state. It's a deliberately harsh penalty because nothing else has sufficient deterrent power.

Now, people complaining without understanding, nor having a better idea? That's idiotic *and* ignorant!

Ranting at someone who points out the pointlessness of your argument? Idiotic and barbaric.

Slarg232 wrote:I'm definately on Shuma's side here. No matter what problems they are having with their population they are definately going about it the wrong way. This is Stupid, Idiotic, and Ludicrous....

Though I suppose the good news is is that we don't have to worry about their competition as a super power in a couple years......

Actually I think you missed the highlighted part too. I pretty much only take issue with the methodology behind the forced sterilization's (threatening family and whatnot) and the wacky choice to exclude children from the system when they are born that way causing other related systemic issues.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Semantics aside value judgements are not inherently moralistic...

That's debatable, but for simplicity's sake its sufficient to say that valuation and morality are very closely associated in situations where directly comparable statistics are absent.

ShumaGorath wrote:
and given that social contexts typically lack empirical evidence anyway

I don't know. The fact that those stricken by poverty tend to have more children is certainly based on empirical evidence. The issue here is whether or not that trend can be altered through selective coercion. There are strong incentives to have children under third world conditions (particularly those which are dependent upon agrarian subsistence), if those incentives are removed, mitigated, or countered it stands to reason that the birth rate should fall.

ShumaGorath wrote:
...I'm pretty happy with my assessment.

I never said your assessment was flawed.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I'm definately on Shuma's side here. No matter what problems they are having with their population they are definately going about it the wrong way. This is Stupid, Idiotic, and Ludicrous....

Though I suppose the good news is is that we don't have to worry about their competition as a super power in a couple years......

Actually I think you missed the highlighted part too. I pretty much only take issue with the methodology behind the forced sterilization's (threatening family and whatnot) and the wacky choice to exclude children from the system when they are born that way causing other related systemic issues.

Maybe, Idk. I can't say I agree with forcing something like this on people, either, and the super power comment was directed at the lack of schooling for the kids born when they aren't supposed to be.




But then what more could anyone expect from China? Damned Commies.....

That's debatable, but for simplicity's sake its sufficient to say that valuation and morality are very closely associated in situations where directly comparable statistics are absent.

Certainly, and apples and oranges are both fruit. You can debate any sentiment to a standstill if you just pull at the granularity of the language used.

I don't know. The fact that those stricken by poverty tend to have more children is certainly based on empirical evidence. The issue here is whether or not that trend can be altered through selective coercion. There are strong incentives to have children under third world conditions (particularly those which are dependent upon agrarian subsistence), if those incentives are removed, mitigated, or countered it stands to reason that the birth rate should fall.

As a counterpoint there are strong incentives to avoid children in first world nations, especially at the poverty threshold yet the same trends still bare out. Wait.. Did you just disagree with me than explain my point as your point? I'm confus.

I never said your assessment was flawed.

My head asplode.

Different country , different society , different social values.

What works in A might not work in B.

In China you can't legally move to the city for a better job without an internal passport.

As I Chinese,I have the right to defend my country

If you just talk about it,its fine,but if you are insulting or making fun of China,we have problems!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:
But then what more could anyone expect from China? Damned Commies.....

You keep your mouth clean

So, China said:
STOP HAVING SEX, DAMNIT!!!!
And now they are going to stab at sex organs until they don't work?

Tony the guardsman wrote:As I Chinese,I have the right to defend my country

If you just talk about it,its fine,but if you are insulting or making fun of China,we have problems!

China was not called a name. An opinion was expressed that some of their policies, or means of enacting those policies, are barbaric and idiotic. This certainly worth debating, but not necessarily untrue. Locking grandparents in a crowded, unheated building because their children have had too many kids or because the government suspects that they plan to does not exactly seem just or good. And as Shuma pointed out, if one of their means of discouraging extra kids is to exclude those kids from school, this may be counterproductive to their own ends (ie: possibly idiotic, if the consequences are dire enough).

That said, denigrating whole countries is definitely inappropriate, and people should be careful not to do so.

Thanks mod


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like I said,debate is fine,just dun go too far

Tony the guardsman wrote:As I Chinese,I have the right to defend my country

If you just talk about it,its fine,but if you are insulting or making fun of China,we have problems!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:
But then what more could anyone expect from China? Damned Commies.....

You keep your mouth clean

I meant it as a joke, and since you jumped to the defensive right off the bat, not exactly feeling like apologizing for it. It is no different than the fact that the entire world thinks that the U.S. is a bunch of spoiled brats who expect everything to be handed to them.

Mannahnin, Wilco

Joke?okay then,and since you've cleared out your purpose,nvm then

I usually stay goofy everywhere,but I do have bottom lines

ShumaGorath wrote:
As a counterpoint there are strong incentives to avoid children in first world nations, especially at the poverty threshold yet the same trends still bare out.

But first world nations have far lower fertility rates in aggregate. And, given that much of China lives in third world conditions, the fact that their birth rate is lower than that of the US speaks at least partially to the effectiveness of their birth control measures.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Wait.. Did you just disagree with me than explain my point as your point? I'm confus.

No, I disagreed with you and then wondered if selective coercion (as opposed to market forces) can serve to alter the natural birth rate amongst the impoverished. I'm not convinced that it can, at least not in total, as the incentives to produce children in a 3rd world economy are not necessarily trumped by access to education and the ability to own land. Unregistered children can still learn the family trade while registered children go to school. Of course, that's where monetary assistance comes into play.

Ive been saying we should sterilise people forcibly for years!

Once again the Chinese astound me with their "can do" attitude!

Just out of curiosity for the people against this new discipline.

What do you suppose China should do instead for people that breaks such laws?

LunaHound wrote:
Just out of curiosity for the people against this new discipline.

What do you suppose China should do instead for people that breaks such laws?

If they want to force sterilisation onto people then they should at least do it temporairly via the jab. Permanent sterilisation is going a bit far IMO.

You keep your mouth clean

I LOVE this. I'm going to start saying it to people.

Back on topic, I find it interesting that the dakkites of east asian descent are leaping to the defence of a country which has seemingly had enforced sterilisations/abortions, amongst other atrocities. Tribalism continues to fascinate me. I wonder how many of you would accept such a system in your country of residence?

It would be interesting to test the devotion of the Chinese population to their political system by making the top 10,000 Communist Party officials live in a flooded quarry which is now an illegal toxic waste dump until the peasants give up their daughters to be forcibly sterilised.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

They and their relatives who apply for permits to build a house are rejected. They are also being denied a local cash bonus. Illegal children are denied residency registration, a penalty that means they are excluded from a place in school.

Given chinas immense population issues I understand on a logical level the concept of enforced curbs on childbirth. Their methodology though is barbaric and idiotic in many cases.

More ignorant words were seldom spoken.

China has huge population issues, and is forced to confront them out of necessity. Population drives land and energy, with tremendous cost. As a third world country, an unlimited population is a luxury that they cannot afford.

China uses carrot (cash) and stick (NO free education, NO housing permits). If you have money, you can pay your own way. If not, you follow the rules. Same as in any other country. This isn't rocket science, folks.

One imagines that China would love to be rich enough to afford an unlimited population. Perhaps you'll cede land (and China needs a *lot* of land) and then subsidize their energy needs to support such a population?

You stand in defence of the indefensible.

I dunno. Cut the UK incomes by a factor of 10, and you tell me how defensible it might be.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I dunno. Cut the UK incomes by a factor of 10, and you tell me how defensible it might be.

So you are saying that what is right with money is wrong without and vice-versa, a sort of flexible morality that is income based? Relativism with a price tag?

I think that with aluminium estermated to run out in 50 years and oils shortly after, it is perfectably resonable to take dire mesures to protect the interests of both future generations of not only China but also the world. Esspecially as they are one if not the biggest country in terms of population in the world.

wizard12 wrote:I think that with aluminium estermated to run out in 50 years and oils shortly after, it is perfectably resonable to take dire mesures to protect the interests of both future generations of not only China but also the world. Esspecially as they are one if not the biggest country in terms of population in the world.

I don't believe anyone was arguing that overpopulation was not something that needed to be addressed in China, but that forced imprisonment of possible offenders, forced sterilization of possible offenders, and creating a large mass of uneducated and poor may not be the best solution.

wizard12 wrote:I think that with aluminium estermated to run out in 50 years and oils shortly after, it is perfectably resonable to take dire mesures to protect the interests of both future generations of not only China but also the world. Esspecially as they are one if not the biggest country in terms of population in the world.

Aluminium is what a large amount of the earths crust is made out of... that wont be running out any time soon.

Wars are always good for getting rid of people. Plus you may grab yourself some resources into the bargain.

Though as KK says, it certainly seems to be a "do what I say and not what I do" policy. It would be great if China could bring every up to the same level of wellbeing as everyone else, rather than keeping large numbers of people in poverty and ignorance.

But I guess their system is not set up for that. It would be a very brave government which even attempted to tackle bringing about 1.3bn people into line with the developed world, and it would take a long time.

In terms of sterilizing people, feel free to do it to the criminals (in a traditional sense - robbers, murderers etc) in a permanent fashion, but as others have mentioned, ordinary people should be given temporary versions. After all, you never know when you will need to repopulate the world after a zombie outbreak...

I can kind of see what they are doing in punishing those who are related to those who try to break the population rules in order to get the "guilty" to come forwards. For all the children who will not be educated by the state, we have plenty of school children here who seem to be more than happy not to go to school, so perhaps we should conduct a trade?

Kind of off topic (but this my thread and it's the off topic forum, so it's allowed) but I do wonder about the return of some kind of National Service.

Unemployed 16-20 year olds not in education would be obliged to go through compulsory military training. Once training is completed, they have the option of joining the army, whilst any that don't will at least have picked up some useful life skills and might not be so unemployable.

Strict gender separation as well, that should cut down on a few pregnancies.

I always find it appalling how many people advocate sterilisation in countries like the UK. I mean, I find it really disgusting and offensive. China is a different kettle of fish, I'll admit I'm too ignorant to comment usefully (though I feel that what is going on is wrong from my perspective of limited knowledge.)

But seriously? Taking away people's reproductive rights in countries like the UK...I mean are you serious? Would you REALLY trust the government with something as fundemental as that? I thought ye were all anti-nanny state? Have you THOUGHT about what you're saying? And who gets to decide who gets to have kids? Arrrgh.

Da Boss wrote:I always find it appalling how many people advocate sterilisation in countries like the UK. I mean, I find it really disgusting and offensive. China is a different kettle of fish, I'll admit I'm too ignorant to comment usefully (though I feel that what is going on is wrong from my perspective of limited knowledge.)

But seriously? Taking away people's reproductive rights in countries like the UK...I mean are you serious? Would you REALLY trust the government with something as fundemental as that? I thought ye were all anti-nanny state? Have you THOUGHT about what you're saying? And who gets to decide who gets to have kids? Arrrgh.

It also speaks to a lack of knowledge concerning economic stability and the adequacy of social systems. The UK like much of europe is in a bit of a demographic crisis and attempting any level of population control within its own population would be idiotic in the long run.

I know, yeah. I didn't bother mentioning it, but believe me, the problems western europe faces in terms of it's aging population are not lost on me.
Absolutely mindboggling.

Da Boss wrote:But seriously? Taking away people's reproductive rights in countries like the UK...I mean are you serious? Would you REALLY trust the government with something as fundemental as that? I thought ye were all anti-nanny state? Have you THOUGHT about what you're saying? And who gets to decide who gets to have kids? Arrrgh.

Certainly it should never be forcefully done in the UK, but the option should be available to the people concerned (which it is anyway). The issue in my eyes is how to stop girls aged 10-16 getting pregnant because they know the government will hand them a free existence (albeit a rubbish one) for the rest of their lives. You know we pay out more in benefits than we pay in income tax right?

My controversial view as expressed earlier, is rather than offering girls incentives to get pregnant, it should be made clear there are preventatives available and anybody who rejects them and subsequently gets pregnant will not receive a free council flat and benefits. Or if they do, it would be for a maximum of two years in order to sort their lives out.

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Because educated and well off people don't have enough children to keep a country from having declining populations and age demographic issues.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Because educated and well off people don't have enough children to keep a country from having declining populations and age demographic issues.

Not being educated and well off doesn't mean you can't work, which really is my point. To be honest, I'm not desperately well off at the moment and I have a baby is due in six weeks, but it is not my intention to survive off government hand outs. Yes, we all get unlucky from time to time (especially at the moment) and that's when a helping hand from society is justified,

You will have to do some pretty impressive sums to convince me that a person whose net contribution to society is zero or less than zero is any kind of benefit for a country.

Flashman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Because educated and well off people don't have enough children to keep a country from having declining populations and age demographic issues.

Not being educated and well off doesn't mean you can't work, which really is my point. To be honest, I'm not desperately well off at the moment and I have a baby is due in six weeks, but it is not my intention to survive off government hand outs. Yes, we all get unlucky from time to time (especially at the moment) and that's when a helping hand from society is justified,

You will have to do some pretty impressive sums to convince me that a person whose net contribution to society is zero or less than zero is any kind of benefit for a country.

Well then start killing people when they retire too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Flashman wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Do I think we should dictate who has the right to have kids? To some degree, yes. If you can't afford to raise a child, then why on earth should the rest of us pay for you to have the priviledge of doing so?

Because educated and well off people don't have enough children to keep a country from having declining populations and age demographic issues.

Not being educated and well off doesn't mean you can't work, which really is my point. To be honest, I'm not desperately well off at the moment and I have a baby is due in six weeks, but it is not my intention to survive off government hand outs. Yes, we all get unlucky from time to time (especially at the moment) and that's when a helping hand from society is justified,

You will have to do some pretty impressive sums to convince me that a person whose net contribution to society is zero or less than zero is any kind of benefit for a country.

Well then start killing people when they retire too.

Hmm... depends on how long they intend on living. Seriously, I'm not massively into internet arguments. So at this point, I'll acknowlege your point of view and bow out.

So wait, does this mean that Communism isn't fuelled by babies?


So this is all a lie?

SilverMK2 wrote:It would be great if China could bring every up to the same level of wellbeing as everyone else, rather than keeping large numbers of people in poverty and ignorance.

But I guess their system is not set up for that. It would be a very brave government which even attempted to tackle bringing about 1.3bn people into line with the developed world, and it would take a long time.

You mean like India? Compare literacy rates between China and India, or even GDP (PPP), and it's pretty clear that China has been advancing human development pretty strongly. If you look back to the 1980s, China has done more to eliminate global poverty than any other country in the world. Not bad for 30-odd years worth of progress, considering that China pre-1980 was roughly equivalent to pre-1850s agrarian America and is now roughly comparable to 1940s America...

JohnHwangDD wrote:But I guess their system is not set up for that. It would be a very brave government which even attempted to tackle bringing about 1.3bn people into line with the developed world, and it would take a long time.

You mean like India? Compare literacy rates between China and India, or even GDP (PPP), and it's pretty clear that China has been advancing human development pretty strongly. If you look back to the 1980s, China has done more to eliminate global poverty than any other country in the world. Not bad for 30-odd years worth of progress, considering that China pre-1980 was roughly equivalent to pre-1850s agrarian America and is now roughly comparable to 1940s America...

Da Boss wrote:I always find it appalling how many people advocate sterilisation in countries like the UK. I mean, I find it really disgusting and offensive. China is a different kettle of fish, I'll admit I'm too ignorant to comment usefully (though I feel that what is going on is wrong from my perspective of limited knowledge.)

But seriously? Taking away people's reproductive rights in countries like the UK...I mean are you serious? Would you REALLY trust the government with something as fundemental as that? I thought ye were all anti-nanny state? Have you THOUGHT about what you're saying? And who gets to decide who gets to have kids? Arrrgh.

What makes you say people have the "right" to reproduce? How about regarding reproduction as a privilege that you earn by demonstrating the ability to support and raise each of the children you want to have?

That is one view however it isn't the one advanced by the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Flashman wrote:What I consider to be a fair solution would be to offer teenagers from certain sections of the populace the injection (makes you sterile for a year or so). If they turn it down and subsequently get pregnant, no benefits & definitely no free house either.

Which is completely and totally awesome for the child that had no say in the matter, but is no to be raised in abject poverty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:Its not exactly unique to china, India did a very similar thing in 70's.

The US used forceful sterilisations up until the 1970s.

Its impact falls overwhelming onto the poor and onto ethnic minorities. Anyone who's read anything substantial about it's application anywhere cannot support it. It is nasty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I don't believe that was being disputed. I do believe it was being judged on moral grounds. That doesn't make the argument ignorant, though it might render it naive.

Somewhat, though I will point out there is a general tendency to assume a high minded method is naive, while a harsh method is pragmatic. I find the idea of forced sterilisation to be so problematic in its application that it's supporters must be utterly naive about how it actually works in practice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:What do you suppose China should do instead for people that breaks such laws?

The shouldn't have such laws. Their application is shockingly selective and unjust.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wizard12 wrote:I think that with aluminium estermated to run out in 50 years and oils shortly after, it is perfectably resonable to take dire mesures to protect the interests of both future generations of not only China but also the world. Esspecially as they are one if not the biggest country in terms of population in the world.

I think with around 90% of resource useage coming from the richest 10% of the population, pretending resource consumption is an issue of population and not sustainable living by the West is grossly disingenuous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:You mean like India? Compare literacy rates between China and India, or even GDP (PPP), and it's pretty clear that China has been advancing human development pretty strongly. If you look back to the 1980s, China has done more to eliminate global poverty than any other country in the world. Not bad for 30-odd years worth of progress, considering that China pre-1980 was roughly equivalent to pre-1850s agrarian America and is now roughly comparable to 1940s America...

Economic progress was a crap excuse for human rights abuses when the USSR used it, and it's a crap excuse when China tries the same.

SilverMK2 wrote:China has, as you say, made great strides towards bringing itself into modern times, and some of the vast sums of money its economy generates manages to find its way into the hands of the "people". A lot of it goes on public works (roads, phones, power, etc), and I will not deny that they are making progress.

However, my comment was made regarding the system they have now - the poor remain poor while industry and State Owned Enterprises appear to get all the major investment.

Their model is built on continued growth, which cannot realistically be sustained for too much longer.

They need to create something like 10 million jobs a year in order to employ all those entering the work force each year.
This is part of why, I believe, China is so worried about its population. It knows that in order to progress and modernise, its population must fall (or at least remain roughly the same).

I'm not going to debate this too much, as I don't know a great deal about the matter. If you can show that my thoughts are wrong, I will happily concede and go about my way enlightened.

I'm not going to say you're wrong per se, because there's a lot going on in the Chinese economy. Hell, the US economy is far more transparent, with (supposedly) the best minds money can buy, and nobody seems to have clue 1 about how to "fix" it. I do believe that you have some points, and there are a lot of obvious things that the Chinese leadership are trying to be proactive about. Population, pollution, green, energy independence, land use, etc. all come to mind. The thing is, with 1.3B people, China is like an ocean liner: a *LOT* of inertia and a lot of warm bodies to take care of - changing course is tough work.

China is making progress, mostly because their government is getting out of the way and letting those millions upon millions of smart Chinese do those things that they think best, based on providing infrastructure to allow progress.

When you say "poor remain poor, and SEO's get all the money", isn't that similar to how the US has huge income disparity, and is being further socialized? Anyhow, the "poor" are getting better lives and have real hope going forward - if they weren't, things would turn upside-down in a hurry. However, SEOs reflect a view of the old Soviet-style command economy, something that is probably a small portion of the overall economy.

Actually, when you consider that China is catching up on 100 to 200+ years of economic development, and is only 30-odd years in, it's plausible that they can keep it going for another 20-50 years.

I think 10M jobs is low - they have a lot of people to employ...

Anyhow, all good.

Unemployed 16-20 year olds not in education would be obliged to go through compulsory military training. Once training is completed, they have the option of joining the army, whilst any that don't will at least have picked up some useful life skills and might not be so unemployable.

You speak of bringing back national service? love the idea, i really do.
Would cut down alot of crap that happens here too.


OT: Why do people judge china?
None of us are fit to decide how to handle a crisis such as over-population, so i dont see why people give it a crack.
To be honest, it may seem extreme to some, but what other options are there? due to the growing population it will end up leaving the country in tatters, creating poverty throughout.

The UK is well on its way there now too, but ill leave that topic for now



Also flash: The service idea is great, bring back the DP for harsh crimes again?
Just little things like this really do bring down the population and help keep control of crime.

Jack wrote:

OT: Why do people judge china?

We are humans, same as the people who made the decision. Look, if you lack the wherewithal to be able to come to a conclusion or want to mired in relativism, that is fine. Just don't project those inadequacies on the rest of us.

Ahtman wrote:

Jack wrote:

OT: Why do people judge china?

We are humans, same as the people who made the decision. Look, if you lack the wherewithal to be able to come to a conclusion or want to mired in relativism, that is fine. Just don't project those inadequacies on the rest of us.

Don't pull relativism into this. Relativism is relatively great compared to moralism or other philosophies that pretend to be better.

Why was the one child policy implemented in the first place?

LunaHound wrote:Why was the one child policy implemented in the first place?

Just a link to a wiki on the subject

Although I have just realised you could be asking a rhetorical question

sebster wrote:
Somewhat, though I will point out there is a general tendency to assume a high minded method is naive, while a harsh method is pragmatic. I find the idea of forced sterilisation to be so problematic in its application that it's supporters must be utterly naive about how it actually works in practice.

Your comment about naivete is certainly true. Though there is something to said for cultural variance when it comes to determining what a given society can tolerate in the course of its development. Forced sterilization would certainly never work in a Western society. But in a nation with state-controlled media, a broadly trusted government, and an incredible rate of economic growth the extent to which brutality will be overlooked would seem to increase. At least in the short run.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Don't pull relativism into this. Relativism is relatively great compared to moralism or other philosophies that pretend to be better.

Relativism mirrors absolutism in that, when applied to strongly, it tends to have significant negative repercussions; though they're generally paralytic rather than driving. For example, when your relativistic beliefs lead you to question the right of people to make judgments, you've gone too far.

Relativism mirrors absolutism in that, when applied to strongly, it tends to have significant negative repercussions; though they're generally paralytic rather than driving. For example, when your relativistic beliefs lead you to question the right of people to make judgments, you've gone too far.

Yeah, but a relativist with an absolute belief in relativism is a bad relative. He's not being very relative about his belief in relativism which relatively should be relatively held relatively in relation to other philosophies that are viewed with a fairly relative relative relativity.

Well i figured , Chinese government isnt exactly naive.
They would have a very good reason to implement such a harsh law. Especially some thing that effects every single family...
Which of course can very easily have the populace lose trust and support to the government, which is all the government have atm.
Because im pretty sure the world now wouldnt let another Tienament Square incident happen again.

So i guess the immediate question is , China is already pretty over populated atm , more people then the country can find work for.
Without the policy , what is China going to do with the extra 300 million people?

To us westerners , yes such act is indeed barbaric and it takes away our basic human rights.
But like i said back in page 1 , different country different society. How does the people in China feel?

Remember most of China is still communist , the country cannot sustain to distribute "wealth" to 300 million extra in the population.

I dont know how many Mexicans are taking jobs away from Americans , but it seems to be enough of a concern to some.
Im just guessing , but it might not be as high as 300 million.

So i guess the ultimate question is from the chinese governments point of view:

a) Choose 1 child policy , have some complaints from the nation

b) No such policy , population explosion , country cannot sustain its people anymore
result? if i have to guess , it'll be atleast worse than choice A.

Again , im not saying its the best choice , nor do i claim it to be not abusing human rights.
But i'll ask again , what better ideas do you guys have?

You have to remember , China is still very much a 3rd world country in its rural areas.
natural disasters happen very often in asia , a very large amount of crops are destroyed every year.
Where to get the extra commodity or perhaps the most basic shelter for 300 million extra?

Well i figured , Chinese government isnt exactly naive.
They would have a very good reason to implement such a harsh law. Especially some thing that effects every single family...
Which of course can very easily have the populace lose trust and support to the government, which is all the government have atm.
Because im pretty sure the world now wouldnt let another Tienament Square incident happen again.

I don't see why the world wouldn't. It would be condemned surely, but it's not like anyone would do anything about it.

So i guess the immediate question is , China is already pretty over populated atm , more people then the country can find work for.
Without the policy , what is China going to do with the extra 300 million people?

What extra 300 million people? Over what time period? That would be an incredibly significant growth (about a 25% population increase in a single generation) and it's not very realistic. As for finding work, population density doesn't have much to do with that and china has been gaining jobs significantly faster than any uncontrolled population growth would have it growing people.

So i guess the ultimate question is from the chinese governments point of view:

a) Choose 1 child policy , have some complaints from the nation

b) No such policy , population explosion , country cannot sustain its people anymore
result? if i have to guess , it'll be atleast worse than choice A.

Thats not really how population statistics and population growth works. Without the policy (which hasn't been very effective) their population would be higher, but it's unlikely they would see a population "boom".

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=chinese+population+growth#met=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:CHN:IND

Compare china and india for instance with relative population rise and fall and you see very similar trends.

So basically what you are saying is , you feel China can still sustain its population?

and will still be able to if 1 child policy isnt implemented?

LunaHound wrote:So basically what you are saying is , you feel China can still sustain its population?

and will still be able to if 1 child policy isnt implemented?

If you look at the graph i posted and you take the entire difference between chinese and indian population growth to be the one child per household laws than you've basically got a 1% difference in year over year growth attributable to the policy. 1.5% growth in india vs .5% growth in china. China can certainly sustain it's population. It's sustaining it. thats not even a relevant or sensical question, now if you want to know where the breaking point is I don't really know. That depends on chinas continued ability to modernize, but a 1% difference isn't particularly significant on the short term. By comparison the UK has the same level of population growth and population density as china and is doing perfectly fine and japan has a lower population growth and higher density and is in an extreme demographic crisis relating to a lack of new citizens.

It's all fairly relative, china needed less people when it was a nation of starving communists, now it's becoming an industrial powerhouse and is rapidly modernizing into a business center. Suddenly it can handle a standard rate of population growth just like the rest of the world. I don't personally think that the policies benefits outweigh its negatives, the demographic issues of raising a generation of males (as the laws are doing since males are the ones that carry on family names) and the social issues inherent in administering such laws are worth a 1% difference in population growth.

Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

LunaHound wrote:Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

Meh. Northern africa and indonesia are cheaper. Why would you even bother responding if all you're going to do is say that we would prefer slave labor? Did you just have nothing useful to say?

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

Meh. Northern africa and indonesia are cheaper. Why would you even bother responding if all you're going to do is say that we would prefer slave labor? Did you just have nothing useful to say?

No , because:

1) With the condition they are in , its pretty much true its slave labor.

2) Its related because China is communist country , everyone needs a job.
Extra population = extra mouth to feed + need extra jobs .

This is why i bother responding. How rude of you shuma

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

Meh. Northern africa and indonesia are cheaper. Why would you even bother responding if all you're going to do is say that we would prefer slave labor? Did you just have nothing useful to say?

No , because:

1) With the condition they are in , its pretty much true its slave labor.

2) Its related because China is communist country , everyone needs a job.
Extra population = extra mouth to feed + need extra jobs .

This is why i bother responding. How rude of you shuma

So you post something pointlessly contextless and inflammatory then support it with something contextless and inflammatory when called out on it. Firstly, communist doesn't mean everyone needs a job, it means the means of production are controlled by the people via the government. It has nothing to do with employment rates. Also thank you for the first grade explanation of population growth + peoples faces = needing food. It didn't actually elucidate anything everyone didn't already know, but it's nice you would think you need to explain that.

You responded because you dislike china. You have stated so in the past, and given you're from taiwan I certainly don't blame you. But that's not really a reason to talk about slave labor (chinese factory production has laws prohibiting the things you hear about on tv, the fact that they are bad at enforcing those laws doesn't mean that they don't exist). You asked about the chinese policymaking and what people thought of it, and I responded. You then replied with a blurb about chinese slaves being loved by the west.

Don't try and defend that.

ShumaGorath wrote:
So you post something pointlessly contextless and inflammatory then support it with something contextless and inflammatory when called out on it. Firstly, communist doesn't mean everyone needs a job, it means the means of production are controlled by the people via the government. It has nothing to do with employment rates. Also thank you for the first grade explanation of population growth + peoples faces = needing food. It didn't actually elucidate anything everyone didn't already know, but it's nice you would think you need to explain that.

You responded because you dislike china. You have stated so in the past, and given you're from taiwan I certainly don't blame you. But that's not really a reason to talk about slave labor (chinese factory production has laws prohibiting the things you hear about on tv, the fact that they are bad at enforcing those laws doesn't mean that they don't exist). You asked about the chinese policymaking and what people thought of it, and I responded. You then replied with a blurb about chinese slaves being loved by the west.

Don't try and defend that.

Nice try to start something shuma ,

1) Inflammatory? you are beyond naive if you dont know the condition of their work place. Recently there is a chinese supervisor beat to death because he wasnt allowing the workers to take longer breaks.

2) In our ideal world not everyone need a job (lol welfare) But in china its different. Everyone have to feel its fair or equal or else it wouldnt work.
Here you can read some slogan used by the population so you can easily understand their social mentality ( which is way different then your american ones obviously )
http://www.sacu.org/slogans.html

3) I dislike chinese government for the abusive things they do. Whats the big surprise shuma? Are you going to say im racist or something?
Yes im Taiwanese so what? that doesnt change the facts of the bad things Chinese government do.

4) Chinese have laws prohibiting such things? O-M-G , but hey , i guess the propaganda and media the government do does work wonders.
Yes... tell the truth about how horrible the workers are treated , lose work when other country's companies refuse to let such horrible condition go on...
Yes that would be so smart of the government.

Sorry , but i know you find the thread to be lacking something so i guess you expected me to spice it up ,
not falling for it this time.

1) Inflammatory? you are beyond naive if you dont know the condition of their work place. Recently there is a chinese supervisor beat to death because he wasnt allowing the workers to take longer breaks.

Amazing, we have stabbings over work matters in america all the time. Until you at some point do something other than provide anecdotal evidence you're just going to look silly. There are factories with terrible conditions in china, that's obvious. Those factories also violate laws when that happens. A child could see that it's not so black and white. I've had this conversation with you before though, and you don't use evidence or logic to back up assertions relating to places I don't think you've ever been too so I'm just going to stop arguing it after this post.

2) In our ideal world not everyone need a job (lol welfare) But in china its different. Everyone have to feel its fair or equal or else it wouldnt work.
Here you can read some slogan used by the population so you can easily understand their social mentality ( which is way different then your american ones obviously )

Amusingly enough anti communist and pro democracy beliefs are most prevalent in the universities and poor subsistence regions of china. People in china understand it's not fair, anyone incapable of getting a regional visa to move away from the poorer regions understands that.

3) I dislike chinese government for the abusive things they do. Whats the big surprise shuma? Are you going to say im racist or something?

You responded because you dislike china. You have stated so in the past, and given you're from taiwan I certainly don't blame you.

I'll bold things more often so that you don't miss them in the future.

Yes im Taiwanese so what? that doesnt change the facts of the bad things Chinese government do.

And yet you don't rush into the threads about russia or north africa with the same zeal.

Can we get back to the topic at hand now? Or were you just planning to tear into chinese factory troubles when you were asking about peoples ideal alternatives to the one child per household laws?

Amazing, we have stabbings over work matters in america all the time. Until you at some point do something other than provide anecdotal evidence you're just going to look silly. There are factories with terrible conditions in china, that's obvious. Those factories also violate laws when that happens. A child could see that it's not so black and white. I've had this conversation with you before though, and you don't use evidence or logic to back up assertions relating to places I don't think you've ever been too so I'm just going to stop arguing it after this post.

Whats silly is you. Expecting to know much about china from watching Fox News. Try talking to someone from china for once and have them explain to you with their experience first hand.
What governments publicize on the news the rest of the world watches everyday is not the truth of whats going on inside.

Amusingly enough anti communist and pro democracy beliefs are most prevalent in the universities and poor subsistence regions of china. People in china understand it's not fair, anyone incapable of getting a regional visa to move away from the poorer regions understands that.

And most of them will never be able to afford it.

You responded because you dislike china. You have stated so in the past, and given you're from taiwan I certainly don't blame you.

I'll bold things more often so that you don't miss them in the future.

Wrong , I came in this thread actually defending the Chinese government incase you havnt bothered reading from the beginning.
I came in this thread telling why i think the government chose such path , for the greater good of sustaining the population.

And yet you don't rush into the threads about russia or north africa with the same zeal.

I dont know anything about russia or africa , so nope cant rush it or have zeal.

Can we get back to the topic at hand now? Or were you just planning to tear into chinese factory troubles when you were asking about peoples ideal alternatives to the one child per household laws?

The slave labor i original wrote was to show the over abundance of the chinese work force and in horrible condition. Hence the 1 child policy.
You took it as im trying to insult china. ( doubtful )
because its pretty obvious im saying china doesnt need anymore extra population to take up job spots. Hence , on topic.
But of course you already know that didnt you?

Shuma doesn't watch Fox News. He watches MSNBC. Being liberal minded and all he watches liberal controlled television.

You know, the networks that doctor videos as badly as Fox News does (see the thread on the Apache/innocent news reporter video).

He's just trying to get a rise out of you Luna, don't take the bait.

Whats silly is you. Expecting to know much about china from watching Fox News. Try talking to someone from china for once and have them explain to you with their experience first hand.

Sure, I'll do it tomorrow. I already did yesterday. I suppose I'll probably be doing it all week actually, I go to school with a good number of chinese exchange kids and one of my friends from highschool is a chinese major that teaches english over there. As for the fox news quip, I'm pretty sure the slave labor parts are all fox every shows about china. Maybe you should stop watching it.

Wrong , I came in this thread actually defending the Chinese government incase you havnt bothered reading from the beginning.
I came in this thread telling why i think the government chose such path , for the greater good of sustaining the population.

Yes, but thats not why you responded to me. Your response about slave labor and western exploitation are what I was referring too. Please try and avoid making up issues to take with my posts.

And most of them will never be able to afford it.

Good to know you agreed with me and have changed your opinion on the issue.

I dont know anything about russia or africa , so nope cant rush it or have zeal.

You don't seem to know much about china either.

The slave labor i original wrote was to show the over abundance of the chinese work force and in horrible condition.
You took it as im trying to insult china. ( doubtful )
because its pretty obvious im saying china doesnt need anymore extra population to take up job spots.

Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

No. No thats what you are saying now. You certainly didn't elucidate that point before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shuma doesn't watch Fox News. He watches MSNBC. Being liberal minded and all he watches liberal controlled television.

Actually in every thread that has ever arisen about cable news i've mentioned that I don't watch cable news. Try and remember the conversations we've had before. Memory is as important as a mouth.

You know, the networks that doctor videos as badly as Fox News does (see the thread on the Apache/innocent news reporter video).

That video was doctored by whoever put it up on wikileaks and then was further doctored by a liberal website unrelated to the news networks. You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You never know what you're talking about. Stop posting. Forever.

He's just trying to get a rise out of you Luna, don't take the bait.

Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

If I want to get a rise out of her I'll talk about how great forge world is or something. What I want to do is educate her a little bit so she doesn't always post inflammatory and emotional rants about chinese slave factories and communism.

Sure, I'll do it tomorrow. I already did yesterday. I suppose I'll probably be doing it all week actually, I go to school with a good number of chinese exchange kids and one of my friends from highschool is a chinese major that teaches english over there.

That is a very naive thing to base things on. To be able to be in the exchange program , their families are already better off then the rest of the rural populace.
Of course the condition they experience are not the same.

Yes, but thats not why you responded to me. Your response about slave labor and western exploitation are what I was referring too. Please try and avoid making up issues to take with my posts.

You read what you want to read. Its not western company's fault of their condition everyone naturally wants more for less. Its the chinese factories own schedule's fault. naturally forcing more work , for less rest.

You don't seem to know much about china either.

How rude , what i know is way more accurate with what you know.
Our company deals with chinese factory very often.

No. No thats what you are saying now. You certainly didn't elucidate that point before.

Thats what i have been saying all along , again with your intelligence i can only assume you are taking it the wrong way on purpose.

Are we done with the petty accusations?

Got to admit, Luna fights back harder than I do. Think I quit after a mere two exchanges between us yesterday Shuma.

Flashman wrote:Got to admit, Luna fights back harder than I do. Think I quit after a mere two exchanges between us yesterday Shuma.

Strength arises from ignorance.

So then Shuma, how does it feel to hold the world on your shoulders like Atlas?

LOL.

Wait, I don't understand what you guys are arguing over. Can you restate the controversy?

That is a very naive thing to base things on. To be able to be in the exchange program , their families are already better off then the rest of the rural populace.
Of course the condition they experience are not the same.

Well the highschool friend spent a year living in rural sichuan province but hey clearly your experience living in america gives you a better view of the situation than mine. You probably have a really nice telescope.

You read what you want to read.

No, I read your posts, which I really wish were based a little more on empirical evidence and fact than they are.

How rude , what i know is way more accurate with what you know.
Our company deals with chinese factory very often.

Neat. I worked with a dude at a local food mart for about a year who was an immigrant from yunnan. Good to know the telephone conversations you hear about second hand are better than the conversations I've had.

Thats what i have been saying all along , again with your intelligence i can only assume you are taking it the wrong way on purpose.

Are we done with the petty accusations?

God I hope so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:So then Shuma, how does it feel to hold the world on your shoulders like Atlas?

LOL.

Pretty good. I'm keeping it up so that people like you can survive. It's heavy but at the end of the day I've got a good feeling of accomplishment.

Well, with all your ignorance you should be able to curl the world and not need to use your shoulders or back.

I survive fine without your help. Would probably survive even better without help from people like you, tyvm.

Mysterious double post.

Hmm, half tempted to start up yesterdays argument again to see if Shuma can debate two points at once without getting confused

It wasn't really an argument you seemed to be pro childbirth registration or control while the uk has a slight demographic issue concerning an aging population. The UK is actually far better off than japan or germany which are going to have horrible issues with it in a generation or two. I just thought it was an odd stance held more from a view of the right of the poor to have kids and "absorb dollars" rather than a reasoned view of how populations grow and where a nations workforce comes from.

Double post. Oh good work Flash.

Back on topic, can I ask again what the argument between Luna and Shuma is about? I read and re-read their respective posts and can't figure out what the substantive point in controversy is.

ShumaGorath wrote:

That is a very naive thing to base things on. To be able to be in the exchange program , their families are already better off then the rest of the rural populace.
Of course the condition they experience are not the same.

Well the highschool friend spent a year living in rural sichuan province but hey clearly your experience living in america gives you a better view of the situation than mine. You probably have a really nice telescope.

You read what you want to read.

No, I read your posts, which I really wish were based a little more on empirical evidence and fact than they are.

How rude , what i know is way more accurate with what you know.
Our company deals with chinese factory very often.

Neat. I worked with a dude at a local food mart for about a year who was an immigrant from yunnan. Good to know the telephone conversations you hear about second hand are better than the conversations I've had.

Thats what i have been saying all along , again with your intelligence i can only assume you are taking it the wrong way on purpose.

Are we done with the petty accusations?

God I hope so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:So then Shuma, how does it feel to hold the world on your shoulders like Atlas?

LOL.

Pretty good. I'm keeping it up so that people like you can survive. It's heavy but at the end of the day I've got a good feeling of accomplishment.

TL;DR in other words you dismiss my facts and i dismiss your facts.
The only difference is you have to be rude about it.

Its beyond my comprehension how such behavior are tolerated.

Flash, he does not get confused.
He simply rambles on about most points he does not fully understand in a poor attempt to start an argument.

In most cases people sadly take the bait.


To be honest, i just love the block member section



And i have to agree with luna on 99% of her points.

Manchu wrote:Back on topic, can I ask again what the argument between Luna and Shuma is about? I read and re-read their respective posts and can't figure out what the substantive point in controversy is.

Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

Basically luna kept asking people what chinas alternatives to population control were. I posted my beliefs, she responded, and I responded with a graph and national comparison. Than she said the sentence that I quoted in response rather than referencing anything I had posted. I took this to mean that she had no actual reasonable responses to make and stated such. She defended the statement (somehow) and started implying that I don't know anything about china.

Thats the argument in a nutshell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Flash, he does not get confused.
He simply rambles on about most points he does not fully understand in a poor attempt to start an argument.

In most cases people sadly take the bait.


To be honest, i just love the block member section



And i have to agree with luna on 99% of her points.

I think what you meant to say was "He doesn't get confused. I get confused very easily. I agree with luna because she haets slave labor!"

Never had to move back in with family. Always shared a house with bro the past 2 years.

I think Shuma and Luna are arguing, actually more like bickering, about China's birth control policy.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

In most cases people sadly take the bait.

Im sorry >.< its not really that im so stupid and not know its a bait.
I guess its my sincerity to think that there might be a 1% chance he might actually cared.

But alas , whats been said is true.

"To argue for the sake of argument" ... i guess?

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:And i have to agree with luna on 99% of her points.

So we can judge China now? We have your permission?

LunaHound wrote:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

In most cases people sadly take the bait.

Im sorry >.< its not really that im so stupid and not know its a bait.
I guess its my sincerity to think that there might be a 1% chance he might actually cared.

I care a lot. The issue is that your consistently factually incorrect about most of your arguments.

Dogma, you can judge, but only if your fully aware of what you talk about.
Its all well and good going into a 1,000 word rant like shuma, but when little of it actually works (and is not there for the sake of an argument) then its pointless.

Edit: Since you edited your post dogma and added a lovely essence of dick about your post, no you cant



Luna, relax
By the looks of it he loves to bait people.
Oh there is a 1% of care there, but its 1% towards a new argument.

Sounds about right luna.

Like how certain people think Tea Partiers are all anti-government nut jobs when it's obvious to an educated and traveled person that that isn't the case?

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

In most cases people sadly take the bait.

Im sorry >.< its not really that im so stupid and not know its a bait.
I guess its my sincerity to think that there might be a 1% chance he might actually cared.

I care a lot. The issue is that your consistently factually incorrect about most of your arguments.

Which again , you assume im incorrect based on your experience.

And i'll say again , we both think each other is incorrect , the difference is , you have to be a "shuma" about it.

I face palmed irl when you brought up your confirmation of factory's work condition came from a chinese student that is obviously
well off enough to be in USA.

Luna, but he has the facts :O
And he uses as many fancy words as he can for some reason.
Maybe trying to make himself seem smart when talking from somewhere other than his mouth?

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Dogma, you can judge, but only if your fully aware of what you talk about.

Lol, I will freely admit to never being in possession of all of the facts when I enter a debate with someone (and indeed anybody who claims they are is fibbing... unless it's something ridiculously simple like the colour of polar bears).

This is half the fun of debate and also usually why I bow out so quickly, so I can go and check something on wikipedia.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:So basically what you are saying is , you feel China can still sustain its population? and will still be able to if 1 child policy isnt implemented?

If you look at the graph i posted and you take the entire difference between chinese and indian population growth to be the one child per household laws than you've basically got a 1% difference in year over year growth attributable to the policy. 1.5% growth in india vs .5% growth in china. China can certainly sustain it's population. It's sustaining it. thats not even a relevant or sensical question, now if you want to know where the breaking point is I don't really know. That depends on chinas continued ability to modernize, but a 1% difference isn't particularly significant on the short term. By comparison the UK has the same level of population growth and population density as china and is doing perfectly fine and japan has a lower population growth and higher density and is in an extreme demographic crisis relating to a lack of new citizens.

It's all fairly relative, china needed less people when it was a nation of starving communists, now it's becoming an industrial powerhouse and is rapidly modernizing into a business center. Suddenly it can handle a standard rate of population growth just like the rest of the world. I don't personally think that the policies benefits outweigh its negatives, the demographic issues of raising a generation of males (as the laws are doing since males are the ones that carry on family names) and the social issues inherent in administering such laws are worth a 1% difference in population growth.

LunaHound wrote:Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

Yeah, I don't see how these two statements have anything to do with each other. There's a lot of Shuma-flaming going on here but if this is where it started, I think you've got the wrong guy.

Fateweaver wrote:Like how certain people think Tea Partiers are all anti-government nut jobs when it's obvious to an educated and traveled person that that isn't the case?

I don't see anyone like that here besides myself sebster and dogma.

:edit:

Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason manchu.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Dogma, you can judge, but only if your fully aware of what you talk about.

No, you can judge regardless of awareness, at least where 'awareness' denotes something beyond base perception. Awareness merely helps to establish the value of those judgments, which is itself a question of judgment. And, considering the extent to which people mistake differences of valuation for a lack of awareness, is also a rather complicated issue.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
Its all well and good going into a 1,000 word rant like shuma, but when little of it actually works (and is not there for the sake of an argument) then its pointless.

Not withstanding the inductive leaps which are present on both sides of the conversation in question: the above is an example of mistaking a lack of awareness for difference in valuation.

You're not making a substantive objection. You're pointing at someone, and attempting to come up with a series of ways to say 'I don't agree'. Shuma isn't innocent of that, of course, but he also hasn't attempted to conflate moral certitude with a 3rd order judgment with respect to the possession of information.

Flash, its true people never enter into anything with 100% knowledge (im sure people will argue about polar bear colours on here )
But you still make sure you have a general knowledge of the subject.
You never throw yourself in blind.
And atleast you check things out.



Off topic - Saints thinking anymore about thier new stadium yet?

Manchu wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:So basically what you are saying is , you feel China can still sustain its population? and will still be able to if 1 child policy isnt implemented?

If you look at the graph i posted and you take the entire difference between chinese and indian population growth to be the one child per household laws than you've basically got a 1% difference in year over year growth attributable to the policy. 1.5% growth in india vs .5% growth in china. China can certainly sustain it's population. It's sustaining it. thats not even a relevant or sensical question, now if you want to know where the breaking point is I don't really know. That depends on chinas continued ability to modernize, but a 1% difference isn't particularly significant on the short term. By comparison the UK has the same level of population growth and population density as china and is doing perfectly fine and japan has a lower population growth and higher density and is in an extreme demographic crisis relating to a lack of new citizens.

It's all fairly relative, china needed less people when it was a nation of starving communists, now it's becoming an industrial powerhouse and is rapidly modernizing into a business center. Suddenly it can handle a standard rate of population growth just like the rest of the world. I don't personally think that the policies benefits outweigh its negatives, the demographic issues of raising a generation of males (as the laws are doing since males are the ones that carry on family names) and the social issues inherent in administering such laws are worth a 1% difference in population growth.

LunaHound wrote:Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

Yeah, I don't see how these two statements have anything to do with each other. There's a lot of Shuma-flaming going on here but if this is where it started, I think you've got the wrong guy.

If you look at the 2 post manchu , they are 100% to do with each other. Lets look at the sentence you quoted.

Let me explain further:

Red: This is a true fact. EVERY consumer enjoy low costs. Hence , foreign companies will always seek buisness with China.
Now , i think this is what sparked the problem. He assume im bad mouthing westerner to want slave labor.
Incorrect , ALL customers want are very simple , cheaper items. How the chinese labor are effected are all to do with the ethics
of how chinese company wish to pace the production.

Green: Its related to why i think China had the policy , to cut down the amount of work force they have to feed

Blue: Saturating company work force is related to above. We have to know one thing about chinese work ethics.
its NOT that because they lack people , that their working condition is so bad No. Its the workers are expected to produce as much as they can individually.

Not related manchu? i think they 100% are.

dogma wrote:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Dogma, you can judge, but only if your fully aware of what you talk about.

No, you can judge regardless of awareness, at least where 'awareness' denotes something beyond base perception. Awareness merely helps to establish the value of those judgments, which is itself a question of judgment. And, considering the extent to which people mistake differences of valuation for a lack of awareness, is also a rather complicated issue.

Ooh, you put that better than I did.

My response was friendlier though

I saw these statements as:

Shuma's statement: China can sustain its growing population because it is becoming wealthier.

LunaHound's response: Countries other than China want to benefit from Chinese slave labor.

Reading them in this sense, which I believe is reasonable to do (I'll accept dogma's critique on this, however), they have little to do with each other.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Like how certain people think Tea Partiers are all anti-government nut jobs when it's obvious to an educated and traveled person that that isn't the case?

I don't see anyone like that here besides myself sebster and dogma.

:edit:

Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason manchu.

Wow, gold star.

You caught me eluding to you 3.

Gold Star.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I don't see anyone like that here besides myself sebster and dogma.

I don't think they're all nuts. I think some of them are nuts, and that mob psychology has the capacity to amplify that kernel of lunacy into something which can dominate a demonstration. I also think that the movement, such as it is, lacks the focus and clarity of vision required to have sustainable effect on the political process. There are lot seemingly self-declared principles that amount to little more than the same old platitudes of old, and a few specific ideas which could be used to buy the vote without accomplishing anything of significance.

What really strikes me here is that people seem to believe that to be my stance, even when I've directly stated, several times, that its not what I believe. I think people often get caught up assuming that those who will question the reasoning, or information of another must be opposed to that person's general position. That is never necessarily the case.

Manchu wrote:I saw these statements as:

Shuma's statement: China can sustain its growing population because it is becoming wealthier.

LunaHound's response: Countries other than China want to benefit from Chinese slave labor.

Reading them in this sense, which I believe is reasonable to do (I'll accept dogma's critique on this, however), they have little to do with each other.

Manchu did you seriously read all the statement?
or just that 1 sentence -_-?

Wait, it was only one sentence.

Luna wrote:Not related manchu? i think they 100% are.

I don't.

Do you really think people here who are opposed to China's birth control policy (of which I am one), are taking that position because we simply can't get enough cheap, poorly made Chinese consumer goods? Do you seriously believe that would be the case?

If so, put the bong down.

Manchu, with a growing population work will be needed.
When the mainstay of available jobs are gone people will be forced to find an alternative way to make money.

People then see this as a meal ticket to "create" work for them, but with much lower pay and worse conditions.

Que and Enter other countries for cheap labour.





If you need another example of this (but no so extreme) look at Southamption (no dig at you flash)
At one point 10% of the city were polish as work had dried up in poland.
Countless people were then charged with slave labour due to the new over crowding caused in southamption and a need for jobs.

Jack, Shuma stated that China would be able to sustain its population without recourse to the one child policy. This has nothing to do with work conditions. You are connecting "sustainability" with work conditions, which was not what Luna and Shuma were talking about before Luna mentioned slave labor.

If you need another example of this (but no so extreme) look at Southamption (no dig at you flash)
At one point 10% of the city were polish as work had dried up in poland.
Countless people were then charged with slave labour due to the new over crowding caused in southamption and a need for jobs.

(citation needed)

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Manchu, with a growing population work will be needed.
When the mainstay of available jobs are gone people will be forced to find an alternative way to make money.

People then see this as a meal ticket to "create" work for them, but with much lower pay and worse conditions.

Que and Enter other countries for cheap labour.





If you need another example of this (but no so extreme) look at Southamption (no dig at you flash)
At one point 10% of the city were polish as work had dried up in poland.
Countless people were then charged with slave labour due to the new over crowding caused in southamption and a need for jobs.

Yes and they moved into neighbouring flats and played loud music until four in the morning. Bloody poles!

Just noticed you live in Fareham, Jack. Small world!

Albatross wrote:

Luna wrote:Not related manchu? i think they 100% are.

I don't.

Do you really think people here who are opposed to China's birth control policy (of which I am one), are taking that position because we simply can't get enough cheap, poorly made Chinese consumer goods? Do you seriously believe that would be the case?

If so, put the bong down.

Nope thats not what i meant at all. I think you and shuma are misunderstanding it due to some sensitivity about the issue.
But if you will read on.

Wanting cheaper items does 2 things.
It creates opportunity , and it creates work force , and with China been a strong one , its a very common choice of country to pick from.

I emphasize slave labor for 2 reasons.

reason 1 as written not long ago. They are in bad condition not because they lack the work force to finish a work load.
They are in bad condition because everyone is expected to over work.

This is then linked to :

reason 2. They are expected to over work because if 7 people can finish the work load of 10 people , thats only 7 workers they have to feed instead of 10.

Hence reason 3:
An population increase will not effect the work condition because the original concept in reason 2 . Hence China implement to keep population in check.

Manchu wrote:Jack, Shuma stated that China would be able to sustain its population without recourse to the one child policy. This has nothing to do with work conditions. You are connecting "sustainability" with work conditions, which was not what Luna and Shuma were talking about before Luna mentioned slave labor.

Correction Manchu , that is exactly what i was talking about. But shuma was talking about different thing.
Thats why there is argument later. And now as well.

That 1 sentence is interpreted into 2 completely different things , hence you see yourself.

I say we stop selling Mattel and other kids toys made in China. Then when millions start to starve because Chinas economy goes to gak. Population problem solved.

Albatross wrote:

If you need another example of this (but no so extreme) look at Southamption (no dig at you flash)
At one point 10% of the city were polish as work had dried up in poland.
Countless people were then charged with slave labour due to the new over crowding caused in southamption and a need for jobs.

(citation needed)

Citation bloody not needed!

Just because whenever shumagorath gets into a debate people feel the need to come in and attack him, I'm gonna say that I think his points are reasonable, but that comments like "You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You never know what you're talking about. Stop posting. Forever." should be left out entirely- they add nothing to the argument, they're offensive, and they turn people off.

Da Boss wrote:Just because whenever shumagorath gets into a debate people feel the need to come in and attack him, I'm gonna say that I think his points are reasonable, but that comments like "You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You never know what you're talking about. Stop posting. Forever." should be left out entirely- they add nothing to the argument, they're offensive, and they turn people off.

Your right. I might have insulted someone enough so that they would stop posting! I apologize.

LunaHound wrote:Correction Manchu , that is exactly what i was talking about. But shuma was talking about different thing.
Thats why there is argument later. And now as well.

That 1 sentence is interpreted into 2 completely different things , hence you see yourself.

I have no sensitivity about this issue or any other reason to read into your posts something that is not there--certainly not some kind of sympathy for Shuma, who can certainly take care of himself--but I still read your posts in a way that you say is totally different from your intent. I think the first miscommunication therefore can be laid at your door. (This doesn't justify any flaming that followed, of course.) TBH, I still don't see how "sustainability" has anything to do with the specter of slave labor. I thought Shuma's point was that the one child policy is not currently averting any kind of population crisis.

Yes and they moved into neighbouring flats and played loud music until four in the morning. Bloody poles!

Just noticed you live in Fareham, Jack. Small world!

Haha, i work around the portsmouth and southampton area alot, doing one of my jobs (im a plumber by trade) i got sent to a polish chaps house.
Got a good laugh when i found out he had been fired and another polish chap hired for less money
He missed the part about a worker being fired and him taken on for less money

Yea, tiny little town of fareham, with a gakky growing population due to pubs / clubs being closed and more flats being built.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Correction Manchu , that is exactly what i was talking about. But shuma was talking about different thing.
Thats why there is argument later. And now as well.

That 1 sentence is interpreted into 2 completely different things , hence you see yourself.

I have no sensitivity about this issue or any other reason to read into your posts something that is not there--certainly not some kind of sympathy for Shuma, who can certainly take care of himself--but I still read your posts in a way that you say is totally different from your intent. I think the first miscommunication therefore can be laid at your door. (This doesn't justify any flaming that followed, of course.) TBH, I still don't see how "sustainability" has anything to do with the specter of slave labor. I thought Shuma's point was that the one child policy is not currently averting any kind of population crisis.

Then it depend what you view china as.

In my view China is split into 3 parts.

1) The government , the elites of the populace.

2) The above average populace , content with how the system works , able to express their opinion of the great government and system.

3) The majority , the rural populace of china. Born and raised with propaganda that doesnt know better.
Maybe with few governed radio and tv channels , not much connection with the rest of the world. Aka , what i referred earlier as still 3rd world country.

LunaHound wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Luna wrote:Not related manchu? i think they 100% are.

I don't.

Do you really think people here who are opposed to China's birth control policy (of which I am one), are taking that position because we simply can't get enough cheap, poorly made Chinese consumer goods? Do you seriously believe that would be the case?

If so, put the bong down.

Nope thats not what i meant at all. I think you and shuma are misunderstanding it due to some sensitivity about the issue.
But if you will read on.

Wanting cheaper items does 2 things.
It creates opportunity , and it creates work force , and with China been a strong one , its a very common choice of country to pick from.

I emphasize slave labor for 2 reasons.

reason 1 as written not long ago. They are in bad condition not because they lack the work force to finish a work load.
They are in bad condition because everyone is expected to over work.

This is then linked to :

reason 2. They are expected to over work because if 7 people can finish the work load of 10 people , thats only 7 workers they have to feed instead of 10.

Hence reason 3:
An population increase will not effect the work condition because the original concept in reason 2 . Hence China implement to keep population in check.

Am I the only one having difficulty deciphering this? Sorry, not (really) trying to be rude here, but I'm not sure what your argument is - I get the impression it's one (or more) of these:

-People oppose China's birth-control policy because they are (indirectly, at least) in support of wage-slavery.
-Population growth is responsible for wage-slavery in China. (Not related to the OP)
-Wage-slavery benefits China's economy. (Not related to the OP)
-China's government wants to halt wage slavery by slowing population growth.
-China's Gov't wants to improve working conditions for industrial workers. By sterilising people.

...is that about right?

Albatross wrote:
Am I the only one having difficulty deciphering this? Sorry, not (really) trying to be rude here, but I'm not sure what your argument is - I get the impression it's one (or more) of these:

-People oppose China's birth-control policy because they are (indirectly, at least) in support of wage-slavery.

No , its 2 different issues. In the last 2 pages i have explained why i believe Birth control was implemented related to work force.

-Population growth is responsible for wage-slavery in China. (Not related to the OP)

No i mentioned many many times its not

-Wage-slavery benefits China's economy. (Not related to the OP)

Never said that either

-China's government wants to halt wage slavery by slowing population growth.

Easiest quote i can give you that i have written was the 7ppl working for 10 paragraph.

-China's Gov't wants to improve working conditions for industrial workers. By sterilising people.

China Govt dont want the condition of the work force to deteriorate if they can feed 7 instead of 10 of future

And forgot to include the important one that kept poping up "slavery wages"

I have never blamed foreign consumer and investors in wanting to contract chinese companies. As i said over and over again.
We naturally want things done for cheap.

I emphasize again, the one to blame are the chinese companies themselves for setting the work condition this way.

Chinese govt will welcome job creating opportunities given by foreign companies. But even the law are one eye open one eye shut.
And we dont even need to get the obvious government corruptions.

Shuma: You don't get to say who can and can't post. Ignore is there if people posting upsets you that much.

@Lunahound - So what the feth IS your point?

So you were advocating none of those positions . . . or some of them . . . am still confused. :\

Da Boss wrote:Shuma: You don't get to say who can and can't post. Ignore is there if people posting upsets you that much.

But ignore doesn't stop them from posting!

@Lunahound - So what the feth IS your point?

You have to ask if there is one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Shuma: You don't get to say who can and can't post. Ignore is there if people posting upsets you that much.

But ignore doesn't stop them from posting!
.

Come now Shuma,you would be bored out of your mind if you agreed with everyone who posted.

My points?

-Keep the old populace that is born into the unfair system , they'll keep working contently till they expire without problem because all their lives thats all they know to do.

-New populace in new world brings new idea. Which will rise against the system. However , the content / above average populace
will never be against the system because they have it nicely from it.

-Companies that want things done cheaply will be involved with China .
Things done cheap = things done with very fast pace = worse condition for workers.

-Communist rural china have one simple policy regarding work. Everyone work the hardest they can for the main country. Who ever doesnt share the same
drive or ethics are encouraged to be snitched for bonus. Without this type of raised mentality who on earth will willingly work like slaves.

-Current China population have enough work populace to get production done.

-Having more population growth will not effect work condition positively because the doctrine of how hard they should work is to be enforced because communism is supposed to be equal.
If one is allowed to slack off , others will follow.

- Having more population will effect the condition in a negative way because spreading the wealth of what 7 had into 10 = less for everyone.

Its awful how it works , but it works because thats how their society works.
Its easy to dismiss how others handle it. But can you guys guarantee what works in USA will work in China?
with the same effect? without additional consequences?

So China needs to sterilise people because they just can't get it together enough to create a workable internal economy? I don't buy that for one iota of a second.

TEMPERS people, TEMPERS!

Thread Generating Mod Alerts: Check
Posters Starting (!) To Get Rude: Check
Posters Baiting Other Posters: Check

LANCE THREAD FROM HIGH ORBIT: ...

...

In other words, public warning to debate the points, and only the points, now issued!

Albatross wrote:So China needs to sterilise people because they just can't get it together enough to create a workable internal economy? I don't buy that for one iota of a second.

Sorry what does internal economy mean T-T

Alpharius wrote:TEMPERS people, TEMPERS!

Thread Generating Mod Alerts: Check
Posters Starting (!) To Get Rude: Check
Posters Baiting Other Posters: Check

LANCE THREAD FROM HIGH ORBIT: ...

...

In other words, public warning to debate the points, and only the points, now issued!

Note to self, do not pick out controversial news story and post in off topic next weekend. Stick to giving in the painting and modelling forum and offering friendly What ho!s in Introductions

LunaHound wrote:

Albatross wrote:So China needs to sterilise people because they just can't get it together enough to create a workable internal economy? I don't buy that for one iota of a second.

Sorry what does internal economy mean T-T

What does that mean?

I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

Manchu wrote:I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

I thought he was asking about the emoticon.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Manchu wrote:I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

I thought he was asking about the emoticon.

Oh, it's a crying face. The T's are eyes with tears streaming down and the dash is a little crying mouth.

Alpharius wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Albatross wrote:So China needs to sterilise people because they just can't get it together enough to create a workable internal economy? I don't buy that for one iota of a second.

Sorry what does internal economy mean T-T

What does that mean?

Its my emoticon in place of
or commonly known also as: Q.Q or ;_;

Im not exactly a fan of ork emoticons , and most people dont understand typed emoiticon,
so sometimes i use onion emoticons then people report me for trolling.

Life is great in OT!

Wait is it crying or rolling its eyes?

Manchu wrote:Wait is it crying or rolling its eyes?

I dont see how the eyes are rolling .

From the look of it , i can only imagine it been 2 things.

1) Tears flowing from -_- face
or
2) Eye balls melted flowing off eye socket.

Well, that Orkmoticon is neither crying nor are its eyes melting out of its skull. It's rolling its eyes as if to sarcasticly blow someone off, like saying "yeah right."

Oh... like i said i dont use them so they looked similar...
it looked like its pouting

well i made a thread explaining emoticons... you can take it a look so i dont get in trouble for OT...

What a wierd thread, starting with population to Asian emoticons... ^.^

lol my chinese friends are now reading this thread.

They told me one thing i forgot about.

"Never trust words from the mouth of someone that is still forced to remain in China. Not because they want to lie to us , but they'll be diciplined."

And from words of the ones finally free and out of China , John im sure even your parents will say this:

这样的官草菅人命 http://www.chinese-tools.com/chinese/chengyu/dictionary/detail/2633.html

In the US, we're staring down massive problems with sustainability on all fronts, and haven't really done a damn thing about it. China appears proactive, but still has to deal with a massive peasant population. In the mean time, the world is a far more competitive place, with less time remaining for anybody to get their gak straight.

So I think it'll be interesting to see how things go in the next couple decades.

In a bizzare twist of fate, I think it's no longer impossible that I end up moving to Asia for some period of time.

JohnHwangDD wrote:


In the US, we're staring down massive problems with sustainability on all fronts, and haven't really done a damn thing about it. China appears proactive, but still has to deal with a massive peasant population. In the mean time, the world is a far more competitive place, with less time remaining for anybody to get their gak straight.

So I think it'll be interesting to see how things go in the next couple decades.

In a bizzare twist of fate, I think it's no longer impossible that I end up moving to Asia for some period of time.

Not sure what you mean, population growth in the u.s. is fairly static and immigration issues are really only issues if you don't bother to look historically at american immigration and realistically at just what the immigrants do for our economy. Our economy is still growing faster than a good portion of the planets and our average standard of living will be well beyond that of china for at least another half century. Our only big sustainability issue stems from the growth of low wage labor markets in other parts of the world and an over reliance on an oil infrastructure and coal based power plants. By contrast chinas got enormous issues with soil erosion in it's more fertile areas and a fundamental issue with how to maintain its industrial strength once it releases it's currency and it's standard of living increases (thus making chinese manufacturing more expensive than indonesia, north africa, the golden triangle, or parts of south america).

Everywheres got issues, your best bet is to move to one of the member states of the EU that doesn't suck. We could all be living the swiss dream!

You presume that the rest of the world will continue to allow the West to have a share of resources and wealth vastly out of proportion its the population. It's hard to stay on top when everybody else is clawing their way up.

JohnHwangDD wrote:You presume that the rest of the world will continue to allow the West to have a share of resources and wealth vastly out of proportion its the population. It's hard to stay on top when everybody else is clawing their way up.

There's enough stuff in the ground to last us forever (oil excluded) and since chinas rise includes a massive increase in the number of goods china produces the resources aren't really that big of an issue. As for wealth, we're not really pulling wealth out of a big jar and just keeping it ourselves. Wealth is a derivative of resources and capability, and the rise of wealth in the east doesn't necessitate the fall of wealth in the west. Two wealthy countries trading with each-other makes two wealthier countries.

dogma wrote:Your comment about naivete is certainly true. Though there is something to said for cultural variance when it comes to determining what a given society can tolerate in the course of its development. Forced sterilization would certainly never work in a Western society. But in a nation with state-controlled media, a broadly trusted government, and an incredible rate of economic growth the extent to which brutality will be overlooked would seem to increase. At least in the short run.

I think this is where the differences in our viewpoints become obvious. For you 'work' seems to mean something that improves social stability. For me 'work' means an increase in quality of life, and so I can't see any system that dictates the number of children a couple can have to 'work'.

But I will certainly agree the Chinese government will be able to get away with it for an indefinite time to come.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Well i figured , Chinese government isnt exactly naive.

No, but they are infamously authoritarian and corrupt, which has resulted in a policy with authoritarian and corrupt execution. If anyone in this thread thinks a wealthy or connected family can't avoid the policy and have as many kids as they like they're kidding themselves - the policy only impacts urban working class families.

So i guess the ultimate question is from the chinese governments point of view:

a) Choose 1 child policy , have some complaints from the nation

b) No such policy , population explosion , country cannot sustain its people anymore
result? if i have to guess , it'll be atleast worse than choice A.

You're ignoring the alternative policies, such as birth control programs and improved social security. Many of the benefits would have been achieved through the economic emancipation of women that is already undergoing.

You have to remember , China is still very much a 3rd world country in its rural areas.

The policy doesn't apply in rural China.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Like how certain people think Tea Partiers are all anti-government nut jobs when it's obvious to an educated and traveled person that that isn't the case?

Travelled? For a US domestic issue? This isn't one of those things where US citizens consider someone who's been to the East and West coasts travelled?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In the US, we're staring down massive problems with sustainability on all fronts, and haven't really done a damn thing about it. China appears proactive, but still has to deal with a massive peasant population. In the mean time, the world is a far more competitive place, with less time remaining for anybody to get their gak straight.

You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think China has any kind of control on resource and environmental sustainability. The only limit on environmental damage in China is their relatively low living standard - if they were comparable with Western standards their environmental impact would beat the rest of us combined.

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Everywheres got issues, your best bet is to move to one of the member states of the EU that doesn't suck. We could all be living the swiss dream!

I recommend New Zealand, Canada, and Australia.

dogma wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Everywheres got issues, your best bet is to move to one of the member states of the EU that doesn't suck. We could all be living the swiss dream!

I recommend New Zealand, Canada, and Australia.

Was australia the ironic entry?

Bondi Beach suffers no irony.

ShumaGorath wrote:Was australia the ironic entry?

We're better than New Zealand. Unless you really like sheep, of course.

New Zealand has a hell of a recruiting system for American/European professionals. Its reminds me of study abroad its so easy to immigrate.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

Why do you say im ignorant shuma? because of the red hight lighted part?

*giggles

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

Why do you say im ignorant shuma? because of the red hight lighted part?

*giggles

I didn't name any names or give any reasons. Nor will I. I can see where that cliff goes.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I didn't name any names or give any reasons. Now will I. I can see where that cliff goes.

Is that "nor will I" or "Now i will" ?

Say shuma , if you dont mind can i see the link you read where you quoted earlier ( and i highlighted in red ) ?

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

I didn't name any names or give any reasons. Now will I. I can see where that cliff goes.

Is that "nor will I" or "Now i will" ?

Say shuma , if you dont mind can i see the link you read where you quoted earlier ( and i highlighted in red ) ?

Your right! It was nor. My bad.

Link please shuma ^-^?

LunaHound wrote:Link please shuma ^-^?

I don't know what link you're talking about..? Your last highlighted quote wasn't even something I posted and it wasn't in reference to a link.

Shuma : )

tell me , what you meant by

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

What subject matter specifically are people ignorant about? enough to make tea cry?

LunaHound wrote:Shuma : )

tell me , what you meant by

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

What subject matter specifically are people ignorant about? enough to make tea cry?

I'm just gonna go to bed now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shuma : )

tell me , what you meant by

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I really, really don't understand why people keep talking about controlling the peasant population in China, when the policy doesn't apply to rural Chinese.

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

What subject matter specifically are people ignorant about? enough to make tea cry?

I'm just gonna go to bed now.

Alright :') Just remember i always provided you links when you asked.

Gnite shuma

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shuma : )

tell me , what you meant by

The amount of ignorance concerning the subject matter here is enough to make all the tea in china start to cry.

What subject matter specifically are people ignorant about? enough to make tea cry?

I'm just gonna go to bed now.

Alright :') Just remember i always provided you links when you asked.

Gnite shuma

No you don't and you asked me for a link that doesn't exist in a post I never made. I go sleep nao.

Additional Info for topic.

Chinese government have indeed declared the law even on rural population contrary to what you claimed and called me ignorant for.
Here are the details
They kept strict tracking of urban policy because from office its easiest to do so.

Keeping the policy on urban populace are more lax due to 2 issues.
a) The officials cannot properly enforce rural areas , too far away.
The rural populace ended up hiding their extra children in fear of paying for penalties they cannot afford

b) The rural close knit populace ( as the government called "backwards" ) have tradition of having a son no matter what in order to keep the family blood line.
The enforcers knowing this and when found / snitched upon the ones breaking , the government provides the rural population with "choices"
Which is to chose sterilize or pay penalty equivalent of Five Years Wages.

The consequence of the inconvenience and unable to enforce rural population getting away with it ,
the government produced 120 mil population surplus of work force .

Why the Chinese govt insist on this policy is also explained. Many of the ridicules and insults thrown at me from my post back in page 3...

Read it for yourselves. http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/familypanning/

And just for the lolz ( at my own expense again )
http://boards.4chan.org/lit/res/571199

Have fun , take care guys.

@Luna

Manchu wrote:I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

This is what I was talking about. The balance between finding/creating people jobs that pay enough to allow citizens to eat, and that allow for post-'victorian' working conditions is in my opinion, not an issue that will be solved by sterilising people. Which is the point you seem to be arguing, or at least that there seem to be no other alternatives. Does this mean China knows something most of the rest of the world doesn't?

Albatross wrote:@Luna

Manchu wrote:I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

This is what I was talking about. The balance between finding/creating people jobs that pay enough to allow citizens to eat, and that allow for post-'victorian' working conditions is in my opinion, not an issue that will be solved by sterilising people. Which is the point you seem to be arguing, or at least that there seem to be no other alternatives. Does this mean China knows something most of the rest of the world doesn't?

Hold on albatross , take a look at that link i pasted. Not saying it'll convince you but , worth a read first i think.

Whether or not the Chinese gov't says that their version of state-enforced 'family-planning' works is irrelevant - it's a violation of someone's human rights to forcibly sterilise them. It's not about population control, it's about populace control.

Im sorry i dont know the difference between the term population vs populace control.

@Luna

wiki wrote: A populace is a group of people forming the total population of a certain place.

Controlling the people vs. controlling the number of people.

I believe China's policy is more about the former than the latter.

What do you think is the reason behind this version of populace control Albatross?
why did China pick this specific form?

Firstly your arguing about a country which over the last 40 or so years has become big enough to do what it wants when it wants.All the ranting and raving you want isnt going to work China takes human rights (No offense to anyone who is Chinese) and chews them up and spits them out.

Then points and laughs at them they are like a gang that when you argue with them they go........

"And" shrug and walk off sniggering China is so efficent and so self sustaining that they dont care when some whiney human rights group have a rant they have nothing to fear they are a economic superpower emergent.

The population control works Im going to go straight up and say its worked for China made more living space and has saved them from having to make a benefits system which is quite frankly derogatory to state economics.

If many other countries took that route then we wouldnt have such a strained and abused benefits system in Britain two children really should be enough especially for this generation who doesnt know how to look after children efficently.

Oops double post

But if one day it fails to sustain itself , then what would the people think? Just what have they been slaving away for? They'll totally rebel against the government no?

Luna wrote: What do you think is the reason behind this version of populace control Albatross?
why did China pick this specific form?

Because a bunch of poor, disenfranchised people, with relatively little in the way of personal freedom might decide they've had enough of being dominated by a brutal authoritarian government and decide to take matters into their own hands. If they can slow the growth of this particular demographic group then the Communist Party can increase it's chance of clinging onto power.

I mean, they've had a revolution within living memory, it's bound to be on their minds, rightly or wrongly. Communist regimes are notoriously paranoid.

Im half asleep atm , but if im reading right, you believe as of now , there isnt enough people to rebel against gvt if they felt like it? So you believe they want to keep the populace down to prevent it?

Albatross wrote:

Luna wrote: What do you think is the reason behind this version of populace control Albatross?
why did China pick this specific form?

Because a bunch of poor, disenfranchised people, with relatively little in the way of personal freedom might decide they've had enough of being dominated by a brutal authoritarian government and decide to take matters into their own hands. If they can slow the growth of this particular demographic group then the Communist Party can increase it's chance of clinging onto power.

I mean, they've had a revolution within living memory, it's bound to be on their minds, rightly or wrongly. Communist regimes are notoriously paranoid.

Id have to agree

anyone say Stalin=purges


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Im half asleep atm , but if im reading right, you believe as of now , there isnt enough people to rebel against gvt if they felt like it? So you believe they want to keep the populace down to prevent it?

No people arent going to rebel full stop.

LunaHound wrote:Im half asleep atm , but if im reading right, you believe as of now , there isnt enough people to rebel against gvt if they felt like it? So you believe they want to keep the populace down to prevent it?

It doesn't have to make sense - that's the beauty of communist paranoia.

The argument that China needs to control population growth to avoid overcrowding doesn't bear out in the numbers. They are behind Netherlands, Israel, Monaco and any number of other countries and principalities by land mass per person.

I can't help but think that some other motive is behind this population control other than conservation.

Albatross wrote:- it's a violation of someone's human rights to forcibly sterilise them.

If children really were "free", and didn't require massive state support for upwards of 20 years before becoming a "productive" citizen, then you might have a point. And that takes us back to page 1 with what China is doing.

It has been quite a while since China has had official policy to sterilize people against their will. China may well put people between a rock (*choice* of sterilization) and a hard place (no housing, no schooling, no state-provided job), but that's their prerogative. But that is still a choice.

And it's not like kids pop out of nowhere. Nor are the consequences coming out of the blue. Contraception is cheap and broadly available. So is abortion. You've got months to decide and plan on what to do. People willingly choose to have more kids and do without state support. That is their choice.

If you are poor and require assistance, then you accept the consequences tied thereto. If you are rich, can afford your own home, with a private job and private schools, then the policy doesn't apply.

Really, it's no different than declaring independence from one's parents, vs. "my house, my rules".
____

Albatross wrote:Because a bunch of poor, disenfranchised people, with relatively little in the way of personal freedom might decide they've had enough of being dominated by a brutal authoritarian government and decide to take matters into their own hands.

It appears that you don't know the difference between China and North Korea. North Korea has a brutal, authoritarian government over a bunch of poor, disenfranchised people with practically no personal freedom. However, have practically no outside contact, and no mobility. Hell, they barely can eat. Nevertheless, they also have no chance to take matters into their own hands. If anybody really wanted to reduce human suffering, the correct action would be to overthrow the North Korean government and have China & South Korea run things for a century or so, before merging the Koreas.

Like it or not, there is more than political freedom, and China isn't a Soviet state. From a practical standpoint, the average Chinese has less poverty, less oppression, more freedom (primarily economic) and more opportunity than in any time in Chinese history.


Now, Alba, I don't know how many Chinese citizens (passport holders) you know, but when you say things like that, you reveal yourself to be totally ignorant, grossly uniformed, lacking in knowledge, and generally foolish. I won't say "stupid", as it's entirely possible you possess normal (or higher) intelligence, but certainly you're intellectually lazy and merely perpetuating stereotypes that haven't been true in 30+ years. Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of racism.

If you actually knew, or bothered to speak with some actual Chinese (from China), it's clear that they operate under different political rules (i.e. don't ask, don't tell, STFU n00b). Aside from that, they can have and run their own businesses, and travel pretty broadly if they can afford it. That includes overseas.

For the most part, the limits on Chinese foreign travel and emigration aren't by China, but by other countries. Perhaps the best solution would be for the West to simply grant unlimited emigration rights to Chinese citizens. Or at least, to relax immigration limitations. Then, those poor, huddled masses of disenfranchised Chinese could come to enlightened Western countries and enjoy true freedoms - permanently.

What? You say your country isn't ready to support several dozen millions of poor Chinese peasants? Really?

Then WTF are you expecting China to do about their hundreds of millions of poor Chinese peasants?

Realistically though, you have to do SOMETHING about over population. I mean our resources can only do so much. If youve ever seen Soilent Green then you have an idea of how bad itll get with over population.

Your somewhat partisan in this John...

JohnHwangDD wrote: If you are poor and require assistance, then you accept the consequences tied thereto. If you are rich, can afford your own home, with a private job and private schools, then the policy doesn't apply.

Really, it's no different than declaring independence from one's parents, vs. "my house, my rules". ?

Balderdash.
Those in poor strata do not have the ability to elevate themselves out of it.
Comparing the Chinese Gov to parents? Which parents do you know who sterilise their children. And we aren't talking about children, we are talking about adults, who have had their elderly parents imprisioned.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Like it or not, there is more than political freedom, and China isn't a Soviet state. From a practical standpoint, the average Chinese has less poverty, less oppression, more freedom (primarily economic) and more opportunity than in any time in Chinese history.
Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of racism.

This isn't the first time the Chinese Gov. being criticised by someone in OT has heralded a call of racism from you John, I've come under fire from you for the same thing. We criticise a governmental stance by a nation, not the race or colour of skin of it's inhabitants.
Don't play the race card, you insult those who actually suffer at the hands of racists.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you actually knew, or bothered to speak with some actual Chinese (from China), it's clear that they operate under different political rules (i.e. don't ask, don't tell, STFU n00b). Aside from that, they can have and run their own businesses, and travel pretty broadly if they can afford it. That includes overseas.

So, for an unbias opinion, we should consult those citizens who own their own businesses and travel internationally...
We can only hope they would portray the Administration positively...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
For the most part, the limits on Chinese foreign travel and emigration aren't by China, but by other countries. Perhaps the best solution would be for the West to simply grant unlimited emigration rights to Chinese citizens. Or at least, to relax immigration limitations. Then, those poor, huddled masses of disenfranchised Chinese could come to enlightened Western countries and enjoy true freedoms - permanently.
What? You say your country isn't ready to support several dozen millions of poor Chinese peasants? Really?
Then WTF are you expecting China to do about their hundreds of millions of poor Chinese peasants?

Let's consider your previous analogy to a parent and their house.
Saying 'I've turned my house into a gakhole but you have no right to criticise how I treat my kids unless you're prepared to have them live with you instead' is a load of rubbish. China breaches the international laws on human rights like it's going out of fashion. That isn't racism, that's fact. If this were a 'Parent', China would be standing trial for neglect and abuse.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:This isn't the first time the Chinese Gov. being criticised by someone in OT has heralded a call of racism from you John, I've come under fire from you for the same thing. We criticise a governmental stance by a nation, not the race or colour of skin of it's inhabitants.

Don't play the race card, you insult those who actually suffer at the hands of racists.

If it quacks like a racist, it's a racist.

In this case, its not quacking.

John, I know your argumentative style so I'm not suprised at your posts, but if you have some sources of information to help dispel our shocking ignorance that'd be really nice. I mean, we can't easily travel to china, and our apparent racism must taint what we think, but what sources would you recommend that would educate us?
I'll read them, I promise (once I get paid this summer I plan on getting some books on China to read, so if you can recommend some good ones that'd be great, I don't want a heavily biased approach.)

This seems like a pretty poor way to handle your citizens and tackling issues. Forcing elderly people into basically concentration camps for sterilization seems grossly inefficient and looks like a huge violation of human rights.

Not sure what can be done about this if anything at all...:(

The Green Git wrote:The argument that China needs to control population growth to avoid overcrowding doesn't bear out in the numbers. They are behind Netherlands, Israel, Monaco and any number of other countries and principalities by land mass per person.

The number shrinks significantly when account for the fact that nearly half of the country is uninhabitable. Note this density map.

Yay maps!
Thanks Dogma!

Ah here we go:
Although China's agricultural output is the largest in the world, only about 15% of its total land area can be cultivated. China's arable land, which represents 10% of the total arable land in the world, supports over 20% of the world's population. Of this approximately 1.4 million square kilometers of arable land, only about 1.2% (116,580 square kilometers) permanently supports crops and 525,800 square kilometers are irrigated.[14] The land is divided into approximately 200 million households, with an average land allocation of just 0.65 hectares (1.6 acres).

China's limited space for farming has been a problem throughout its history, leading to chronic food shortage. While the production efficiency of farmland has grown over time, efforts to expand to the west and the north have held limited success, as such land is generally colder and drier than traditional farmlands to the east. Since the 1950s, farm space has also been pressured by the increasing land needs of industry and cities.
There you go , the 1.2% out of the 15% are stable. The rest are what you see every year during summer. Floods and destroyed crops. Or temperature fluxes of no rain in 6 month.

@JohnHwangDD - I think this thread has already established pretty firmly that China could do pretty much anything and you would still defend it. With this in mind, it seems pretty pointless to get into an argument with you about it. A nation isn't a football team - you shouldn't blind yourself to it's failings and support it no matter what.

Just FYI, a good mate of mine lives and works in China, and has done for some time. One of his colleagues went missing after writing an article which was less than complimentary about local Communist Party officials.

So, if it quacks like brutal and authoritarian...

So, without taking the time to equivocate, can anyone here say that they are in favor of forced sterilization? Just a yes or no will do. I would like to see people write out one of the following sentences: "I think people should not be forcibly sterilized." or "I think people should be forcibly sterilized." You can write an essay about why or why not afterward.

It has been quite a while since China has had official policy to sterilize people against their will. China may well put people between a rock (*choice* of sterilization) and a hard place (no housing, no schooling, no state-provided job), but that's their prerogative. But that is still a choice.

I know what you mean John , but i think people are mad probably because you chose the word choice.
Its not a choice for chinese populace , its an option.

And it's not like kids pop out of nowhere. Nor are the consequences coming out of the blue. Contraception is cheap and broadly available. So is abortion. You've got months to decide and plan on what to do. People willingly choose to have more kids and do without state support. That is their choice.

If you are poor and require assistance, then you accept the consequences tied thereto. If you are rich, can afford your own home, with a private job and private schools, then the policy doesn't apply.

Really, it's no different than declaring independence from one's parents, vs. "my house, my rules".

I understand this as well , but you have to remember people out of asia arnt used to the idea of human beings been born into a position ,
grow old and die to that very same position. Where the only chance to break out is through bribery kidnapping , human trafficking.
When majority of chinese citizen are born into the life of submissive workers , yes i understand you.
____

Like it or not, there is more than political freedom, and China isn't a Soviet state. From a practical standpoint, the average Chinese has less poverty, less oppression, more freedom (primarily economic) and more opportunity than in any time in Chinese history.

While this is 100% true , ( and chinese populace in their long history has been known for to be conserving and submissive type generally tolerated / accept what they face )
The modern time now would say "get with the program" which of course is why chinese government kept censoring media , because they fear the populace will indeed get with the program
which the country isnt capable of supporting that standard.

Now, Alba, I don't know how many Chinese citizens (passport holders) you know, but when you say things like that, you reveal yourself to be totally ignorant, grossly uniformed, lacking in knowledge, and generally foolish. I won't say "stupid", as it's entirely possible you possess normal (or higher) intelligence, but certainly you're intellectually lazy and merely perpetuating stereotypes that haven't been true in 30+ years. Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of racism.

If you actually knew, or bothered to speak with some actual Chinese (from China), it's clear that they operate under different political rules (i.e. don't ask, don't tell, STFU n00b). Aside from that, they can have and run their own businesses, and travel pretty broadly if they can afford it. That includes overseas.

The recent rapid development of their economy have break free from the old stereotypes of chinese. Some are not ready to accept / adjust to it.

For the most part, the limits on Chinese foreign travel and emigration aren't by China, but by other countries. Perhaps the best solution would be for the West to simply grant unlimited emigration rights to Chinese citizens. Or at least, to relax immigration limitations. Then, those poor, huddled masses of disenfranchised Chinese could come to enlightened Western countries and enjoy true freedoms - permanently.

Damn it John! ok , you know im not racist ( even though others in this thread called me racist against chinese )
but i still need to say this. NO JOHN NO MORE IMMIGRANTS!!!!!! waaaaaaaaa
Ok , Vancouver ,has been flooded with chinese immigrants , there are more asians here then anything else , they are the majority now!
But the bad part is , the immigrants doesnt treat Vancouver like part of Canada , they treat it like part of china!.
All the things they do , all the bad habit and value they hold , are bothering the Canadians!
Very no desu!

What? You say your country isn't ready to support several dozen millions of poor Chinese peasants? Really?

Then WTF are you expecting China to do about their hundreds of millions of poor Chinese peasants?

No one knows , i asked the question back in the beginning of this thread , there has been zero answers.

All we do know is , according to our standards , its wrong and i agree its wrong.
But as i said in my first posts here , different society , different value , what works in A wouldnt always work in C.
I guess Chinese govt just chose the path of dealing with direct problems of feeding a starving nation and worry about morality later.
I mean the generation that faced the famine are still live and well , and the incident is probably always in China's mind.
To have 30 million die in 3 year span really is scary. No?

Manchu wrote:So, without taking the time to equivocate, can anyone here say that they are in favor of forced sterilization? Just a yes or no will do. I would like to see people write out one of the following sentences: "I think people should not be forcibly sterilized." or "I think people should be forcibly sterilized." You can write an essay about why or why not afterward.

I do not think people should be forcibly sterilised.

Sterilization? pfft, they need good ol' fashion summary executions and purges of old/sick/non-productive people, 40k style!!!

LunaHound wrote:
I know what you mean John , but i think people are mad probably because you chose the word choice.
Its not a choice for chinese populace , its an option.

If someone has options, then they also have a choice. The Chinese population can choose between forced sterilization, and access to housing in the same sense that a person in the United States can choose to pay his taxes, or go to jail. Its consistent with the freedom of action in a strict sense, but not one which is useful in doing anything beyond elucidating the nature of freedom.

Regardless, simply arguing that a choice exists does not address the issue of the quality with respect to those options which present the choice. No one in their right mind would claim that a person given the choice between killing his father, and killing his son was in an acceptable situation because he has been given a choice.

@dogma i typed that sentence based on the explanation on

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_choice_and_option

There is no reason to assume that an option must be the result of external constraints.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you are poor and require assistance, then you accept the consequences tied thereto. If you are rich, can afford your own home, with a private job and private schools, then the policy doesn't apply.

Holy crap. There it is. The rich are allowed to have as many children as they want and the poor are not.

And people are alright with it.

Really, it's no different than declaring independence from one's parents, vs. "my house, my rules".

Now, Alba, I don't know how many Chinese citizens (passport holders) you know, but when you say things like that, you reveal yourself to be totally ignorant, grossly uniformed, lacking in knowledge, and generally foolish. I won't say "stupid", as it's entirely possible you possess normal (or higher) intelligence, but certainly you're intellectually lazy and merely perpetuating stereotypes that haven't been true in 30+ years. Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of racism.

I've been there. I have no idea why anyone would argue there isn't an impoverished underclass in China, when you can walk down the street and see them.

I have no idea why you'd compare China now to China in the past - it may well be better off but this isn't the 12th century - there are liberal democracies that don't enforce arbitrary human rights abuses on it's citizens. Perhaps a reach target is in order?

I have no idea why you'd claim an argument wanting greater rights for Chinese citizens was racist. That's simply pathetic.

Really, I have no idea why you've chosen to defend China in all matters, but I am left shaking my head at the ridiculous arguments you've concocted to attempt it.

KingCracker wrote:Realistically though, you have to do SOMETHING about over population. I mean our resources can only do so much. If youve ever seen Soilent Green then you have an idea of how bad itll get with over population.

Think about the resources required to feed and clothe you to a minimum standard. They're pretty negligible. Now think about the resources used by the average person in the western world - think about the resources used in powering his computer and wide screen television. Think about him driving a four person car to work by himself every day. Think about the electrical appliances he throws out instead of repairing. Think about the amount of clothing people buy that is worn once or twice, ever.

Think about the vast increase in resource consumption in China, miles above the growth in population. It’s all driven by increases in consumption, not population.

So, I mean, just, at the end of the day it makes no sense to talk about sustainability in terms of population, when population growth is such a trivial portion of resource use. The problems of sustainability are problems of resource consumption.

Soylent Green is a fun movie. It really isn’t much of a guide to solving the modern problem of sustainability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:John, I know your argumentative style so I'm not suprised at your posts, but if you have some sources of information to help dispel our shocking ignorance that'd be really nice. I mean, we can't easily travel to china, and our apparent racism must taint what we think, but what sources would you recommend that would educate us?

I’ve been, it’s a really fascinating place full of great people and I’d recommend it to anyone.

None of which has anything to do with the cold reality that the Chinese government has a really ugly history of human rights abuses.

Albatross wrote:

Back on topic, I find it interesting that the dakkites of east asian descent are leaping to the defence of a country which has seemingly had enforced sterilisations/abortions, amongst other atrocities. Tribalism continues to fascinate me.

Hey, I live in Hong Kong, which is about 2 steps away from China, and you would NOT BELIEVE how much we criticize the mainland over this kind of stuff. But then it's a good thing Hong Kong and China are A and B. If some government official saw this thread and showed it to the CEO guy of China, dd would be band over there as well as Facebook and everything else. China would do ANYTHING to not have to bury it's face in shame. come to think of it, Google's smart to have pulled out of China.

真是令人失望

sebster wrote:
Holy crap. There it is. The rich are allowed to have as many children as they want and the poor are not.

And people are alright with it.

I'm not a nice guy. I'm entirely fine with all of the policies which China has instituted. However, I would never pretend that they were nice and shiny. The Chinese state is brutal, and authoritarian. What baffles me is the extent to which some will go in order to try and remove those qualifiers from that state. It betrays a level of moral insecurity which is exceptionally profound.

Did anyone from Britain watch Panorama last night??

Britains population is predicted to reach 70 Million what do half of that 70 million not do??....work as Kingcracker said earlier I think a population restriction is at hand.

China as much as i hate to admit it is onto a winner...They have a nicely subdued population that doesnt think too much and allows them to put a effective population restriction in place...

Plus sterilisation has to be better than being killed or culled isnt it??.....

Their version is better than the Nazi lets...kill....everyone...who...is...inferior....option


Automatically Appended Next Post:

some random necron guy wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Back on topic, I find it interesting that the dakkites of east asian descent are leaping to the defence of a country which has seemingly had enforced sterilisations/abortions, amongst other atrocities. Tribalism continues to fascinate me.

Hey, I live in Hong Kong, which is about 2 steps away from China, and you would NOT BELIEVE how much we criticize the mainland over this kind of stuff. But then it's a good thing Hong Kong and China are A and B. If some government official saw this thread and showed it to the CEO guy of China, dd would be band over there as well as Facebook and everything else. China would do ANYTHING to not have to bury it's face in shame. come to think of it, Google's smart to have pulled out of China.

真是令人失望

To be honest....To be a business in a totalitarian state is not good for the wonga but I believe that China is the only state that can do these things such as state censorship,Countryside based sterilisation and get away with it I think it would be wiser to get in bed with China and shut up then to kick against it....Too be honest the world especially the west has done too much kicking against...its time to calm down me thinks..

After all what have achieved America and Britain two false wars a lot of embezzlement in Parliament and general woe we have a population that breeds out of control hence adding to the 70 million that is coming China happens to be very efficent has a obdient population and appears to be doing more for itself as one party one state....

Take the general election over here jesus like watching grown men in nappies having a tantrum if this is democracy show me the way to communiststan.

Wow.

Demonslayer82 wrote:Did anyone from Britain watch Panorama last night??

Britains population is predicted to reach 70 Million what do half of that 70 million not do??....work as Kingcracker said earlier I think a population restriction is at hand.

China as much as i hate to admit it is onto a winner...They have a nicely subdued population that doesnt think too much and allows them to put a effective population restriction in place...

Why would a country where immigration is being used to offset a near zero birth rate consider sterilisation? What is that?

And again (and again and again) the primary factor in sustainability is resource use. It isn't population. Why don't people get that? It's very, very simple, and very obvious.

Why do people want to believe in the need for authoritarian population control? Where does that come from?

Plus sterilisation has to be better than being killed or culled isnt it??.....

Their version is better than the Nazi lets...kill....everyone...who...is...inferior....option

Umm... mandatory sterilisation was practiced by the Nazis. And what about options that don't involve mass killing or sterilisation? When women are educated and given economic emancipation the birth rate drops to replacement levels and even lower - why not just follow that?

And sterilisation programs, even when practiced by democratic governments with strong laws respecting human rights fall almost entirely on minorities and the poor. Look up the record of mandatory sterilisation in the US.

After all what have achieved America and Britain two false wars a lot of embezzlement in Parliament and general woe we have a population that breeds out of control hence adding to the 70 million that is coming China happens to be very efficent has a obdient population and appears to be doing more for itself as one party one state....

Take the general election over here jesus like watching grown men in nappies having a tantrum if this is democracy show me the way to communiststan.

Oh for the simple pleasures of a totalitarian regime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I'm not a nice guy. I'm entirely fine with all of the policies which China has instituted. However, I would never pretend that they were nice and shiny. The Chinese state is brutal, and authoritarian. What baffles me is the extent to which some will go in order to try and remove those qualifiers from that state. It betrays a level of moral insecurity which is exceptionally profound.

Yeah, like I posted earlier in this thread I think we come from things from fundamentally different starting points. That's cool, you're consistent in your position. I mean, you'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes but I think you're honest enough to know why and that'll help you receive the people's justice with dignity.

Why would a country where immigration is being used to offset a near zero birth rate consider sterilisation? What is that?

And again (and again and again) the primary factor in sustainability is resource use. It isn't population. Why don't people get that? It's very, very simple, and very obvious.

Why do people want to believe in the need for authoritarian population control? Where does that come from?

You should probably do what I did and just wring your hands of this thread. Debating things like population and resource statistics with 14 year old wargamers and the insane, especially in reference to china, isn't particularly productive as you probably now can see.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Why would a country where immigration is being used to offset a near zero birth rate consider sterilisation? What is that?

And again (and again and again) the primary factor in sustainability is resource use. It isn't population. Why don't people get that? It's very, very simple, and very obvious.

Why do people want to believe in the need for authoritarian population control? Where does that come from?

You should probably do what I did and just wring your hands of this thread. Debating things like population and resource statistics with 14 year old wargamers and the insane, especially in reference to china, isn't particularly productive as you probably now can see.

So what valuable insight have you brought to this thread so far other then screaming ignorance at others while
your own info you used to scream with is wrong?
Yes this is like page 7 , what alternative methods have you suggested other than sitting across the other side of the globe
criticizing others for their method?

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Why would a country where immigration is being used to offset a near zero birth rate consider sterilisation? What is that?

And again (and again and again) the primary factor in sustainability is resource use. It isn't population. Why don't people get that? It's very, very simple, and very obvious.

Why do people want to believe in the need for authoritarian population control? Where does that come from?

You should probably do what I did and just wring your hands of this thread. Debating things like population and resource statistics with 14 year old wargamers and the insane, especially in reference to china, isn't particularly productive as you probably now can see.

So what valuable insight have you brought to this thread so far other then screaming ignorance at others while
your own info you used to scream with is wrong?
Yes this is like page 7 , what alternative methods have you suggested other than sitting across the other side of the globe
criticizing others for their method?

Nothing I said is factually incorrect, but even more importantly that sentence doesn't even make any fething sense. Thats why I quit.

Only one person has answered my question.

Manchu wrote:Only one person has answered my question.

Put the lotion on the effected area and rub gently in a clockwise motion until it is absorbed into the skin. Do this ever 3-4 hours.

Also, don't forget to shave off all the hair before you do it.

Kanluwen wrote:Also, don't forget to shave off all the hair before you do it.

Wise words for all activities relating to the OT board.

... if we could, you know, please maintain a nice and civil tone to each other that'd be groovy.

ta.

What I don't understand is why you guys always seem to assume a degree of benevolent intent from your governments. Google Operation Gladio and see if it fits in with your worldview. Or how about this:

Henry Kissinger's 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide

This article appeared as part of a feature in the December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, and was circuclated extensively by the Schiller Insitute Food for Peace Movement. It is reprinted here as part of the package: “Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage?”

Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide

by Joseph Brewda
Dec. 8, 1995

On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.

The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 “to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population.” The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since “a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production.” The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, “might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West,” especially effecting “military strength and security.”

NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 “key countries” in which the United States had a “special political and strategic interest”: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.

For example, Nigeria: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” Or Brazil: “Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically.” The study warned of a “growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years.”

Food as a weapon

There were several measures that Kissinger advocated to deal with this alleged threat, most prominently, birth control and related population-reduction programs. He also warned that “population growth rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin to decline,” even if such measures were adopted.

A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: “There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”

“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” the document continued, adding, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?”

Kissinger also predicted a return of famines that could make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary. “Rapid population growth and lagging food production in developing countries, together with the sharp deterioration in the global food situation in 1972 and 1973, have raised serious concerns about the ability of the world to feed itself adequately over the next quarter of century and beyond,” he reported.

The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: “Capital investments for irrigation and infrastucture and the organization requirements for continuous improvements in agricultural yields may be beyond the financial and administrative capacity of many LDCs. For some of the areas under heaviest population pressure, there is little or no prospect for foreign exchange earnings to cover constantly increasingly imports of food.”

“It is questionable,” Kissinger gloated, “whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis.” Consequently, “large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished,” was foreseeable—famine, which has indeed come to pass.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html

@Orky-Kowboy

This article appeared as part of a feature in the December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review

That's your problem right there. Lyndon LaRouche and his fellow lunatics at EIR are not a source you should be taking seriously. They claim that The British Empire (it still exists, apparently...) was directly responsible for 9/11. They are paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:What I don't understand is why you guys always seem to assume a degree of benevolent intent from your governments. Google Operation Gladio and see if it fits in with your worldview.

I don't believe that anyone has said that they believe that. Saying that, it still doesn't change the specific policy that is being discussed. So another government has thought of some jacked up policy as well, does that mean we should absolve anyone of any policy? I don't really believe that we have forfeited the right to consider this situation merely because another exists. The quotes in that article also seem very cherry picked to me, many of them being more statistical with the author throwing in their bent on it. I have no doubt that plans for what to do in case population issues arise have been made, as contingency plans are made for most unlikely scenarios, but there would be others as well. One report does not make a conspiracy.

What I think is odd is why people see a criticism of a policy and take the position that the entirety of a country has been insulted. No one has said they hate China or Chinese people as a whole but some of the reactions seem to be taking this stance.