If posters from various European and North American countries can be addressed as one entity, shouldn't Chinese, Japanese and Korean posters also be considered as a like-minded single group of people? ;)

All western FTers do not have the same attitude or opinion about China, but there is a very vocal contingent that do, that post about it frequently, and are not at all shy about attacking those who don't agree. I'm tired of arguing about it, and I am very reluctant to post in this sub-forum at all, except to talk about how to take taxis, and the like. Unlike some, I have no political/social/religious agenda, other than I think China is an enjoyable place to visit.

With respect to this specific thread, I will note only the following: I think it is bad form for a foreign traveler to discuss politics with strangers anywhere outside their own borders, including China, unless a local initiates the conversation AND does so in a non-confrontational manner.

I have three rules I follow when I travel internationally:

1. I always remember I am a guest in someone else's country, and I always try to be a good guest. This includes avoiding discussions about politics and religion (and, in some countries, sports -- something I learned when I said, "Ah, football -- I hear that United team is quite good" in the wrong pub.) I think it is rude to criticize someone else's country, and I certainly don't want to be put in the position of being asked to justify the actions of my own.

2. I always ask, rather than assume. I'd rather look foolish by asking a naive question than inadvertently give offense because of an incorrect assumption.

3. If I'm going to make a mistake, I'd rather do so by being too generous than too cheap. Accordingly, I'll overtip rather than undertip, pay the "foreigners price" without complaining and, though I'll bargain where appropriate for the sake of form, I will not try to beat a vendor down to the absolute lowest price.

I've found these rules work well for me in every country I've ever visited, and China is no exception.

Your responses, minus any actual facts to back up anything you are stating, lead me to believe that you are the one who can't stand any opinion that contradicts your own dearly held beliefs, regardless how false those beliefs are actually shown to be. I will now retreat to don my flame proof underwear in case you decide to post a reply :)

Since I can only assume that I am a member of your "vocal" bad list, I'd like to voice my opinion on the matter, in spite of the fact that I feel I've exhausted my thoughts on the matter in question.

My thoughts:

-I consider all of you to be my friends because we are bound by a common interest (China). The fact is that many of my best friends here have views that echo those of shmj. While we may have widely divergent opinions, we still get along quite well in person. In fact, if any of you guys are ever in a jam, I'll make sure you have a place to sleep in Beijing or Shanghai.

-The internet allows us to hyperbolize our thoughts in a manner that isn't always possible in one-on-one situations. I think this is useful because it allows us to get down to business (and cut to the heart of the matter).

-First and foremost, on FT, I always try to help people deal with airplanes, trains, and hotels. If politics get in the way, so be it.

-My opinions are not so strong that they can't be changed.

-The situation (re. government stamped views) in China is better than that in North Korea.

Actually, no, I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that, but I'd rather not get too specific.

(Moondog's very good thoughts snipped)

I tend to believe that, with some exceptions, people tend to have the kind of government they want to have (North Korea is one of those exceptions). I don't tend to be critical of other governmental forms unless (1) the other governments are directly effecting me, e.g. by providing safe haven for jihadist terrorists as did the Taliban in Afghanistan, or (2) the other governments are violating some universal law (in the Aristotelean sense), e.g. sanctioning slavery (as in the Sudan), engaging in ethnic cleansing (as in Sudan, again), or threatening the security of other countries allied with the U.S. (as in North Korea). Particularly at this point in time, I don't think the U.S. should be held up as the poster boy for the virtues of representative democracy, and used as some bench mark against which the relative morality other nations' governments should be measured.

This is a forum about travel and dining in China. My objection is to posts that, in the context of providing information about the country, include a gratuitous slam against the PRC government. Political discussions belong in OMNI, not here.

This thread drifted into a, "I know more about China than you" discussion, which, I thought, was a little silly. However, it then became a "you couldn't know more than I because everything you know you learned from the evil, oppressive government" discussion. Though, in my opinion, that discussion is equally silly, it is also doctrinaire, highly politicized and irrelevant to this subforum.

I stayed out of it until shmj suggested that all western FTers shared the same opinion. I don't, and a lot of others don't, and I didn't want him/her (sorry, don't know which) taking that away from this thread, hence my post.

My preference is to talk about traveling and dining in China here in the China Traveling and Dining subforum, something that I think everyone agrees is a fun, positive thing. I wish everyone (and I'm definitely not singling you out) would agree that is what we should do.

I appreciate your position, particularly your observation of this thread slipping away from whether it is okay to talk politics and into what politics to discuss.

This originated as a thread about travel in China: specifically, when traveling in China, and hoping to be a good guest and not an ugly Amercian, is it bad form to discuss politics.

We've witnessed a lot of good and interesting advise, much of which I will recall on my next trip. My thanks to those, without regard to doctorine, for sharing their knowledge and experience.

I agree, I think it is best to stay out of these political discussions, as they can quite frequently and easily get out of hand. That has been my form since I first arrived in China, to stay out of political discussions as much as possible. We all have our opinions and there are various reasons and factors that contribute to them. Lets just stick to the travel advice, and the friendship and sharing that I have seen so often on this site. So with that to answer the original question... I would say talking politics may not be bad form but can easily turn into unintended offense or difficult situations. Best to stay out of it if you can! Chinese make great friends, and if you get to the point of friendship and level of understanding that you can discuss politics without offense then go for it. Political issues tend to be quite complex and require a great deal of understanding of the issue at hand, and the various viewpoints. (this is not just in China :) )

There is nothing wrong with being a proud " Old China Hand".

Obviously not. Please re-read my post -- you missed the point.

And the 80,000 demonstrations against government policies that the Chinese government actually admitted to last year mean..? The millions in Tian'an Men Square felt they had the kind of government they want to have, did they? How about the innumerable people currently languishing in prisons simply for speaking out, for forming their own unions, for trying to form political parties, or for trying to follow religions? I'm sure they're jolly happy, and singing close harmony songs in praise of the one-party system that echo round their cells even as I type this.

Could it possibly be that within a country with a population of around 1.5 billion some people want to have the kind of government they have, and (gasp!) some people don't?
How about selling high-end missile technology to other nasty countries, some of them with nuclear weapons but lacking the capability to deliver them over long distances? The US government certainly seems to think China has been very dangerous in that way, aiding the proliferation of the infamous but remarkably difficult to find Weapons of Mass Destruction.

And, you know, sorry to mention this and not to dent the ego and all that, but some people might want to argue that if any country threatened another that might well be a good reason for criticism even if such threats weren't 'directly effecting' [sic] one PTravel of the USA. Even if its government was only a threat to its own people and not to its neighbours, some (this may obviously come as a shock) might disapprove. That's the meaning of 'universal' in the context of moral judgements--that they apply to all relevantly similar situations, not just those affecting one insignificant individual in the US.
Oh well, as long as it's only allies of the U.S. that have to be considered. How very 'universal.' How very moral. Those living in countries not allied to the US (including France, perhaps?) don't matter I suppose.

I wonder where Taiwan stands in this, threatened as it is by China on a weekly basis? I thought Taiwan was an ally of the U.S--something to do with legal requirement to defend the place?

And isn't the ethnic cleansing of Tibet and Xinjiang 'universal' enough? Funny, but human rights agencies seem quite certain it's taking place, and many visitors come back with that impression, too. Certainly seems most Tibetans and Uyghurs think so. Could they all be wrong, or it is time to start criticising Beijing after all?

Is forcing late-term abortions and sterilizations on women (7000 in Shandong Province alone in recent times) not 'universal' enough? Perhaps it should be tried in the US, then.

Locking up all who disagree with you (including the whistleblower on the Shandong abortion matter and the two lawyers supposed to defend him) even if all they are doing is something expressly permitted by the constitution? Is that not universally wrong? Can't imagine why I think so. Silly me. Let's try that at home, too. Should go down well. No? Oh. Well if it's wrong here, how can it be right there? Isn't that where the 'universal' element of moral judgement comes in?

Some people would think it right to censure such behaviour wherever it occurred. How very good of you to post here to say you wouldn't, especially while simultaneously saying that we should only be posting about travel and dining. Next thing you'll be complaining again that others are political, although you yourself are apparently allowed to be so. And no doubt having called others' postings 'silly' you'll now complain that you are being called names here.
'Gratuitous slams' against an utterly infamous regime (just a few 'universally' deplorable examples above from a very long, bloody-handed catalogue) are forbidden (even when they are simply statements of fact offered in context or response to other political statements). But gratuitous praise for the murdering thugs in Beijing is apparently fine:
Why does this seem so familiar? Oh yes, of course! Silly me! It's so utterly preposterous it sounds as if it's straight from China Daily.

And the overall approach, too, is very Chinese, since apparently only PTravel's positive views of the Chinese government are to be permitted.

Time to rename FlyerTalk China Daily Online (editor PTravel).

Peter N-H

I would also think that while it's interesting and rewarding to read on various views of Chinese society and politics, those matters might be better suited for OMNI discussion. My modest experience in Japan, Korea and now China has taught me that argumentation and debates very rarely lead to anything positive within this cultural sphere.

If you want to discuss this in OMNI, we can. As for Tian'an Men, you know perfectly well that the demonstration involved far more complicated issues than, "we want American-style democracy now."

What's your point? Do you think they represent the majority of people in China?

I'm sure they're not. Again, what's your point?

Obviously. Again, what's your point?

Now think about this: How many revolutions has China had in its history? Why did it have those revolutions?

How about the U.S. giving money, support and weapons to the very people who have formed terrorist organizations that have successfully attacked the U.S.?

Can't resist the smarmy personal attack, can you? As I said in other thread, I'm very happy that you're around to catch my typos.

Obviously, you do -- I assume that's why you persist in FT violations, off-topic posts and personal attacks. I've already explained what I think and why. I really don't care what you think, because I give it exactly the weight that its content and your argumentative style deserve.

Apparently, you don't know, at all, what "universal" means in this context. I've discussed it in other threads, usually in reference to the efforts of other agenda-pushers, in this case fundamentalist Christians, to impose their beliefs on others.

Of course, I never said anything of the sort, but I understand that actually dealing with truth would handicap your style. I have no idea what your comment about France is supposed to mean -- you think France isn't an ally of the U.S.?

You take those threats literally? You obviously know a lot less about China then you think you do. Regardless, the situation between Taiwan and China is a purely Chinese/Taiwanese matter.

Oh, you're one of those that think that the U.S. should go to war with China over Taiwan?

There isn't ethnic cleansing of Tibet and Xinjiang.

Human rights agencies seem quite certain that, by international standards, human rights violations are taking place in Tibet and Xinjiang, and they're probably right. However, as I've said repeatedly, human rights violations are, without question, taking place here in the U.S. Are you willing to denounce the Bush Administration as evil and despotic, or is there some double standard operating here? Or, perhaps, the world is a little more complicated than, "us=good and them=bad." You really need to read some Aristotle, and you really need a better handle on the meaning of "universal law."

First, I don't believe your numbers for a minute. Second, as you well know, the one-child rule is enforced through fines -- abortions and sterilizations are means of last resort. However, no, I don't think it's "universal enough," at all -- I think China had to deal with an enormous over-population problem, and did so effectively. Your fixation on abortion and religion strongly suggests, if not actually confirms, your agenda.

I know why you think so. We can discuss it in OMNI. I won't discuss it here. What I am curious about, though, is why, if you hate the PRC government so much, you spend so much time there, and even try to write travel books about it.

Because our value system is not universally held. You're not the only one who makes the mistake of trying to impose their own personal value systems on the world -- the current administration has made exactly the same mistake.

It is, indeed. As I said, you might want to read what Aristotle has to say about natural law and universal values.

Given that this is a Travel & Dining subforum, I think it appropriate to talk about Travel & Dining. Do you really think that anyone wants a does of your political screed with every restaurant and hotel recommendation?

Feel free to attack my ideas. You don't do that, though -- you attack me. Unfortunate that you don't recognize the difference.

Show me one post of mine (that wasn't in response to your own) that praised the PRC government.

Yep, you got me. I'm a secret agent for the PRC, plotting to extend the reach of Communism into the U.S. Maybe I'll change my screen name to FTravel, for "fellow traveller." And you can change your screen name to "Joe."

The only "positive" views of the Chinese government that I've ever expressed relates to the one-child policy. I have contradicted those who, like you, portray China as equivalent to Stalinist Russia.

Yep, that's me -- the Jewish Chinese James Bond.

Take it to OMNI.

Btw, why don't we ( alas the moderator if there is one ) move this thread over to OMNI and continue the promising slugfest there. :)

It is you who should have posted your political views to OMNI in the first place. But you posted them here, and there were responded to here. The original topic of this thread was whether it was acceptable or not to talk about politics in China. But you decided to give us the benefit of a description of what kinds of government you think it fair to criticise, while in the same breath stressing that we should stick here to travel and dining. The original question was about something relevant to travel in China--whether it was all right or not to talk about politics when there. Responses that tackled that were perfectly fair play. Your views on what governments are not to be approved of are both profoundly silly, to use a word you like to bandy about in postings yourself so please don't take spurious offence, and completely irrelevant.

And, of course, failing to follow your own guidelines yet another time, you've replied with more political material when your original posting, that started the off-topic discussion, is questioned.

You stated that you believe that people tend to have the kind of government they want to have, which seems a very difficult view to support. You were given several examples of large volumes of people in China who very clearly do not want the kind of government they have, thus falsifying this statement. And that doesn't even address the vast numbers who are not aware of alternative systems, or all those who've seen small scale village elections gerrymandered and would like to see them done fairly.

You pretend not to see the point (that there are lots of people in China who don't want the kind of government they have, so your view doesn't hold water) but nevertheless you try to switch the point to one of majorities instead, which suggests you understood perfectly well.

But you originally said 'I tend to believe that, with some exceptions, people tend to have the kind of government they want to have (North Korea is one of those exceptions),' not 'I tend to believe that, with some exceptions, people tend to have the kind of government that the majority of people in their country want to have (North Korea is one of those exceptions).' There do seem to be large numbers of people in North Korea who believe what they've been told (having little alternative) and who support the government, which confuses the issue still further. Very likely that's a majority, too. Given your original statement, so what?

But if they were given a chance to choose the kind of government they wanted, and indeed if the people of China were supplied with information about alternative forms of government, and given a chance to choose the type of government they wanted, it seems very likely that they would opt for change. They would be able to see that choosing their own leaders, and being able to get rid of them if they misbehaved (whatever the details of the system, but one might pray, based on the last two presidential elections that it wouldn't be the U.S. one), would be better than having to put up with who they are given, and being able to do nothing about it even if those leaders then go about starving them to death, or sending them to forced labour camps.

But the people of China do not have a choice, and so suggesting to them that they have the kind of government they want simply because that's the one they have does seem to be stretching both credulity and logic just a little. And clearly very many are aware that there are alternatives and would like change, and others aren't aware of the alternatives but know that they don't like what they have.

There then follows some vague reference to revolutions, not remotely relevent to the point being made. Perhaps presently there will indeed be the kind of upswell that actually topples the Beijing government, but I don't imagine it will be soon, and I don't imagine that whatever replaces it will necessarily be much different. There's certainly a very authoritarian tone to much of what many democracy campaigners say. But this is neither here nor there.

You originally then went on to observe that your first criterion for permitting yourself to disapprove of governments was if they were a direct threat to you personally. While questioning the morality of such a self-centred view, the point was made that in your own terms the Chinese government is precisely the kind of government of which you should permit yourself to disapprove, since it stands indicted of the indiscriminate sale of weapons and weapon technology to countries otherwise boycotted, included those regarded as threats to the US, and including the distribution of materiel assisting the development, distribution, or delivery of WMD. Your own government says so. So on your own terms, criticism of Beijing is justified.

Your response to this point is to ask "How about the U.S. giving money, support and weapons to the very people who have formed terrorist organizations that have successfully attacked the U.S.?"

Well, how about it? I'd say it's utterly deplorable. But what does that have to do with whether or not Beijing meets your criterion for criticism? Are you now accepting that in fact it does? Or are you suggesting that because the U.S. also supports terrorism as you claim, that it's all right for Beijing to do so? Or are you just going yet further off topic to tell us that you disapprove of the U.S. government?

Whatever the U.S. government may or may not do is irrelevant to the question of whether, if you think it right to criticise governments that support terrorism that may directly 'effect' you personally, you should therefore be criticising Beijing. If you are going to take threads off topic, please at least try to stick to the point.

We then come to a moral point, which you choose to ignore while getting miffed about your 'typo', and this is a criticism of your self-centred approach. If it is morally wrong for PTravel to be threatened by another government's actions in supporting terrorism, for instance, then this means that it is morally wrong for all individuals in relevantly similar situations to be threatened in this way. What makes a statement (flannel about Aristotle aside) a moral statement is precisely this universalizability. So there are just a few of us around the planet who might like to apply the PTravel standard for criticizing governments to ourselves, and, finding that we are indeed threatened by some of the actions of the Chinese government, might equally feel ourselves as licensed to criticize it as you do, but would also see that anyone else in a similar situation would be equally licensed. And by accepting this universalizability we would indeed by making a moral stand, and not an entirely selfish one.

And this would be equally true of governments that threaten their own people, as the Chinese government does. I'm sorry that you don't disapprove of this or find grounds to criticize the government, and obviously find the Chinese people so disposable. It seems still clearer that you do not hold a moral position at all, and your only response to this point was to descend into abusive accusations of abuse.

You next, rather than addressing the issues, deviate into suggesting that I don't understand the meaning of the word 'universal'. I understand it perfectly well, and I also understand that it's a standard cop-out of apologists for thuggish regimes that freedom of speech or human rights or universal suffrage are not universal, and that the people suffering under such regimes are not ready for them. There's something special about such people which means that policies such as imprisonment without trial, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of speech, and other policies we'd never put up with ourselves are right for them. This is a very ugly position indeed, and nothing to do, as you seem to suggest, with forcing religious or political vews upon people.

I've tried to explain above about how the meaning of moral statements containing words such as 'ought' or 'right' rests upon their applicability to all similar situations, and if it is wrong to deprive any of us of our liberty at the whim of the government, then it is wrong to deprive any Chinese in the same way (and the Chinese I know would all be pretty disappointed to hear anyone thinks otherwise). If that weren't sufficient, most claims of any supposed difference simply don't stand up to observation. The Taiwanese and the people of Hong Kong seem perfectly able to deal with elections, for instance, although there are those in the mainland and in Hong Kong itself who wish to suggest that they are in some way different and not ready. The lack of readiness lies in the thuggish regime, not in the electorate. The Chinese people are perfectly ready and willing not to be locked up without trial, whatever their masters (or those on the sidelines) may think.

In your original wildly off-topic posting you then went on to suggest that you allowed yourself to disapprove of governments "threatening the security of other countries allied with the U.S. (as in North Korea)," and it was suggested in response that threatening the security of other countries might perhaps be equally as bad, although you didn't seem to think so. But that's moral statements for you--they apply to all relevantly similar situations, not just U.S. ones.

Your response was to deny you said anything of the kind. But in fact you did. If you're now also willing to criticise governments that threaten the security of countries not allied with the U.S. (whoever they may be) I'm sure we'll all be delighted to hear it.

But then China does threaten allies of the U.S., notably Taiwan. This threat is frequently repeated rather stridently in the Chinese and overseas media (and, as recently noted, by the Chinese ambassador to the U.N. in a radio interview with the BBC). Its physical form is the installation over the last few years of thousands of missiles capable of reaching Taipei.

Apparently for you none of this constitutes a threat, and it's silly of the Taiwanese to think of it as one, although they insist on taking the mainland Chinese at their word. I think you must be using the word 'threat' in some specialist way known only to Old China Hands, and apparently completely unknown to the Taiwanese either, who insist on taking it at face value, and must clearly also "know a lot less about China than they think they do."

But your position on this is then revealed anyway as rather bankrupt, when you say, chillingly: "Regardless, the situation between Taiwan and China is a purely Chinese/Taiwanese matter." Ah! It's the universalizability that makes me think it's just wrong to shell and fire rockets at civilians whoever they are, or, indeed, to threaten to do so (or pretend you're threatening, or threatening in some special sense of the word that misleads everyone except PTravel into thinking you're threatening). But, "regardless", apparently if China threatens Taiwan that doesn't count because it's "a purely Chinese/Taiwanese matter." Let's suppose just for one moment that Taiwan is "an inalienable part of China" as the rubric usually has it (and I certainly don't accept anything of the kind), how does that make this not a threat? If I threaten my wife, am I not quite rightly going to be locked up just as much as if I threaten someone outside the family? How morally bankrupt this position on Taiwan seems to be. Just how much worse can this apologising for the thugs get? (Quite a lot, as we'll see below.)

I offered as evidence that (threatened) Taiwan is indeed an ally of the U.S. because a law passed there guarantees that the U.S. will arm and assist Taiwan in case of threats from China. The U.S. government clearly recognises these threats (although PTravel knows better) because it occasionally speaks out against them, continues to arm Taiwan, and occasionally sends in an aircraft carrier to make a point. So in short if it's right to disapprove of governments that threaten the U.S. or its allies, then it's right to disapprove of Beijing.

The response to this is a completely irrelevant question about whether I think the U.S. should go to war with China over Taiwan. I haven't a clue what the U.S. should do. I have even less of a clue as to what this has to do with whether the situation between China and Taiwan means that the PTravel criterion for disapproval is met. It's simply prevarication.

You also told us that you were prepared to criticise "other governments... violating some universal law (in the Aristotelean sense), e.g. sanctioning slavery (as in the Sudan), engaging in ethnic cleansing (as in Sudan, again)."

You were then invited to disapprove of the Beijing government because this is precisely the kind of thing it gets up to all the time, and you were given several examples which you chose not to believe in because it didn't suit you.

You baldly and rather frighteningly state that there is no ethnic cleansing in Tibet and Xinjiang. It's a while since I've been to Tibet, but when I was there the Tibetans were very keen to give me details. And I've travelled very extensively all over Xinjiang where Uyghurs and others were very clear on what was happening to them, and keen to talk about it. And there are numerous authorities for the mass destruction of religious and other buildings in both places, of forced 're-education', of mass arrests and imprisonments, and of floods of Han Chinese being sent in to dominate and expel the local people. Here's a sample description, but there's plenty more data for anyone to find who cares even the limpest of efforts at looking.

From http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/column...parentid=50657

The environment is now sacrosanct, but people must remain expendable. Ever so keen to offer Tibet to the world as an illustration of the salubrious effects of the cleansing of feudalism, the Chinese have continued apace with the ethnic cleansing of Tibet. Once a land has been emptied of its people, it must be "repopulated", and among the slightly lesser known consequences of the occupation of Tibet by the Chinese are the immense population transfers that have resulted in the Tibetans becoming a minority in their own country. Han Chinese is now the dominant ethnic group in Tibet, and by 1996 they already outnumbered Tibetans in Lhasa by a 2-1 ratio. It is now 46 years since China invaded and occupied Tibet, and the Chinese have come to understand, bolstered in recent years by their growing economic strength, that they can act with utter impunity.

Surprisingly there's then an admission that human rights violations are taking place in Tibet and Xinjiang (er... don't you think that just about anyone with any moral sense at all would find that sufficient grounds for criticising the government responsible even if PTravel wasn't personally affected?).

But we then wander wildly off the point again: "However, as I've said repeatedly, human rights violations are, without question, taking place here in the U.S. Are you willing to denounce the Bush Administration as evil and despotic, or is there some double standard operating here?"

I'm more than happy to denounce the Bush administration as evil, but not despotic, since unlike the Beijing government it doesn't hold absolute power. But supposing that instead I wanted to garland it with flowers, what on earth has that got to do with the matter under discussion? Or do two wrongs yet again make a right? If the Bush administration decided today to free everyone in Guantanamo pending a fair public trial would that make torture and murder in Tibet any more palatable? How about sticking to the point, which is that you say you disapprove of governments engaging in gross moral turpitude (slavery, ethnic cleansing) and here you are given a concrete example of the Beijing government engaging in precisely such a thing. And yes, it shouldn't really need explaining to anyone that if it is believed that the Bush government is engaging in the same sort of thing then it should be disapproved of, too.

A further example of getting to the rock bottom of morality was provided in the matter of forced abortions and sterilizations, frequently reported on by the Chinese themselves, let alone by outside news sources and human rights agencies, including, very recently 7000 examples in just one county of Shandong Province alone.

The response to this is simply shocking:

"First, I don't believe your numbers for a minute."

Then believe this:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...103579,00.html

"Second, as you well know, the one-child rule is enforced through fines -- abortions and sterilizations are means of last resort."

Setting aside the grotesque naivety, this is utterly revolting. As a "last resort" forced abortions and sterilizations are acceptable?

You go on: "However, no, I don't think it's "universal enough," at all -- I think China had to deal with an enormous over-population problem, and did so effectively. Your fixation on abortion and religion strongly suggests, if not actually confirms, your agenda."

There's no "fixation" on anything here. The appalling behaviour of the Chinese government has been given in a variety of different examples. Once again this is going ad hominem rather than actually addressing the arguments.

I couldn't care less about religion, but I don't see why people should be persecuted for practising it. I don't agree with that not least because I quite see that if I think it's all right to persecute religous people, I'm not going to have much to say when they come to lock me up for believing something else. It's called empathy. It's called seeing that it's a moral issue that people shouldn't be locked up just for what they say, even if what they say is that there's a man with a long white beard living in the clouds surrounded by people with wings.

And as for empathizing with those who've had forced abortions, that's just called being a living human being, and one with children of his own.

Here's the description of just one woman's fate from Time:

The men with the poison-filled syringe arrived two days before Li Juan's due date. They pinned her down on a bed in a local clinic, she says, and drove the needle into her abdomen until it entered the 9-month-old fetus. "At first, I could feel my child kicking a lot," says the 23-year-old. "Then, after a while, I couldn't feel her moving anymore." Ten hours later, Li delivered the girl she had intended to name Shuang (Bright). The baby was dead. To be absolutely sure, says Li, the officials--from the Linyi region, where she lives, in China's eastern Shandong province--dunked the infant's body for several minutes in a bucket of water beside the bed. All she could think about on that day last spring, recalls Li, was how she would hire a gang of thugs to take revenge on the people who killed her baby because the birth, they said, would have violated China's family-planning scheme.

There's little to be said to anyone who wouldn't condemn a government supporting this, let alone who would support it as a "last resort", or see holding such actions in utter horror as part of an "agenda".

Further comments suggesting that it's just as reasonable for Chinese people to expect a fair trial as it is for the rest of us are simply dismissed, and we are fobbed off with some suggestion that a dislike for the Beijing government is incompatible with spending time in China, as if it is impossible to distinguish between the government and its people, or between the process of travel and the idea of supporting the government. Probably most people would find such a distinction quite easy, just as they would find supporting fair trials in China equally as easy, and think that those who campaign for the Chinese government to obey its own laws should be allowed to have lawyers when arrested on trumped-up charges. But once again, such needs or values are not supposed to exist for the Chinese we are told. As if they are different kinds of human being from the rest of us. It's outrageous.

After some more irrelevant waffle about Aristotle (I have a degree in Philosophy by the way) we suddenly decide to remember (because it's convenient and we have nothing else to say) that this is a travel and dining forum, something we might have remembered before deciding to post our political ramblings here in the first place, let alone a further reply. Then we go ad hominam again, with "Do you really think that anyone wants a does of your political screed with every restaurant and hotel recommendation?" Indeed not, and they don't get it. But what they do get is a sticking to the point. When restaurant reviews are asked for they are given. When gratuitous praise of the thugs in Beijing is posted is gets a relevant response, as does rambling self-centred political waffle on what kinds of government are to be approved of, together with a demand that nothing negative should be said about the Chinese one.

But by now we've run out of steam altogether and venture into paranoia: "Feel free to attack my ideas. You don't do that, though -- you attack me." It was forecast that this claim would be made. But the postings by and large address, line by line, the claims made and not the man, although it's difficult not to mock at times. The responses rarely manage to address the arguments at all.

And finally in response to the complaint that you wish to stop people from posting criticism of the Beijing government, yet post gratuitous praise yourself, there's a challenge:

"Show me one post of mine (that wasn't in response to your own) that praised the PRC government."

Nothing could be easier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by iahphx
Perhaps the "police state" terminology is a bit harsh, but you're no doubt well aware of the civil liberties situation in China.

I am, but I wonder if you are? As I said in my earlier post, unless you're a political dissident AND sufficiently active so that you're deemed a threat to public security, you'll live a life as free and open as anyone in the west.

As you see, that's a response to iahphx, not me.

And then:

"The only "positive" views of the Chinese government that I've ever expressed relates to the one-child policy."

No, you've claimed, incredibly, that the government has made life in China "free and open" (except for the constant fear of being locked up if you disagree with the government, of course, amongst many other differences).

In order not to be challenged on your incredible naivety about China, keep it in OMNI if that's where it belongs, or China Daily. It won't be left unchallenged here in case it misleads other readers.

Peter N-H

Politics in the context of a travel experience are fine to discuss within a country forum. Politics in the context of "my belief is better than your belief" are better suited to Omni.

Information was offered and given in response to the initial question. Subsequently, conversation has moved to the area for which Omni is better suited. However, we have posters on this thread who are not Omni-enabled. Thus, I am simply locking the thread.

SanDiego1K
Senior Moderator