While I agree that the main idea and thrust of the debates series IS the Debate itself , I would appreciate (even just a text banner) seeing the VOTE result at the conclusion of Each debate end video.
Even if you take this sincerely (and most times I think interventions abroad are outright cynical), I loathe the crusader mentality. For starters, you can´t assume everywhere wants to have a liberal democracy, plenty of reasonable intelligent people in China like their system, they argue it produces good results and is more meritocratic than Liberal democracy. Whether you agree with that or not, it´s an argument that deserves to be pondered and taken seriously. I´m a kind of Churchillian democrat myself (i.e least bad form of government we´ve invented). Likewise, the likelihood that you will improve things in a country you know virtually nothing about is next to nil. You could easily end up backing the wrong side, which has happened lots of times, you could easily make things worse. If you want to influence people then trade and exchange is far more likely to do that. What I think is a better use of people´s efforts is improving the country where they live. And indeed we have a lot to improve in the UK, our democracy isn´t very good in some ways, nor is the US one. You´re more likely to succeed in the country you know best and have a better idea of how to fix the problems. The older I´ve got and the more I know about the world, the more I´ve moved away from an outright universalist position.
"For starters, you can´t assume everywhere wants to have a liberal democracy, plenty of reasonable intelligent people in China like their system, they argue it produces good results and is more meritocratic than Liberal democracy. Whether you agree with that or not, it´s an argument that deserves to be pondered and taken seriously." Unfortunately, authoritarians don't give us the same leeway.
@@bidenator9760 it´s the Chinese people´s decision whether or not to change their system not ours. Myself, I don´t like the American constitution very much, I think it´s far too inflexible, I think the Supreme court has far too much power. Yet, it´s not for me to make that decision, it´s for the Americans to decide if they want to change their constiution.
@@Minimmalmythicist The problem with your argument is that Chinese and other people have not even been given the opportunity to choose their government. A dictarorship was established and you seem to confuse tradition with acceptance. Remember 1989, Tiananmen revolts. How was this part of the chinese people treated? Weren't they as chinese as the supporters of the regime? I am Spanish, and here we know a few things about dictatorship, national soverignity and democracy. And when Franco died and the regime started to weaken people were given the chance and chose democracy for a virtual absolute majority. In the UK or the USA you never had a dictatorship. A republic in the USA since it was born, a parlamentary system in the UK that comes from a tradition of revolts against absolute power. Fighting tyranny in modern dictarorships is both moral and intelligent, for two reasons: either you believe human rights exist and humans are the same everywhere, so what's basic for you is basic for the other (i.e. freedom of religion, freedom of speech) or you don't believe that. But if you dont believe that you are not only an absolute relativist (having a government that imprisons artists or journalists is morally equivalent to one that does not; having limited terms or separation of powers is equal to not having this; having a society in which both men and women are legally same citizens or not, etc) but in reality you would be the "racist" because you would seem to think that some people deserve the basic freedoms you enjoy an defend and other people are "made" for eternal slavery. Specially when you choose to ignore political dissidents from this dictatorships. Then rights would not be universal but contingent which destroys our liberal democratic systems. Nazis and other tyrants created specific laws that despised the universal, enlightenment truths in favor of national identity-based legal systems. They were absolute relativists. But the intelligence reason is that if we follow this relativist path then , why wouldn't it be acceptable to have different rights INSIDE our own democracies depending on the culture each community chooses? This would put your rights and freedoms in danger, as well as condemn dissident individuals living inside this communities they were born into, not chose.
@@azanulbizar12 Let us take your argument paragraph by paragraph shall we. To say the Chinese did not choose there government is to say nothing new at all. In point of fact, it is true that the Chinese do not choose there government, as it is the case that neither does anyone else. We do not choose, we are simply given two options, of vague promises, of even vaguer vibes and worse of all sharp sharp threats. A vote not for me is a vote for him, not voting in protest is to vote for abortion rights taken away. No one, no one anywhere in place or anywhere in time were or would be given a choice of how to mend there government. You can protest, by all means can, but just be ready to be crushed by the cane of the cops. Kamala right now proposes no new law apart from not being Republican, not implementing (and it is only in promise) what Republicans have planned they would. Few few voters who would vote for Kamala do it because they agree with it, agree that she is right. That is not a democracy my friend, if I don't vote then I would be maimed and killed, and demand to better is responded with this threat (as Kamala infamously said in her 'I am speaking clip'), then let us just be clear here; it is not a choice, it is a threat. About that report, here is a very good video I would like you to check out. th-cam.com/video/2Oq2k066A1w/w-d-xo.html where he talks about all the points that I would have recalled but in much worse form. I am afraid my friend you don't know just how essential, how unforgivable, has been the attempts by the US government to suppress, to alter and to influence, democracies anywhere in the world and especially, in post war Europe. If by freedom you meal only the illusion that one can say what one want while ignoring that which will make others hear it are but a simple and like-minded group of friends quiet very willing to do as they please. Have you ever wondered why Traditional media is so pissed about alternative sources of news taking over, so concerned over radicalization. Totalitarianism as you describe has simply never existed. Stalin was not a dictator (as CIA agrees, here is the source: www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf) Any attempt by any nation to fight against the full might of a coalition of western imperialist forces and the reproduction of anti-revolutionary cultural hegemony must be fought with equal if not greater ferocity by the nation founded explicitly on revolutionary sentiment, any attempt to not do so is simply an attempt, and I am very sorry if this is your first time hearing it, to give away the fruits of the revolution. To compete with US and not be bombed, and hence acquisition of resources towards military innovations and not that which improved human lives, was one of the major reasons why USSR fell. Mate, my good mate, UK had an empire, it has an monarchy (and still, still not completely powerless one), and US was founded on slavery, what are you talking about. Every four to five years you people celebrate this myth of self determinism as if you are not being played like parents do when they pretend that Santa has came, not given the equivalent of cookies and chocolates and parents then give. Every decision of any importance, of minimum wage of UBI, of foreign policy of the environment, of police and of prosecution, and most importantly about how and how much time you would be spending in your office, you know where you spend apart from sleeping the most time of your entire life, in decisively not in your control. Yesterday US had slaves, today it has prisoners made to work for pennies. Yesterday UK had an empire, today, it serves like Israel as the protectorate of American one. Every state nation has it's own interest, primarely selfish ones, and to pretend that any nation would risk so much morale and material to simply fight any dictatorship of any country anywhere, that of all those countries US and western nations, the colonizers for the most part, would be the one crusading, is idiotic. Every nation fights for it's interest and as long as your interest serves or, at least, don't contradict that of the US, you are perfectly okay (for example Saudi Arabia, then flipping between Iran and Iraq, Pakistan and several several African nations, and worst of all, Israel). Israel is committing a genocide and yet there is and there won't be any call to "give" the Palestinian people any freedom, because Israel is an American extension in the middle east, able and willing to destabilize it for it's own interest and hence not let it emerge as any force powerful enough to challenge American hegemony. It is divide and rule, it had always been that. I would go one but something tells me you won't read further. If you would then just tell me, and I would reply. Till then
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
While I agree that the main idea and thrust of the debates series IS the Debate itself ,
I would appreciate (even just a text banner) seeing the VOTE result at the conclusion of Each debate end video.
it MATTERS
Yes it could be nice to know abiout the public :)
The house should keep its nose out of other people's business
It reassures me that even the Oxford Union laughs at "President Dick".
Even if you take this sincerely (and most times I think interventions abroad are outright cynical), I loathe the crusader mentality. For starters, you can´t assume everywhere wants to have a liberal democracy, plenty of reasonable intelligent people in China like their system, they argue it produces good results and is more meritocratic than Liberal democracy. Whether you agree with that or not, it´s an argument that deserves to be pondered and taken seriously.
I´m a kind of Churchillian democrat myself (i.e least bad form of government we´ve invented).
Likewise, the likelihood that you will improve things in a country you know virtually nothing about is next to nil. You could easily end up backing the wrong side, which has happened lots of times, you could easily make things worse. If you want to influence people then trade and exchange is far more likely to do that.
What I think is a better use of people´s efforts is improving the country where they live. And indeed we have a lot to improve in the UK, our democracy isn´t very good in some ways, nor is the US one. You´re more likely to succeed in the country you know best and have a better idea of how to fix the problems.
The older I´ve got and the more I know about the world, the more I´ve moved away from an outright universalist position.
"For starters, you can´t assume everywhere wants to have a liberal democracy, plenty of reasonable intelligent people in China like their system, they argue it produces good results and is more meritocratic than Liberal democracy. Whether you agree with that or not, it´s an argument that deserves to be pondered and taken seriously."
Unfortunately, authoritarians don't give us the same leeway.
@@bidenator9760 it´s the Chinese people´s decision whether or not to change their system not ours.
Myself, I don´t like the American constitution very much, I think it´s far too inflexible, I think the Supreme court has far too much power.
Yet, it´s not for me to make that decision, it´s for the Americans to decide if they want to change their constiution.
@@Minimmalmythicist The problem with your argument is that Chinese and other people have not even been given the opportunity to choose their government.
A dictarorship was established and you seem to confuse tradition with acceptance. Remember 1989, Tiananmen revolts. How was this part of the chinese people treated? Weren't they as chinese as the supporters of the regime?
I am Spanish, and here we know a few things about dictatorship, national soverignity and democracy. And when Franco died and the regime started to weaken people were given the chance and chose democracy for a virtual absolute majority.
In the UK or the USA you never had a dictatorship. A republic in the USA since it was born, a parlamentary system in the UK that comes from a tradition of revolts against absolute power.
Fighting tyranny in modern dictarorships is both moral and intelligent, for two reasons: either you believe human rights exist and humans are the same everywhere, so what's basic for you is basic for the other (i.e. freedom of religion, freedom of speech) or you don't believe that.
But if you dont believe that you are not only an absolute relativist (having a government that imprisons artists or journalists is morally equivalent to one that does not; having limited terms or separation of powers is equal to not having this; having a society in which both men and women are legally same citizens or not, etc) but in reality you would be the "racist" because you would seem to think that some people deserve the basic freedoms you enjoy an defend and other people are "made" for eternal slavery. Specially when you choose to ignore political dissidents from this dictatorships.
Then rights would not be universal but contingent which destroys our liberal democratic systems. Nazis and other tyrants created specific laws that despised the universal, enlightenment truths in favor of national identity-based legal systems. They were absolute relativists.
But the intelligence reason is that if we follow this relativist path then , why wouldn't it be acceptable to have different rights INSIDE our own democracies depending on the culture each community chooses?
This would put your rights and freedoms in danger, as well as condemn dissident individuals living inside this communities they were born into, not chose.
@@azanulbizar12 Let us take your argument paragraph by paragraph shall we.
To say the Chinese did not choose there government is to say nothing new at all. In point of fact, it is true that the Chinese do not choose there government, as it is the case that neither does anyone else. We do not choose, we are simply given two options, of vague promises, of even vaguer vibes and worse of all sharp sharp threats. A vote not for me is a vote for him, not voting in protest is to vote for abortion rights taken away. No one, no one anywhere in place or anywhere in time were or would be given a choice of how to mend there government. You can protest, by all means can, but just be ready to be crushed by the cane of the cops. Kamala right now proposes no new law apart from not being Republican, not implementing (and it is only in promise) what Republicans have planned they would. Few few voters who would vote for Kamala do it because they agree with it, agree that she is right. That is not a democracy my friend, if I don't vote then I would be maimed and killed, and demand to better is responded with this threat (as Kamala infamously said in her 'I am speaking clip'), then let us just be clear here; it is not a choice, it is a threat.
About that report, here is a very good video I would like you to check out. th-cam.com/video/2Oq2k066A1w/w-d-xo.html
where he talks about all the points that I would have recalled but in much worse form.
I am afraid my friend you don't know just how essential, how unforgivable, has been the attempts by the US government to suppress, to alter and to influence, democracies anywhere in the world and especially, in post war Europe. If by freedom you meal only the illusion that one can say what one want while ignoring that which will make others hear it are but a simple and like-minded group of friends quiet very willing to do as they please. Have you ever wondered why Traditional media is so pissed about alternative sources of news taking over, so concerned over radicalization. Totalitarianism as you describe has simply never existed. Stalin was not a dictator (as CIA agrees, here is the source: www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf) Any attempt by any nation to fight against the full might of a coalition of western imperialist forces and the reproduction of anti-revolutionary cultural hegemony must be fought with equal if not greater ferocity by the nation founded explicitly on revolutionary sentiment, any attempt to not do so is simply an attempt, and I am very sorry if this is your first time hearing it, to give away the fruits of the revolution. To compete with US and not be bombed, and hence acquisition of resources towards military innovations and not that which improved human lives, was one of the major reasons why USSR fell.
Mate, my good mate, UK had an empire, it has an monarchy (and still, still not completely powerless one), and US was founded on slavery, what are you talking about. Every four to five years you people celebrate this myth of self determinism as if you are not being played like parents do when they pretend that Santa has came, not given the equivalent of cookies and chocolates and parents then give. Every decision of any importance, of minimum wage of UBI, of foreign policy of the environment, of police and of prosecution, and most importantly about how and how much time you would be spending in your office, you know where you spend apart from sleeping the most time of your entire life, in decisively not in your control. Yesterday US had slaves, today it has prisoners made to work for pennies. Yesterday UK had an empire, today, it serves like Israel as the protectorate of American one.
Every state nation has it's own interest, primarely selfish ones, and to pretend that any nation would risk so much morale and material to simply fight any dictatorship of any country anywhere, that of all those countries US and western nations, the colonizers for the most part, would be the one crusading, is idiotic. Every nation fights for it's interest and as long as your interest serves or, at least, don't contradict that of the US, you are perfectly okay (for example Saudi Arabia, then flipping between Iran and Iraq, Pakistan and several several African nations, and worst of all, Israel). Israel is committing a genocide and yet there is and there won't be any call to "give" the Palestinian people any freedom, because Israel is an American extension in the middle east, able and willing to destabilize it for it's own interest and hence not let it emerge as any force powerful enough to challenge American hegemony. It is divide and rule, it had always been that.
I would go one but something tells me you won't read further. If you would then just tell me, and I would reply. Till then
Where do we see the vote tally?
Cool video, just wish the quality of filming is better and have more angles.
Gotta love the wrong hand gesture at 1:20:30 and the president's inability to conceal his laugh right after.
Did she say Caitlin Stark?
I love you
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
.
UK OF INDIA.
Rule of law ?????
Christianism law
Islamic law