• 3 years - 45 posts - Latest - RSS
• OP: 4 Goods vs 3 No Goods
• Thread: 211 Goods vs 107 No Goods

1. Sociologist
   36d5
   

   You're conflating so many questions here that it's barely worth responding, but here goes:
   1. Whether a people deserve autonomy, or statehood, need have nothing to do with whether they have had autonomy, or statehood, in the past.
   2. Whether Tibet should have statehood, normatively speaking, has nothing to do with its geopolitical consequences for China.
   3. Whether a people deserve autonomy, or statehood, has nothing to do with the (often hypocritical) behavior of Western leaders and states.
   4. If you want to discuss this question, you need to consider the normative justifications typically construed for ethnic and/or national autonomy and self-rule. Having arrived at a position of what you take to be justified, you must then consider the practical/political consequences.
   5. In some respects, Ukraine/Russia serves as a nice point of comparison to Tibet/China.

   No, not at all. There is no historic precedent for irredentism in the case of Tibet, as opposed to say Taiwan.
   This is rather false. Tibet was unquestionably part of China under the Qing dynasty. At no time at all after 1720 has Tibet ever been recognized as a de jure independent state by the international community.
   Whether or not Tibet should have "independence" comes down to Cold War geopolitics and the desire by the west to dominant China. There are 3 million people in Tibet, in mountainous highlands overlooking 1 billion Chinese people. The west doesn't acctually care about those 3 million people, they care about having geopolitical leverage against China. China would never simply grant independence to Tibet, because the next day there would be NATO bases there, and China would never cease to be at risk of an invasion which would be difficult to repel.
   Tibetans, unlike Taiwanese, are a separate ethnic group and different culture from Han Chinese, and on those terms should be allowed to practice cultural autonomy as a nation. But that's

   ...See full post

   different than the question of whether the greater good for humanity in the world generally would be served by a legally "independent" Tibet which would in reality be just a base for western operations against China. The US often seizes on the plight of ethnic minorities as pretext for carving enemy powers apart in service of its own interests.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 12 GOOD 6 NO GOOD !

2. Sociologist
   6204
   

   Don't argue with the obvious ChiCom trolls.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

3. Sociologist
   89f7
   

   “Normatively speaking” my dog deserves autonomy or even statehood with my neighbor’s dog, but at this moment they are both enslaved and no one would think twice about it. Unless you are an unemployed political philosopher, talking about normative justification per se is a waste of time.

   You're conflating so many questions here that it's barely worth responding, but here goes:
   1. Whether a people deserve autonomy, or statehood, need have nothing to do with whether they have had autonomy, or statehood, in the past.
   2. Whether Tibet should have statehood, normatively speaking, has nothing to do with its geopolitical consequences for China.
   3. Whether a people deserve autonomy, or statehood, has nothing to do with the (often hypocritical) behavior of Western leaders and states.
   4. If you want to discuss this question, you need to consider the normative justifications typically construed for ethnic and/or national autonomy and self-rule. Having arrived at a position of what you take to be justified, you must then consider the practical/political consequences.
   5. In some respects, Ukraine/Russia serves as a nice point of comparison to Tibet/China.
   No, not at all. There is no historic precedent for irredentism in the case of Tibet, as opposed to say Taiwan.
   This is rather false. Tibet was unquestionably part of China under the Qing dynasty. At no time at all after 1720 has Tibet ever been recognized as a de jure independent state by the international community.
   Whether or not Tibet should have "independence" comes down to Cold War geopolitics and the desire by the west to dominant China. There are 3 million people in Tibet, in mountainous highlands overlooking 1 billion Chinese people. The west doesn't acctually care about those 3 million people, they care about having geopolitical leverage against China. China would never simply grant independence to Tibet, because the next day there would be NAT

   ...See full post

   O bases there, and China would never cease to be at risk of an invasion which would be difficult to repel.
   Tibetans, unlike Taiwanese, are a separate ethnic group and different culture from Han Chinese, and on those terms should be allowed to practice cultural autonomy as a nation. But that's different than the question of whether the greater good for humanity in the world generally would be served by a legally "independent" Tibet which would in reality be just a base for western operations against China. The US often seizes on the plight of ethnic minorities as pretext for carving enemy powers apart in service of its own interests.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 6 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

4. Sociologist
   14c8
   

   89f7: That's interesting about your dog. In many parts of the world, the normative status of animals is much discussed. This has had enormous consequences for the treatment of animals. Indeed, how you treat your dog is not only of interest to philosophers and the RSPCA: it's of interest to the state. Now, if you think normative arguments are meaningless, there's nothing you can say, for example, about those nimble capitalists who added melamine to infant formula in China. You could only conclude with a descriptively "realistic" statement that the practice was "profitable". But surely the normative argument around protecting babies is not senseless. To be sure, normatively and feasibility must always be weighed up against each other. But unless we have some clarity around each notion, for any given context, well... we'll just be confused.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 5 NO GOOD !

5. Sociologist
   f7c0
   

   Tibet is an autonomous region occupied by China

   3 years ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

6. Sociologist
   f193
   

   southerner here. we are different from yankees, we were militarily conquered by yankees in history, we are autonomously occupied by yankees today, we have been physically culturally clintly obamaly normatively and abnormatively oppressed by yankees. Free us!

   3 years ago # QUOTE 10 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

7. Sociologist
   aae3
   

   One, babies are not states. Two, normativity and feasibility are not a binary opposition.

   Now we almost all agree that human life is sacred, but it was not the case in the pre-modern world (cf. Durkheim). Although we almost all agree that no one should be stateless, shared rules that regulate how the world is divided into states and how people are assigned to states simply do not exist. They are being negotiated, but that is a historical and social process and the "deserve" questions you raised do not contribute much to the current state of the negotiation.

   That's why in this particular case history matters more than normativity. We don't even know for sure if the majority of Tibetans actually want statehood and we don't know not simply because the Chinese don't want anyone to know. Just look at all the recent elections and referendums in the West. Tibetans themselves probably don't not know either. That's why irredentism matters more: it adds more structure to the negotiation.

   Not saying we are not contributing to the negotiation through our normative arguments, but such arguments are only meaningful and productive staying in touch with the reality and oriented towards actions and practices.

   89f7: That's interesting about your dog. In many parts of the world, the normative status of animals is much discussed. This has had enormous consequences for the treatment of animals. Indeed, how you treat your dog is not only of interest to philosophers and the RSPCA: it's of interest to the state. Now, if you think normative arguments are meaningless, there's nothing you can say, for example, about those nimble capitalists who added melamine to infant formula in China. You could only conclude with a descriptively "realistic" statement that the practice was "profitable". But surely the normative argument around protecting babies is not senseless. To be sure, normatively and feasibility must always be weighed up against each othe

   ...See full post

   r. But unless we have some clarity around each notion, for any given context, well... we'll just be confused.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 9 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

8. Sociologist
   534f
   

   I have video of CCP leadership doing goats.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

9. Sociologist
   f35d
   

   No.

   3 years ago # QUOTE 3 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

10. Sociologist
    786e
    

    It's worth pointing out that before China "occupied" Tibet, it was ruled by the Dalai Lama as a totalitarian medieval theocracy in which 95% of the population were held in serfdom. As late as the 1930s and 40s, the Dalai Lama regime still practiced gruesome mutilation as routine "criminal justice" against political prisoners.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 10 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

11. Sociologist
    f193
    

    Exactly, before yankees conquered south, we were......well......some were happy others were not...

    3 years ago # QUOTE 5 GOOD 2 NO GOOD !

12. Sociologist
    ebaa
    

    The south will rise again!

    3 years ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

13. Sociologist
    fd1c
    

    how about Hong Kong?

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

14. Sociologist
    9cc4
    

    all the debates go down to the fact that China is in general not rich yet. The Chinese just need to wait until some time in future when the US/England becomes poor, when blacks and Indians or Irish no longer see any benefits in staying in the same country. Then will be the time when it becomes legitimate to question why the South of the US or North Ireland cannot be an independent state and to fund independence movements there.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 4 NO GOOD !

15. Sociologist
    0eb7
    

    all the debates go down to the fact that China is in general not rich yet. The Chinese just need to wait until some time in future when the US/England becomes poor, when blacks and Indians or Irish no longer see any benefits in staying in the same country. Then will be the time when it becomes legitimate to question why the South of the US or North Ireland cannot be an independent state and to fund independence movements there.

    I want some of whatever you're smoking this morning

    3 years ago # QUOTE 4 GOOD 3 NO GOOD !

16. Sociologist
    047f
    

    It's worth pointing out that before China "occupied" Tibet, it was ruled by the Dalai Lama as a totalitarian medieval theocracy in which 95% of the population were held in serfdom. As late as the 1930s and 40s, the Dalai Lama regime still practiced gruesome mutilation as routine "criminal justice" against political prisoners.

    Yup.

    3 years ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

17. Sociologist
    fbc8
    

    ?

    3 years ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

18. Sociologist
    fbc8
    

    I don’t

    2 years ago # QUOTE 2 GOOD 0 NO GOOD !

19. Sociologist
    592d
    

    No, I do not think of Tibet as part of China. I do not view how poorly Tibet was run prior to Chinese occupation as relevant to the discussion.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

20. Sociologist
    fbc8
    

    ?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 GOOD 1 NO GOOD !

Reply »