China Has an Invalid Government

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

...Using the reasoning that causes them not to be a democracy, however, probably shows that the US is not a democracy either.

Really? How is the US not a democracy? We vote for our leaders, which is a valid definition of democracy.

The political party of China chooses who will be leaders.

Here in the US...our political parties choose who we will be able to vote for to be leaders.

Same thing...but one more party...one more step in the process.

But in both cases, it is the political parties (mostly their power brokers) that are really in charge...not the people.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I didn't name only the executive.

You did. You wrote "government"

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

...Using the reasoning that causes them not to be a democracy, however, probably shows that the US is not a democracy either.

Really? How is the US not a democracy? We vote for our leaders, which is a valid definition of democracy.

The political party of China chooses who will be leaders.

Here in the US...our political parties choose who we will be able to vote for to be leaders.

Same thing...but one more party...one more step in the process.

But in both cases, it is the political parties (mostly their power brokers) that are really in charge...not the people.

Actually, here in the US you can vote for whoever you want to be president or a member of Congress. The parties decide whom they will sponsor. In China, the average citizen cannot vote for any federal member of government (e.g. a parliament member), not even the guy who picks the guy. Also, you're curiously silent on that whole free speech thing I keep talking about. In China people who express views the government doesn't like are subject to arrest. Peaceful assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances is not a right and is often broken up by force. Is that also just as good in your book?

It never occurred to me that anyone wouldn't count a parliament as being part of the government.

Her Majesty's Government (HMG),[1] commonly referred to as the British Government, is the central government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.[2]
The Government is led by the Prime Minister, who selects all the remaining Ministers. ... The monarch selects as Prime Minister the leader of the party most likely to command a majority in Parliament.[4]

The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,[3] commonly known as the UK Parliament, the British Parliament, the Westminster Parliament or by the metonym "Westminster", is the supreme legislative body in the United Kingdom, British Crown dependencies and British overseas territories.

izzythepush wrote:

That's reassuring. Why should we accept your definition, as opposed to say, a dictionary definition?

Here is my original definition of democracy from page 3 of this thread:


"I thought that democracy meant a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting."

Brandon9000 wrote:

izzythepush wrote:

That's reassuring. Why should we accept your definition, as opposed to say, a dictionary definition?

Here is my original definition of democracy from page 3 of this thread:


"I thought that democracy meant a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting."

Yours is wrong, as has been pointed out, here in the UK we do not elect our leaders. We vote for the legislative, the legislative chooses the leaders.

We vote for the legislative, the legislative chooses the leaders.

izzythepush wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

izzythepush wrote:

That's reassuring. Why should we accept your definition, as opposed to say, a dictionary definition?

Here is my original definition of democracy from page 3 of this thread:


"I thought that democracy meant a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting."

Yours is wrong, as has been pointed out, here in the UK we do not elect our leaders. We vote for the legislative, the legislative chooses the leaders.

1. Interesting that you didn't include the rest of my post in which I quote a dictionary definition. If my definition:

"I thought that democracy meant a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting."

is wrong, then why does the Merriam Webster online dictionary say, in part:

a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting

which is my definition. Is Merriam Webster wrong too?

izzythepush wrote:

We vote for the legislative, the legislative chooses the leaders.

When I defined democracy as the choosing of leaders by the people, it never occurred to me that anyone wouldn't consider the legislature to be counted as leaders. I have stated several times in this thread that choosing a legislature or choosing the guy who chooses the guy is within my idea of democracy. In China, they don't choose the president, they don't choose the premier, and they don't choose the legislature.

Your ploy that because I said that China isn't a democracy and is therefore invalid, I mean that the governments of Britain, Europe, etc. are not democracies and also invalid is false. Britain and the other European governments mentioned here certainly meet my idea of democracy. I've said over and over here that choosing the guy who chooses the guy counts. I'm getting the idea here that the only way you can argue your case is by misrepresenting my opinions.

In China, the average citizen doesn't even get to choose the guy who chooses the guy. That's the problem I'm referring to. The other problem is the lack of free speech. In the Tiananmen Square massacre, pro-democracy demonstrators were cleared out by force and even shot dead. No matter how many times I bring up the suppression of free speech and free assembly as examples of invalid government, you don't seem to respond to it.

Brandon9000 wrote:

...No matter how many times I bring up the suppression of free speech and free assembly as examples of invalid government, you don't seem to respond to it.

That is probably because the suppression of free speech and free assembly are not qualifiers for a valid government.

What does it take to finally get you to understand that.

It may be reprehensible...but it is not a qualifier for a valid government. [/b]

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

...No matter how many times I bring up the suppression of free speech and free assembly as examples of invalid government, you don't seem to respond to it.

That is probably because the suppression of free speech and free assembly are not qualifiers for a valid government.

What does it take to finally get you to understand that.

It may be reprehensible...but it is not a qualifier for a valid government. [/b]

Yes, we disagree.

I think that freedom of speech and assembly are prerequisites for valid government and you don't.

Beyond your definition of "valid government," I think it rather sad that you don't regard these things as being of supreme importance as I do.

I don't know what the point of this thread is, what are you proposing we should do about China?

I'm glad you seem have dropped your insistence that the American model of democracy should be forced on everyone else.

Do you want to arm our mentally ill with automatic weapons like you do in America as well?

That is so illogical, Brandon, I will not even bother to mount the argument against it.

The legislature does not lead, the executive does.

You're right, China is not a democracy, and has abused human rights. The same can be said of American ally Saudi Arabia, but you're not kicking up a song and dance about that.

I don't know what the point of this thread is, what are you proposing we should do about China?

I'm glad you seem have dropped your insistence that the American model of democracy should be forced on everyone else.

Do you want to arm our mentally ill with automatic weapons like you do in America as well?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Beyond your definition of "valid government," I think it rather sad that you don't regard these things as being of supreme importance as I do.

So...because I disagree with you about what makes a government valid or not...you have to assert that I do not put sufficient importance on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

That is so illogical, Brandon, I will not even bother to mount the argument against it.

Do you want to arm our mentally ill with automatic weapons like you do in America as well?

Does anyone know if Chinese citizens have access to any dictionary that describes democracy in the same terms as Webster's?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Beyond your definition of "valid government," I think it rather sad that you don't regard these things as being of supreme importance as I do.

So...because I disagree with you about what makes a government valid or not...you have to assert that I do not put sufficient importance on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

That is so illogical, Brandon, I will not even bother to mount the argument against it.

Okay. Run away.