Crticism against a government is not oppostion to a whole country

[CANADIEN]

Too often we hear the argument...

"You don't like Guantanamo Bay, you oppose the war in Irak and you think Bush is a fool, you're anti-American"

"You oppose some policies of the government of Israel, you are an anti-Semite"

"You say the Chinese government violates human rights, you show anti-Chinese prejudice"

"You don't like the Liberal government, your opinion is not that of a true Canadian" (that was a few years ago, I know)

Even in a democracy, a government does not equates a population as a whole. This is not to say that none of those who dislike Bush hate the U.S.; that view would be as simplistic as the "you dislike him, you hate America" line. But too often this is used to deflect and ignore facts and opinions people don't want to hear.

[xul]

Too often we hear the argument...

"You don't like Guantanamo Bay, you oppose the war in Irak and you think Bush is a fool, you're anti-American"

"You oppose some policies of the government of Israel, you are an anti-Semite"

"You say the Chinese government violates human rights, you show anti-Chinese prejudice"

"You don't like the Liberal government, your opinion is not that of a true Canadian" (that was a few years ago, I know)

Even in a democracy, a government does not equates a population as a whole. This is not to say that none of those who dislike Bush hate the U.S.; that view would be as simplistic as the "you dislike him, you hate America" line. But too often this is used to deflect and ignore facts and opinions people don't want to hear.

I totally agree your statement, and I think we can also criticize a country or a nation or a certain a group of people if the criticism is correct and just states the facts.

But I have also read a lot of criticism which enlarged a individual or local events or cases of a nation or a country into whole nation or country. Such as, a American soldier killed a dog=American are very different from Canadian for they are all brutal war psycho; China let prisoners work=China is a slavery country and all its good are made in prison or slavery factories....

So I think everyone should distinguish whether the problems which he wants to criticize are belonged to an individual, a certain group of people or a nation.

And even if what we criticize is a government we still must base our criticism on fact not on fiction of some writer's holy books whether the government is an elected government or a dictatorial government.

For example:

If some one says, "most chinese use pirate Windows in their computers." It is a criticism on a nation, but it is right for it is fact by statistics ;

If he says,"all chinese use pirate Windows in their computers." It is also a criticism on a nation, but it is wrong for it is not fact;

If he says, "xul uses pirate Windows in his computer." It is a criticism to a individual but it is wrong;

If he says, "I know a chinese who uses pirate windows in his computer." It is also a criticism to a individual but it is probably right if we can trust the guy who says that.

So, whom we criticize to is not important. It is important that whether our criticism is correct and based on fact.

Edited August 4, 2008 by xul

[xul]

Please allow me to add some additional explaination.

Even if everyone were honorable, honest and reasonable guys who have totally agreed that discussions must based on fact, there might still exist tagging and generalization. I think it is because of how would we understand and adopt the "fact" or "truth" whitch supports our points of view. Though I think there might be only one truth or fact existed in the world by philosophical meaning, but people who have different culture, education and experience usually have different understanding, comprehension and observation of truth and fact.

For example:

If I said I believe that the sun revolves around the earth, I think all "honorable, honest and reasonable guys" here would disagree with me and would think I am a kid or an idiot.

But if I have a time-turner to send me back to a medieval forum, I think all "honorable, honest and reasonable guys" there would agree with me and, if any "honorable, honest and reasonable guys" here dare to come with me to argue with them, I think being accused an idiot would be bettter for him, becasue he might probably be burned at the stake by those medieval "honorable, honest and reasonable guys".

But filling up the gaps of understanding of the truth or the fact between different people who have different culture, education and experience is a hard task which may take a long long time, so tolerance is necessary---that means when we deeply believe in what we call the fact or the truth, we must also consider that what our "rivals" who deeply believe in may also be a part of truth or fact.

If we could understand these, I think it might be helpful to us avoiding tagging or generalizing others and concentrating our statements on expression of what we believe in to convince others.

Edited August 4, 2008 by xul

[Argus]

Too often we hear the argument...

"You don't like Guantanamo Bay, you oppose the war in Irak and you think Bush is a fool, you're anti-American"

"You oppose some policies of the government of Israel, you are an anti-Semite"

"You say the Chinese government violates human rights, you show anti-Chinese prejudice"

"You don't like the Liberal government, your opinion is not that of a true Canadian" (that was a few years ago, I know)

Even in a democracy, a government does not equates a population as a whole. This is not to say that none of those who dislike Bush hate the U.S.; that view would be as simplistic as the "you dislike him, you hate America" line. But too often this is used to deflect and ignore facts and opinions people don't want to hear.

Theoretically correct. However, there is a saying "Not everyone who is anti-Israel is an anti-Semite, but every anti-Semite is anti-Israel."

When I see people repeatedly criticizing Israel, being "deeply concerned" about the human rights situations there, about the plight of the Palestinians, et all, but who never shows the slightest concern with regard to human rights abuses anywhere else, or, indeed, the cruelty or violence of any other governments or groups in the region, including within Palestine, I get somewhat suspicious. When I see these people zealously organizing protests, boycotts of Israeli products, using violent words to describe Israeli politicians, but then shrugging off the behaviour of other regional leaders (almost all of whom are bloody murderers) I smell something bad.

A lot of the criticism of the US is like-minded. People who will completely ignore or even try to rationalize or excuse a particular behaviour from someone they favour will get red in the face while snarling abuse at the Americans for doing the same thing.

As for China. It's government is corrupt and murderous, and it's people largely ignorant, just like Russians. That's what you get when there's no free press or media.

[eyeball]

As for China. It's government is corrupt and murderous, and it's people largely ignorant, just like Russians. That's what you get when there's no free press or media.

The trouble is when you do get a free press and media it promptly becomes dominated by leftists...

[gullyfourmyle]

I'm amazed considering the grammar, that anyone was able to respond to the original post. It made no sense. Subsequent posts didn't do much better. But somehow you all came to a happy conclusion. But do any of you actually understand that what you said was almost totally meaningless?

Christopher Columbus would be proud.

[guyser]

The trouble is when you do get a free press and media it promptly becomes dominated by leftists...

Yes yes blame the media. Too funny. Go back in history and come see us soon.

[eyeball]

On the other hand the free press and media are sometimes dominated by consortiums of networks or even politicians.