Miscellaneous News

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Of course it's easy to hide behind the environment because the environment can't speak for itself and point out all of the hypocrisy. It's like animal rights activists. The West eats more meat per person and in total tonnage than the rest of the world combined yet they're at the forefront of speaking up for animals criticizing other cultures about how they treat animals. They will say they kill humanely which they say makes the difference. Ask the animal, if they could, does that matter to them? And like I said before, the royals are speaking sternly for the environment to deflect from the scandal of accusations of racism in the royal family. What does Prince William pulling no punches do? So the world now is really going to listen?
 

Nutrient

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yeah, I'm fine with corruption when it brings with it economic development and rising standards of living.

(I haven't paid much attention to the conversation on corruption. I just want to comment on the above sentence.)

Sorry, I'm not fine with corruption, even when it does not impede economic growth. You seem to believe that corruption is necessary for development; perhaps you're thinking of Taiwan.

But Singapore is a counterexample: it is now one of the richest countries in the world, in spite of doing everything it could to fight the rot while it was developing. And Singapore used to be one of the poorest countries in the world; the British established it to take advantage of the cheap labor (mostly ethnic Chinese).

So corruption is by no means necessary for development, as you appear to think.
 

hashtagpls

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Of course it's easy to hide behind the environment because the environment can't speak for itself and point out all of the hypocrisy. It's like animal rights activists. The West eats more meat per person and in total tonnage than the rest of the world combined yet they're at the forefront of speaking up for animals criticizing other cultures about how they treat animals. They will say they kill humanely which they say makes the difference. Ask the animal, if they could, does that matter to them? And like I said before, the royals are speaking sternly for the environment to deflect from the scandal of accusations of racism in the royal family. What does Prince William pulling no punches do? So the world now is really going to listen?
Anglos as a culture and people love to virtue signal, it's in their nature, coming from the puritanical values of history- compared to the more pragmatic continentals eg french ppl don't care if their politicians have mistresses and yet anglos appear to believe their politicians should be virgins.

But onto the matter of Biden's gaffe, isn't it funny how the China Watchers are now in damage control for Biden saying he 'misspoke'. Guess the gravy train of China Threat/Containment will end once war breaks out and it's them and their sons and daughters lives on the line.
 

Aniah

Senior Member
Registered Member
(I haven't paid much attention to the conversation on corruption. I just want to comment on the above sentence.)

Sorry, I'm not fine with corruption, even when it does not impede economic growth. You seem to believe that corruption is necessary for development; perhaps you're thinking of Taiwan.

But Singapore is a counterexample: it is now one of the richest countries in the world, in spite of doing everything it could to fight the rot while it was developing. And Singapore used to be one of the poorest countries in the world; the British established it to take advantage of the cheap labor (mostly ethnic Chinese).

So corruption is by no means necessary for development, as you appear to think.
And exactly how is Africa in any way similar to Singapore? Just because one system worked well for someone does not mean it's universal. That was the whole point of that discussion. Some corruption was needed to get things done and it was the lesser of the two evils. Just go back and read some of the discussion and you will get what we are trying to say.
 

solarz

Brigadier
(I haven't paid much attention to the conversation on corruption. I just want to comment on the above sentence.)

Sorry, I'm not fine with corruption, even when it does not impede economic growth. You seem to believe that corruption is necessary for development; perhaps you're thinking of Taiwan.

But Singapore is a counterexample: it is now one of the richest countries in the world, in spite of doing everything it could to fight the rot while it was developing. And Singapore used to be one of the poorest countries in the world; the British established it to take advantage of the cheap labor (mostly ethnic Chinese).

So corruption is by no means necessary for development, as you appear to think.

First of all, I didn't say corruption is necessary for development. I said I'm fine with corruption if it came with economic development and rising standards of living.

Second, what do you think lobbying and political donations are? Legal corruption is still corruption.

Finally, Singapore is only a single city of 5 million people. A small bureaucracy means everything is easier to control, which Singapore does to an almost obsessive extent.

Seriously, people need to stop bringing up Singapore as an example when discussing countries. Singapore might be a country in name, but it's missing 90% of the dynamics of managing an actual country.
 
Top