Quote:
|
2. Do you know that your nations achieved industralization at least 100 years earlier than China? Please believe that 100 years later, Chinese people will enjoy much more so-called human rights than you.
|
Highly fallacious argument. I've seen this before with multicultural apologists who say that because Islam was founded 600 years after Christianity, we ought not to judge practices in the Islamic world not by the standards of today, but rather the standards that existed in medieval Europe.
Date of industrialization has nothing to do with the amount of human rights a society should have relative to others. Look at England, even they had requirements for search and arrest warrants, due process, prohibitions on torture, self-incrimination etc., hundreds of years ago.
Why doesn't the Chinese government allow people to say what they please? To form a civil society, which is the true bedrock of a stable society. Would the entire country collapse if people were to do and say as they please? Worship as they please? Associate peacefully with others? Be allowed due process of law? Require search warrants? Allow for free and fair elections? Would these things collapse China?
I live in the most heavily criticized country in the world, for some years running. Yet I don't run around implying that others have no right to criticize the United States because they haven't been here, because they don't live here. I grin and bear it. If I feel like it, I debate it.
It's called growing a thick skin.
And since when should a country's population and diversity determine the amount of freedoms its citizens should enjoy? If that's the case, then North Korea ought to be completely free. It has a small population, and its ethnically homogeneous. Using that logic, the United States ought to be one of the most unfree countries, as it has fifteen-fold the population and is one of the most diverse.