<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blog Censorship in China</title>
	<atom:link href="http://asia.elliottback.com/blog-censorship-in-china/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://asia.elliottback.com/blog-censorship-in-china/</link>
	<description>China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:53:24 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Elliott Back</title>
		<link>http://asia.elliottback.com/blog-censorship-in-china/#comment-311</link>
		<dc:creator>Elliott Back</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asia.elliottback.com/?p=100#comment-311</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Absolutely no one except yourself should govern what you are allowed to say or think.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

But what if they know that what you&#039;re thinking is bad for you?  Then, the argument is, it&#039;s better for you if they can prevent it.  For example, suicidal people clearly have suicidal thoughts, which we as a country just to be insufficiently good for them.  So, we do our best to prevent people from thinking (or doing) about killing themselves.

Of course, this is argument &lt;em&gt;ad absurdum&lt;/em&gt;...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Absolutely no one except yourself should govern what you are allowed to say or think.</p></blockquote>
<p>But what if they know that what you&#8217;re thinking is bad for you?  Then, the argument is, it&#8217;s better for you if they can prevent it.  For example, suicidal people clearly have suicidal thoughts, which we as a country just to be insufficiently good for them.  So, we do our best to prevent people from thinking (or doing) about killing themselves.</p>
<p>Of course, this is argument <em>ad absurdum</em>&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julie</title>
		<link>http://asia.elliottback.com/blog-censorship-in-china/#comment-310</link>
		<dc:creator>Julie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://asia.elliottback.com/?p=100#comment-310</guid>
		<description>Even to casual inspection, the first sentence of the theory you quoted should set off huge warning bells to anyone with any sense of freedom or self-thought. Absolutely no one except yourself should govern what you are allowed to say or think. (it is whether you deserve an audience that should be a more important, relevant, and timely question) You ask why the government is upset about dissenting opinion? Because at its core it is still bent on retaining its totalitarian regime, and free thought has always been the bane of any such regime&#039;s existence. They think they know what&#039;s best for the Chinese people, but exactly who gave them that right? Throughout Chinese history there existed the Mandate of Heaven, which I personally find crudely but basically democratic: that if the people really really didn&#039;t like their current ruler, they could overthrow him and establish a whole new rule. While in the end this still perpetuated oppressive imperalistic monarchies, its most basic tenet was the fact that the &quot;people&quot; must consent and be &quot;happy&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even to casual inspection, the first sentence of the theory you quoted should set off huge warning bells to anyone with any sense of freedom or self-thought. Absolutely no one except yourself should govern what you are allowed to say or think. (it is whether you deserve an audience that should be a more important, relevant, and timely question) You ask why the government is upset about dissenting opinion? Because at its core it is still bent on retaining its totalitarian regime, and free thought has always been the bane of any such regime&#8217;s existence. They think they know what&#8217;s best for the Chinese people, but exactly who gave them that right? Throughout Chinese history there existed the Mandate of Heaven, which I personally find crudely but basically democratic: that if the people really really didn&#8217;t like their current ruler, they could overthrow him and establish a whole new rule. While in the end this still perpetuated oppressive imperalistic monarchies, its most basic tenet was the fact that the &#8220;people&#8221; must consent and be &#8220;happy&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
