|
|
This is confusing because it feels like sarcasm, yet in the larger context of your comment, it seems like not-sarcasm. Obviously, every country should be criticized for its faults, recognizing the difference between the governed and those who govern. Even in first world democracies, it is _not_ easy to say that the government represents the people's wishes. It is easy to say that the government represents what a majority see as the least worst options for public office, which is not a distinction without a difference.
Agreed. Not all governement officials are democratically elected, only a tiny part of them is actually. The CIA, FBI, FCC, IRA, the police system, the school system, the prison system, the army, etc. All people employed by these entities are public officials. Only a handful are actually elected officials. They are simply the scapegoats who bear the brunt of the popular anger.
Taking care to be aware of one's own sins, is the first step in helping others improve themselves without at the same time, sounding like a completely self-ignorant twit. Further, such self-awareness can be very valid as a basis for an argument about why certain actions are unwise, and thus may form part of a non-fallacious argument.
Wrongs should be openly and vehemently critisized, irrespective of one's own past "sins". By the hand, those "sins" you're talking about aren't mine, and if you aren't part of the people making the decisions which lead to pollution (in this particular case) they aren't yours either.
Apathy never gets anything changed for the better, but often allows change for the worse. Views like this should be challenged, not least of all because without expectations that an entity can do better, there is a great likelihood it won't. I'm not sure how this is a fallacy of any kind, because a fallacy requires some argument. This is a "give up" attitude, and attitudes aren't arguments, thus can't be fallacies.
What the GP is trying to say is that such statements are worse than useless and contribute nothing to the discussion.
While we may have no right to intervene, there is no reason we cannot judge China's wrongs, just as others, and ourselves, should feel free to judge and point out our wrongs. Without feedback on how you're screwing up, the process of improvement is prolonged. This I could see as a fallacy because it is used as argument against even comment, when really, it should apply only to intervention.
Do you think the chinese governement is reading slashdot? How old are you? (I'm late 20's btw).
I'm not really sure what you want to see in a discussion of this type of news. A bunch soviet russia jokes? Beowulf clusters? A few links to goatse or tubgirl? A wide-ranging, on-topic discussion is actually healthy, not something to be sneered at.
It's exactly because a wide-ranging, on-topic discussion is actually healthy that the type of comments that the GP has mentioned aren't welcome...
FORCE YOURSELF TO RELAX!