calumin

calumin t1_j3hrjep wrote

1

calumin t1_j2l5aee wrote

That is not what the author is attributing positive views of China to be based on.

From my earlier quote from the article, he’s attributing it to 1) lack of belief in freedom of expression, 2) lack of acknowledgement of personal choice, and 3) a poor development of democratic institutions or belief in their legitimacy. And presumably, some kind of affinity to governments that are characterized in such ways.

6

calumin t1_j2l1du9 wrote

From the article:

“We suggest that this new cleavage cannot be reduced to simple economic interests or geopolitical convenience. Rather, it follows a clear political and ideological divide. Across the world, the strongest predictors of how societies align respective to China or the United States are their fundamental values and institutions – including beliefs in freedom of expression, personal choice, and the extent to which democratic institutions are practised and perceived to be legitimate.”

So the author is taking a pretty big swipe at all those countries you mentioned.

36

calumin t1_j2cshr8 wrote

That’s great!

I also had some very positive effects from IF. I’m just not sure I would have expected IF, on its own, to have affected my blood pressure, or any other statistic, without considering IF in combination with actual dietary choices.

1

calumin t1_iugnngw wrote

The death penalty isn’t something like theoretical physics where you need a PhD to become qualified to discuss its merits. How society chooses to punish criminals is a subject that all citizens of that society should feel qualified to have a voice.

The issue to me is more whether this subject is one that should be bound by local laws, or whether there is some more universal law at play. Branson is arguing the latter, but I have a hard time seeing how that would play well in a televised debate.

23