[josai]

I've lived and worked extensively in singapore, thailand and china, all with speech controls. They all have their pros and cons and I'd be hard pressed to categorically state they're better or worse than my home country of Australia.

> you dont have to live in such a place

True, and neither do they. Singapore's a first world country; its citizens can settle elsewhere with relative ease. And yet they don't. I wonder why?

And just to turn your rhetorical device against you, what I've heard "so many times" is these self-righteous rants by people who have never even visited the place they're criticising, but they're oh so sure they're right anyway. And for what it's worth, the USA is an experiment too, and from an outsider's perspective I'm not sure it's working out too well.

[rburhum]

> And just to turn your rhetorical device against you, what I've heard "so many times" is these self-righteous rants by people who have never even visited the place they're criticising, but they're oh so sure they're right anyway. And for what it's worth, the USA is an experiment too, and from an outsider's perspective I'm not sure it's working out too well.

Just as an FYI, not "rethoric" from my side. I was born and raised in a country that went through a hell hole of super inflation and constant bombs going off from a "marxist" terrorist group known as the Shining Path. The "president" that "fixed" this situation was really a dictator that did not pay attention to human rights or democratic due process. The terrorist group got destroyed and "order" was brought into place at the expense of free speech and true democracy. Oh yeah, and he put a bomb in my dad's car because he disagreed with his political views. Those were the two first decades of my life.

So I kind of know what I am talking about.

If Australia was truly going through free-speech "problems" - I am sure you would not be so easy to refer to these "experiments"

[josai]

I'm sorry to hear about your experiences, I mean that. But I don't see how that has much to do with what we're talking about.

I wish you'd step back from your personal trauma and look at the big picture. You say this "terrorist" group caused the rise of a dictator and the loss of free speech and democracy. Why didn't free speech and democracy stop such instability in the first place, if they're such a panacea like you seem to think? Because that's exactly what I'm talking about - the ingredients of a stable, wealthy, secure and fulfilling society.

Of course, the irony is that that would have never happened in Singapore.

[rburhum]

You dont think it is presumptious of you to think you can somehow dissect a situation in an entire region (South America) without clearly any historical knowledge that can give you meaningful context? I say this because your question "Why didnt free speech and democracy stop such instability in the first place?" show a clear misunderstanding/lack of knowledge and tremendous oversimplification of Cold War era politics, neo-colonialism, caudillism, Spanish feudalism and decentralisation of power. Breaking it down to a simple explanation of "is free speech and democracy good and if such why didnt it help here?" is clearly silly at best.

[josai]

Your comment was also a ridiculous over-simplification. My reply was a bit facetious, which was probably silly of me. But whatever. We both fail at arguing; I have not influenced you nor have you influenced me.

Anyway, it appears that I'm now treading on people's toes so that's enough from me.

[rburhum]

I succeeded at pointing out how haughty, supercilious and disconnected your comments about democratic experiments... Even though you were quick to downvote my replies.

Enough for me, too.

[josai]

This account doesn't have enough karma to downvote anyone :-P