[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Do you have any evidence for this? Please note, when I say natural I do not mean to say "humans have done it previously". That is a different debate.

It might be that human beings would be ultimately happier in groups of 20-50 but there's no sensible way we could integrate that into a law. However, the fundamental root of human consciousness is is individual cognition and that lies (or should lie) at the root of much of our politics as a result. Freedom of expression is merely an extension of that.

how do you know? 100 years ago, people might have said that its only natural that europeans controll the rest of the world, because we are developed further than anyone else. its a bad word.

I believe there is. It's not "universal" as such - it only really applies to human beings. A race of intelligent insects (for instance) might have no conception of individual freedom as their cognition might operate purely through collective processes. But I'd say it's universal as far as human beings apply.

then why cant different societies have diffrent values aswell?

Well, this really depends what you're talking about. As many others have said - where I disagree with you of course I think I am right and you are wrong. If I thought I was wrong and you were right then I would simply adopt your opinion. So yes, of course it means everyone else is wrong.

Of course, there are many issues where there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Whether punk rock is better than heavy metal is a matter of personal taste and of no real consequences either way. However, when it comes ot human rights it is far more dangerous to say "Well, in China the people don't have rights because Asians are naturally cruel and don't believe in freedom like the white man".

i didnt say that we are better than the chinese, we just live in a different society. a dictatorship also has its advantages. you have less responsibilities, quicker political decisions, etc. ofc, it all fully depends on your dictator and, if you look at Bush, even a democracy and freedom of speech cant protect you from a total nutjob running your country.

Furthermore, there is no foundation for such a belief as in every culture in every society in every period of history there is a general struggle towards personal freedom, towards intellectual and spiritual betterment, towards fulfillment of what I'd call the human spirit (or species character if you prefer).

that bis maybe true for europe in thev last few 100 years.

Finally : Yes, of course people are different. I am not saying people must "behave" freely. It's just they should have the option to. If someone wants to be whipped all day long, then fine - that's there business. But if they don't want to be whipped and they are being whipped - well I believe that's all our businesses.

Thats a bit difficult, isnt it?

In this particular case, Yahoo is an American (or "Western") company. Criticism has centred on them, not the Chinese Government (in this thread I mean). You are right (to an extent) that it can be rather arrogant to blandly tell how the rest of the world should live - but we're not doing that. We're saying that companies that operate in the west should behave better.

Well, they want to make money in China. When you want to make money in China, you need to respect chinese laws. In the end, they might lose more money in the american and european market than they gained in the chinese market, but except to stay completly out of china i dont know what else they could have done.