Chinese Advancement

 

  My analysis is logical, with as little emotion as possible.

  Look at the case of China.

  I have nothing against the technological or economic advancement of the Chinese.

  Just like I had nothing against the Japanese.

  Whether the Chinese will surpass or have already surpassed the Americans, I couldn't care less.

  "My" issue with China is that they want to invade Taiwan and claim the entire ocean they call the "South China Sea."

  That triggers an unprecedented arms race.

  Money, both theirs and from neighboring nations, that could be going toward healthcare, education, public safety, and infrastructure... is going toward military weapons instead.

  I bought a great pair of headphones from Huawei, and I own a Lenovo laptop.

  I don't have the cash right now, but I'd buy a Chinese car, maybe in about three years.

  If the Chinese people prefer a dictatorship, I don't see a problem with that.

  I don't live in China.

  I prefer democracy, and that depends much more on the will of the Brazilian people than on any foreign invasion.

  Do the Chinese support one type of politician?

  Do the Americans support another?

  At the end of the day, what decides it is the majority of valid BRAZILIAN votes.

    Does this logic sink in?

American Power - Link

✧✧✧
.

Islam in Angola

 

Kwiji Yami: I maintain that the legal rejection of Islam in Angola is a measure of national self-defense. 

  I argue that the religion is not recognized because it fails to comply with local laws and attempts to override our Constitution with Sharia law, which discriminates against women and punishes freedom of thought.    

  Islam expanded into Luanda's poor neighborhoods through trade and small grocery stores, creating financial dependency and using community aid as a disguise for conversion. 

  In the face of conflicts and terrorism in Africa, the State must act preemptively to protect our identity and culture.

William:  Angola is a secular state; its Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience, belief, and worship for all citizens.

   However, for a religion to gain official recognition from the State, which allows for formal registration and the legal construction of its own temples, it requires at least 60,000 signatures from followers (a number that used to be 100,000 in the past) and a presence in at least 12 of the country's 18 provinces.

  Since the Muslim community in Angola is a minority (mostly made up of West African immigrants and a smaller proportion of local citizens), Islamic organizations have not yet been able to formally reach those numbers to obtain institutional legalization.

  Many other churches (mainly evangelical and smaller Christian sects) are also not legalized for the same reason. Being "without State recognition" simply means the group cannot operate as an official legal entity before the government, but the private religious practice of praying, gathering, and professing one's faith is protected by the Constitution.

  Past news regarding the closure of mosques was tied to building permit inspections or the lack of commercial licenses for the structures (since many operated haphazardly out of warehouses and grocery stores), not to official persecution or a ban on the Quran.

  What do I, William, think?

  I consider this an overreach by the State. 

  I stand for freedom of speech. 

  If a group wants to build a church to worship Satan, that's fine by me.

  What do I expect from the State?

  The construction must follow safety codes, if it's an earthquake-prone area, proper foundations must be part of the blueprint. 

  They will pay fees and property taxes just like any other property in the area. 

  Financial contributions must be reported, and they should pay taxes like any other business. 

  Animal sacrifice or torture would be banned, as far as I'm concerned. 

  They must respect noise pollution ordinances; the neighbors shouldn't be forced to participate in the service.

 

The Bible in Africa - Link

✧✧✧
.

Adam Smith Today

 

Peter: The right prides itself on being so intellectual, but they don't actually produce anything new. They just poorly regurgitate whatever past authors already said.

William: Look, I still agree with Adam Smith on like 80% of things. 

  Times have changed; if I lived back in his day, I’d probably agree with 95% of it.

   Am I supposed to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing? 

  Reinvent the wheel? 

  I’m center-right, I believe in fiscal responsibility, and I truly believe there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

  What else is there for me to say about that?

  I don't want to abolish the government. 

  I support a "practical" small government. Not as small as the radicals want, and definitely not abolishing it altogether like the anarchists.

Peter: We're talking about culture here, not economics.

William: Economics is part of culture.

Peter: Marxism hasn't been dominating our culture. Most people don't even know what communism actually is. 

  I know this because I literally did field research on it back in school. 

  Look, man, you have a political critique, and fine, I don't think you're entirely wrong. 

  But you can't blame "left-wing culture" for us lagging behind.

William: Someone doesn’t need to know the definition of "sadistic", just as an example, to act like a sadist.    This culture of always feeling exploited, oppressed, and harboring resentment toward corporations... is that a characteristic of left-wing or right-wing thinking? 

  When an individual believes the government is primarily responsible for their life instead of taking personal responsibility, which line of thought does that belong to? 

  Riddle me that!

Filosofia Matemática - Link

✧✧✧

.