If you think Chinese have less power than Indians and compare Chinese to dogs
I'm not interested in arguing with you about this, if I'm going to humiliate Indians, there are many good ways on the Chinese internet, I'm just questioning, what reason does India have to interfere in Tibet?
Lol. I'm not calling Chinese as dogs literally, I am comparing the "rights" of the Chinese to that of dogs in democracies. Like I said, without property rights and voting rights, the average Chinese rights are equal to that of a dog's rights. Even if you bark, you are muzzled, fact.
Even your population program is modelled like it's done for a purebreed dog. Hukou keeps the population restricted to a single region. Foreign breeds that mix with domestic breeds get their visa cancelled when they turn 60 and are unceremoniously kicked out of the country in order to keep the domestic breed pure.
China practiced forced sterilisation as a state policy for more than three decades. We do that to stray dogs in India.
None of these are insults, it's your reality. Do you wanna argue against it?
Pretty soon, you won't be allowed to leave China, like the case with North Korea. Recall how people from the SU used to die trying to run away? That's soon gonna be China's future, already foreigners are getting kicked out. Similarly a dog owner cannot release his dog outside his property unattended. Migration is an international human right in democracies.
Controlled breeding, controlled migration, controlled exit, controlled education, forced sterilisation, muzzling speech, preventing assembly, no property rights, no voting rights-- All these are how dogs are treated in democracies and Chinese are treated in China. None of these apply to humans in democracies. I'm not making these up, you know that too.
If you don't like "dog", then compare it to a "horse" or a "cat", it doesn't matter. In the West they use the analogy of a "bird in a gilded cage". This is how low your freedoms really are. And this is why we value such freedoms and fundamental rights and even fight for it. How else would you explain the riots in Hong Kong? Because without them, we are nothing more than animals under the control of a master. Even in democracies, people who can't think for themselves are called "sheep" or "sheeple" (sheep + people), meaning they are also compared with animals.
Instead of "pets", the correct word for the Chinese people is "subjects" and not "citizens". But Chinese "subjects" are no different from "pets" in democracies, which is what I'm getting at.
What is the difference between a citizen and a subject under sovereignty? Historian David Ramsay provided an explanation at the dawn of American Independence: "THE United States are a new nation, or political society, formed at first by the Declaration of Independence, out of those British...
wrmilleronline.com
Comparing Indians to animals is merely an insult. It doesn't change our situation in any way. But comparing the rights of a Chinese to that of a dog in a democracy should make you think about your own situation.
India's interest in Tibet is China lied to India about not wanting to take away Tibet's freedom, it was supposed to be a buffer state. Plus Tibet and Xinjiang do not belong to the Chinese, they need to be free countries. China itself first needs to become a free country, all other discussions come after that.
