Answer:
In the 1200s, the way both European and East Asian society is pretty much the same. They both believed in the idea that there were a certain bloodline that must be obeyed the rest of the people and will be granted with the right to rule over them. There were basically no punishment for nobles who violate the rights of the commoners.
Even the way they operate their military is similar. They teach the value of 'Honor' to the soldiers as a basic principle in order to make them not afraid to sacrifice their lives in the battle field.
Between 1300 - 1600, European nations entered the renaissance period. The previous belief which made people think that nobles have the right to rule over everything were gradually changing. They started to developed the idea that the government should exist to protect the people, not the other way around. This was when the idea of democratic government started to expanded across Europe.
On the other hand, this idea just became popular in East Asia in mid 1500s. They also didn't get as much momentum as the one in Europe. As a result, East still adopted a very constricted view on human rights within this period and Government role's to protect it. Even in mid 1900s, japan still joined forces with the Nazi because they believed that they are destined to rule over Asia.
i think is a - the cause of all suffering is desire. because The Second Noble Truth says that Desire and attachment are the causes of unsatisfactoriness and suffering.
<span>I believe it always feels satisfying to give it your all towards anything you feel positive about. I know from my own personal experience, I always feel rewarded when I work hard and I get tasks accomplished. You typically feel this way after work or working towards some sort of goal you set for yourself.</span>
How you answer that question depends much on your political point of view. A 2006 article by Ron Haskins, published by the conservative Brookings Institute, declared the 1996 welfare reforms a success. Haskins pointed to evidence such as a 60% decline in the welfare caseload by 2004 as a result of the 1996 reforms. He also pointed to studies indicating that 60 to 80% of adults leaving welfare are gainfully employed.
Meanwhile, liberal writers such as Peter Edelman and Barbara Ehrenreich, writing in the <em>Washington Post </em>(<span>December 6, 2009), have said that welfare reform failed, because the number of those living in poverty in America rose in the years following welfare reform. The lack of access to welfare contributed to that rise in poverty, they argue. It's harder for people to get cash assistance through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (which is what welfare was renamed). But dependence on food stamps doubled in the years after Clinton left office.
So "success" or "disaster" will depend on whether viewed through a conservative or liberal lens.</span>
I'm pretty sure it was a NEMEANLION
