Youtube comments of Yerris (@yerri5567).
-
1900
-
1500
-
1000
-
495
-
347
-
230
-
200
-
195
-
163
-
159
-
136
-
134
-
129
-
121
-
120
-
112
-
105
-
96
-
96
-
93
-
85
-
80
-
79
-
77
-
75
-
75
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
68
-
63
-
61
-
61
-
58
-
57
-
51
-
49
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
@TeleeFONE "lol you said history back then was by estimations, if it is by estimations and inaccurate, why you believe Orang Laut are native to Singapore but Malays aren't? Biased much? "
First of all, I never said anything about "estimations". I said nobody knows what the real indigenous composition is of Singapore as mass migration has already occured during the time of recording (16th century), and its a tiny island, history talks about regions and kingdoms, not an island.
And there is strong evidence that the Orang Laut are the indigenous people to both sides of the Malacca Strait along with nearby islands including Singapore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_laut
"If all histories aren't accurate and based on assumptions and estimations, means all the histories of the world is a lie? Lol you so stupid, historians wouldn't write histories based on assumptions and estimations, everything is backed by proofs"
Dont put words in my mouth. Nobody said anything about "estimations". Historians also said the natives of America are "Indians", does that mean they are? Fool. Historians can be ignorant too. They may at that time believe to be true and write that down, but doesnt mean is it true. You are buying in to their ignorance.
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
@TeleeFONE "if you understand the meaning of indigenous, it does mean the first people of that place/island/land, which equates to Native."
Thats right. And I want you to provide me evidence that the first people there arent the Orang Laut.
There can only be ONE group of "first people".
"nowhere in that link that it said Orang Laut are the only people native to Singapore, there are other articles that said Malays are native to Singapore and to this region as well. Even singapore government recognized the Malays as native people to Singapore, what more proofs you want 😁 but people like you will only say Orang Asli are the only native people to Singapore"
'The Orang Seletar are also considered as part of the Orang Laut, natives of the Straits of Johor'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orang_Seletar
Like I said, there can only be ONE group of natives to a certain place, especially a tiny island, and the Orang Laut are those natives. Some may classify them as "Malays". And use that "fact" and incite that the "Malays" in Malaysia to cause social disruption in Singapore (something like what youre doing) when n fact theyre not the same people.
The Singaporean government also uses the term "Chinese" and "Indian", when theres so many different ethnic groups in China and India.
If the "Malays" are native to Singapore, then the "Chinese" are native to Korea.
My point is that the Orang Laut specifically are native to Singapore, not any other ethnic group that are "Malay". So when you say that "Malays" as a whole group is native to Singapore. Its wrong. Otherwise India can claim that "Indians" are native to Sri Lanka, or that China can claim that "Chinese" are native to Korea, or that the Thais are native to China.
"right now the I'm talking about Chinese colonialism, so why would Russia, India be brought into the picture, that is another subject.
And my point is that once conquered, the conquered land becomes theirs. And everyone just has to accept it. This is universal, not something specific to one country.
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Jozeph Latino Reyes "how am I wrong? Every where you go on planet earth you see American influence. Doesn’t matter if we’re talking politics, entertainment, commerce, sports, Hollywood etc... the US reigns supreme!"
Not in China. US culture, although it exist, its barely prevalent.
What about commerce? US commerce in China barely compares to Chinese domestic commerce.
What entertainment? I cant think of any US entertainment in China thats being "embraced". Turn on the TV in China. Almost 0 US content.
Hollywood? Sure, the best of Hollywood is great. I'll give you that. But even though they are watched by the Chinese. They dont fan rave over it. So its not "embraced" again.
What about sports? Out of all the sports in the world, how many are from the US. And out all the sports in the US, how many is broadcast in China? And out of all the Chinese, how many are actually into sports? The number might be high to Americans, but as a proportion to Chinas population, sports is but a tiny segment. So only a tiny segment of China "embraces" US sports. China as a country? No.
As for politics lol. You can forget about that. The Chinese dont embrace US politics AT ALL. So you can forget about "reigning supreme". You can "reign supreme" all you want in your little world, but not in China.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@vapers are beyond stupid "Ok no, you're completely wrong. What animal trusts us as easily as dogs do? Virtually no animal. There is absolutely no excuse for eating your loyal best friend, a light in anyone's life. It isn't"
That is an opinion, not a fact. No where in any book or religion, or any law states that you can eat all animals except the ones that trust humans the most.
And even if it was to hold true, not 100% of dogs have "trust". Some attack people. And some breeds are clearly more aggressive and have trust issues. By your logic, that means humans can eat those dogs right?
"It isn't decided by anyone, but by history building itself and dogs being happy to see you at this point in life, it is absolutely disgusting, evil and you should have heavy heavy karma on you if you eat a dog"
Youre right in that it isnt decided by anyone. Who are you to say that some animals are for your consumption while others are not? If you can accept that dogs feelings and experience emotions, what makes you think other animals dont? How sad are those cows, pigs, chickens etc in cages jailed just for you to consume. That is "absolutely disgusting", "evil" and you should have "heavy heavy karma" on you if you eat any animal.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@tung-hsinliu861 "Brutal or not, it's supression nonetheless"
Every single country in this world suppresses illegal acts within their country, including yours Why should HK be an exception?
"but by unjustified arrests perceived by Hong Kongers is enough"
Who said its "unjustified"? Those that were arrested have obviously committed an illegal offence. If I protested out on the highway blocking the highway in my country I would be arrested too. Just because its a protest doesnt mean you can do whatever you want. It has to be done within the law.
"Enough to let lots of Hong Kong mid-high class families migrate to the UK and elsewhere since 2019"
30k out of 7.5million is a drop in the bucket. Thats less than 0.5% of HKs population. And you dont even know if its temporary or permanent. Also, its out of fear, not because of "suppression".
"These things do not happen from thin air with no reason"
Correct. HK failed to uphold their constitutional duty to create their OWN "national security law". For your reference this is Article 23 of HKs Basic Law since its handover in 1997:
"HK shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
After almost 25 of their 50 year grace period, HK failed to create such "national security law". If they created one in the first place and enacted on that, Beijing wouldnt have to get involved and things wouldnt have gotten to this point.
"Medias that are against the CCP are being shut down"
No. SCMP has their fare share of anti-China content. Those media you spoke of are involved with foreign political bodies and/or committed sedition or subversion against the state which are against the law.
"teachers are forced to teach in Mandarin instead of Cantonese"
Lies. Beijing is not involved in this at all. This is determined by the local school. And its NOT all schools that choose to teach in Mandarin, most still teach in Cantonese.
But hey, where were you when countries like the US force their teachers to teach in English and not in Spanish or native American? Bet you wouldnt bat an eye. So even if Beijing did enforce that, they have every right to.
When China does it its "suppression", when countries like the US does it thats "normal"? Such double standards.
'Street and building names that are "western" are renamed to more "Chinese" names'
Wrong again. Youre making this sound like thats the case for ALL streets and buildings. Im not surprised if its SOME streets or buildings. But how is this "suppression" again? Getting rid of some of that coloniser influence is a plus imo.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
NelieD Taiwans semiconductors are only a couple of years ahead of everyone else. Sure, its impressive, but if anything happens, the whole worlds high end electronics will sink, not just China, so Chinas on the same boat with everyone else.
Actually China, US, Japan and SKs economy wont sink as badly, since they all can create their own semiconductors.
And no, Chinas not "decades" behind Taiwan. They can already create 5nm chips that Taiwan currently produce, just not at commercial scale yet.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
1:14 No, the reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs.
7:28 This guy is uninformed. Its not "illegal" per se if its no laws against it. ESPECIALLY when its disputed territory. PH does NOT have sovereignty over the islands, so its not "theirs". Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many countries claim these territories, not just China and PH.
7:35 You "won" because China was not even there to defend themselves. China was not there because China knew it was useless to go, as the current international laws present is incompatible with a countrys sovereignty claims. What that means is the current international maritime laws only define whats considered a countrys territory based on the 12nm distance from a countrys coastline, EEZ etc, but has no laws to define whether a piece of territory falls under the sovereignty of Country X or Country Y.
7:51 No, you cant forcefully implement it because that court you won that case from has ZERO authority to enforce anything. Even the US cant.
12:44 No, it was not "proven that it belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country (including PH) can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well.
0:21 Taiwan isnt a "country". Why is Asian Boss allowing their host to spread misinformation? No world power in this world recognises "Taiwan" as a country. And Taiwans very own constitution specifically refers to Taiwan as a province of China.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@blueraineee Almost every country in the Middle East. Birthrate is higher. Women are married at an early age. And 1 man can have multiple wives. Meaning more utilisation of women giving birth compared to Japan, and by marrying young, they have a much higher "real" birthrate, that is a higher birth "turnover" rate that isnt reflected in the datas. For example, if in Japan the average women gives birth at 33yo, but in countries in the ME women give birth at the age of 20. In 100 years, Japan would have given birth to 3 generations, whereas in the ME they wouldve given birth to 5. Multiply that by the birthrate you can find in google, and see the numbers compound.
Also, to top that off, not every women gets married in Japan, whereas almost all women get married in the Middle East.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
"How do I know they're lying? Simple. Their story doesn't hold water"
You think thats enough evidence for the court of law? because you believe their story doesnt hold water, therefore they are lying? Ridiculous. If you dont know, then you dont know. You werent there. Lets wait for the full investigation to come out before you make such claims. But you wont be talking so big after youre proven wrong.
"The idea that the French are racist is ludicrous. If we native French were racist those girls wouldn't be allowed in our country and carrying a French passport"
Wrong again. Australia for example is a racist country (they even admit it themselves), but the law permits immigrants to be citizens after fulfilling certain requirements. Law is law, people are people. 2 different things. French people can be racist, and still permit immigrants to be citizens at the same time, as law and people are 2 different things.
"Their police force are 0% White. At least ours are diverse and this diversity includes ethnic Chinese"
That only shows one thing. France is a multiculturally rich country, China isnt.
"Shame on those girls for defaming the country and the race that have given them shelter and a better life than in their home country. If they're not happy they can pack and go back. "
For all that I know, they are claiming that the police murdered their father and want an explanation. Why was the house raided in the first place. Till this day, we still dont know...If your family member was shot in another country, do you just pack and leave? Ofcourse youd want an explanation!
"Chinese would never tolerate a laowai attacking their police force with scissors!"
Laowai? No, they wont, and they also dont shoot people in their heart, nor resort to using guns for someone just wielding scissors...
"Anyway his daughters are telling us a bunch of lies"
Again, you dont know.
"Their drunk dad was supposedly cooking and thus had scissors in his hands but he was afraid to open the door. Which one is it: cooking or afraid to open the door?
Why cant he be cooking, then hears loud agressive people banging on his door? Afraid to open the door, so he held his scissors as self defense from agressive strangers (who apparently did not have identified themselves). Why cant you see possibilities yourself? Are you that dumb? No one on the internet was there, no one knows. Asking us doesnt get anywhere. Wait for reports to come out.
"It's obvious he wanted to attack the police officers with his scissors. The police came and he refused to open his door and deal with the consequences of his crazy behavior"
Lol "obvious" What are you smoking? We know they are police officers now, but at that time how are you certain they identified themselves as police officers? He saw them as trespassing thugs that broke down his door. You probably wouldve defended yourself too at this point. Why do you make such blunt claims when you werent even there?
"When did Whites ever enslave Asians? Never! We owe Asians nothing."
Lel. Once again, spouting nonsense with your ass. Making claims when you dont even know. Just stop. I'm now convinced youre truly an idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_possessions_and_colonies#In_Asia
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@polin1710 " there are literally satelite pictures"
Ooooo satellite images of new buildings...You think that proves "concentration camps" now? You dont even know whats happening inside
'the Chinese authorities themselves even stated it was for "re-education"'
Yes. Do you actually know what happens inside? Its been documented. People learn language, law and workforce skills in it. Is that "torture" to you?
"countless people have lost their family"
People dont die in your country?
"people have been killed for protesting"
For merely protesting? No. If they did die its for other reasons.
"more than 1 million people are being tortured for their faith and you refuse to acknowledge cold hard fact...while believing everything the CCP says"
I dont believe the CCP. I believe in facts. And till date, there has been ZERO credible evidence of "more than 1 million people are being tortured". Those are made up numbers. Those "1 million people" went to school. That was it. None of this "tortured" nonsense. More like YOU believe everything anti-China people are telling you. You dont even VERIFY whether its true or not, you just believe based on some "satellite" images of new buildings...You have NO idea whats happening inside new buildings. Every country in this world has new buildings...
"search up Xinjiang interment camps, chinese interment camp"
Oooooo pictures of new buildings, and uighurs in ACTUAL prisons...you call that "evidence" of "more than 1 million people are being tortured"?
"so you admitted the existence of the concentration camps in your first comment"
Read properly. I said I GUESS every country has "concentration camps" too then...based on your logic that prisons are concentration camps.
Also, I cant "admit" something that has no relation to me. Can I "admit" that youre brainwashed?
"but when i stated the situation of children and women being systemically raped, women being sterilized, people being tortured etc you then backed up and started saying the camps don't exist at all"
You seem to have problem understanding English and logic in general. There is ZERO credible evidence of any "concentration camps". And I never said they existed. I asked you a question "prisons are concentration camps?". And then made a hypothetical statement that based on YOUR LOGIC, if prisons are concentration camps, then ALL countries have concentration camps.
Theres also NO credible evidence of SYSTEMIC rape/sterilisation/torture of any sort. Only words from anti-China individuals. Words alone mean nothing with zero evidence. Does rape exist? Sure. But you say its SYSTEMIC. What evidence do you have that its SYSTEMIC? Words again?
"you do not care for the people who are dying but only your stupid propaganda"
I care about FACTS. Words from people are not "facts". Facts require hard evidence. Not satellite images of new buildings...Every country build new buildings...
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@solon5123 "I can show you many videos of EV cars getting on fire in the street, parking and garage"
Not once did I deny EVs cant catch fire. I said combustion engine ares are MORE LIKELY to catch fire than EVs. The research says it all, just search the strings "combustion engine vs EV catch fire".
"I can also show you some videos of car graveyards on fire."
And I specifically said car graveyards IN CHINA. You know? The ones filled with EVs and not combustion engines from other countries?
"Combustion cars catch fire way less than EV's by natural causes. If you let a combustion car alone outside there is no chance it bust on fire by itself, it can catch fire by external influence sure. So far what you are saying is wrong"
Whats "natural causes"? So far all the data and research points to the fact that combustion engine cars are more likely to catch fire than EVs. And how convenient of you to use the "lets leave it alone" point. How about I specially use the point "when humans are driving inside car" point, combustion engines is more likely to catch fire more than EVs, which is MUCH MORE dangerous that just catching fire while being "left alone".
"Next point, governments subsides companies to make EV's. When you get money form the government to accomplish something, your goal is to do that thing"
Make electrical cars is the point. A governments agenda is not the companys agenda. Just like how subsidies to individuals during an economic downturn used to stimulate the economy, is not the same agenda as the receivers agenda. An individual would give no thought to "stimulate the economy", theyll use it on whatever they need to use it on.
"For battery leakage, this is not an assumption this is know"
You speak as if the leakage is like liquid. Its not. It does not "drip". So theres zero change of any "leakage" to even leave the car, let alone hit the soil to "pollute" it. So youre just imagining things at this point. So all that point on polluting ground water is invalid. Your point on river contamination although is valid, its off topic. It has nothing to do with battery leakages.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@daelosus "Pay attention to context"
When it comes to map for a country, context (whether from Xi or Mao) does not matter. What matters is PRC, and PRC had made no expansion to their claims, only settled disputes which means loss of territory for them. So what I said still stands, PRCs territory decreased ever since they took over ROC.
"Like the August 2023 map expansion that expanded their imagined territory into almost all their neighbors"
Thats not an "expansion". And its not "imaginary" as it was inherited from their previous government, which was also inherited from their previous government. If youre talking about the border with India, the current claims are literally the same claims since its founding. Its more like an "updated" map to reflect their claims. Indias claims were "update" many years ago. Did you call that "Indian expansion"? Bet you didnt.
"They're even drawing their maps over parts of Russia now. And they've renamed Russian Mongolian cities back to historical Chinese names"
Same thing. Its not an "expansion". The claims are the same since its founding. There was not 1 inch of territory that they claim now that they didnt since its founding.
Moreover, any country can name countries/cities whatever they want on their map. You think China calls the US, the "United States"? No! They call them something in Chinese!
"They also claim they own the entire ocean up to the Philippines mainland which is almost 3000km from China and they regularly harass ships in international waters"
Its not an "ocean", its a "sea". But nevertheless, indeed. I dont agree with claims over water, but I do agree with their claims over islands as the were literally the first country in the region to lay claims to the islands, and was uncontested for over 30 years. Proximity to mainland has nothing to do with sovereignty over territory.
And they dont "harass" ships. Theyre defending their claims territory. If you dont venture within 12nm of any of their islands then they wont be "harassed".
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
"There are hundreds of interviews with Uyghurs you can find, they're real people who exist"
And there are hundreds of interviews that DEBUNK these lies. Theyre also real people that exist.
Exposing lies - evidence of fabricated stories
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsQxjFCh5zU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjy_4xP5lpU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH4gdxWEFI4
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH6TpV5BmXs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GndGDGZ_Njs
"Amnesty International has interviewed more than 100 people outside of China whose relatives in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) are still missing, as well as individuals who said they were tortured while in detention camps there"
As mentioned in the videos exposing lies above. Its been debunked. Those people are not "missing". Theyre alive and well. Its those individuals that lied. Why do you believe everything anti-China you hear without verifying?
"my internet is not censored, i know how to do research instead of claiming the whole world is lying, every one that is living today can see those horrors."
Mine isnt either. And if youre from a developed country, the law is innocent until proven guilty. Words alone are not enough to convict someone. ESPECIALLY when their lies have been debunked.
"the fact that you would deny all these very real things and not try to stop them is disgusting"
Because an anti-China group said so, therefore it MUST be real...got it...I now understand how you are so brainwashed...You believe anything anti-China as long as a someone says it...
"Despite initially denying the existence of the camps altogether"
I agree with them. These "camps" never existed. Vocational centres however, did. If you use the wrong words, ofcourse theyre going to deny it. They still deny that there are "concentration camps" till this day.
"let me guess all of these sources are not credible to you because you are so brainwashed you believe everything the ccp tells you and think anything against the ccp is a lie"
What an idiot. Get your head out of the gutter. This has got nothing to do with the CCP. This is not a political matter. This is a legal matter. Words alone are not credible enough to convict anyone of a crime. Otherwise I could say you raped me, then provide a convincing story and you would be in jail.
All your links contain the words "estimate", "believes" etc. I dont know where you learnt your English, but "estimate" and "believes" already tell us theyre not facts...Thats NOT evidence at all. Theyre mere speculations. Do us all a favour and before you go on with your "critical thinking", do some "critical learning" of the English language first.
"www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-it-has-credible-reports-that-china-holds-million-uighurs-in-secret-camps-idUSKBN1KV1SU"
This is fake news. The UN never said such a thing. An individual that happen to work at the UN said it. Her words does not represent the UN. You and your media need to discern the difference between statement from organisations, and individual statements.
If you insist that the UN did say that, cite me the actual report from the UN website. Primary source is credible. Words from journalists and individuals with no credible citation are not.
www.off-guardian.org/2018/09/19/no-the-un-did-not-report-china-has-massive-internment-camps-for-uighur-muslims/
"every new building in other countries are not a concentration camps"
Same for China. Just because you have pictures of new buildings, doesnt mean theyre "concentration camps" where people get tortured. As I said earlier, zero evidence of people getting tortured. Youre imagining things again.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@ChnesRep中華民國OfTaiwan "not all authoritarians are equal"
Sure. Just like not all democratic countries are equal, or even "good" for that matter. What does that tell us? That system of government does not determine how "good" or "bad" a country is.
"East Asian countries economy thrive not because of some great leaders but mostly due to large foreign investment seeking cost-saving outsourcing opportunities"
That is not the "reason", but that surely did accelerate the process.
A good number of Asian countries thrived BEFORE the existence of Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs). In fact, a good number of Asian countries thrived before the West even came to Asia.
"Don't even think about acquiring the most advanced semiconductor fabs and the industry to threaten the world"
You talking to me? An individual? Thats not even Chinese?
Im laying down the facts. PRC invading Taiwan is not a "loss". Not diplomatically. Not economically. Any country that sanctions China will be sanctioned back by not allowing any country/company to sell its products containing semiconductors to them. Its a matter of repercussion. A reciprocal effect. Not a "threat".
"Even if Americans don't blast TSMC first, we will do it by ourselves provided allies standing still and not helping. 6000 missles can do a lot of harm to the invaders and prevent strategic assets be acquired to help enemies"
Lol youre suggesting the Taiwan government (ROC) will destroy its own economy over loss of governance? Even if PRC doesnt "gain" anything, Taiwan has everything to lose. You think ROC is so dumb and irrational to launch a kamikaze attack that will also destroy themselves?
"The pain of Taiwan lost to China would be sharply felt by the world to have no new cars, phones, aircrafts, for a long time. Good luck to your GDP legitimacy"
Going by that strategy. They gain Taiwan, and the whole world loses. So theyre still at a "win" RELATIVE to the world.
Also, cars and aircrafts dont need the most cutting edge semiconductors. China is already self sufficient in that area for cars and aircrafts. Its the phones and computers than require the most cutting edge semiconductors that they need to import.
Moreover, China develops rapidly, just because they cant create the best now, doesnt meant they cant in a few years. Today, China already has the capacity to create 5nm chips, theyre just not able to produce it commercially at economies of scale for them to be profitable yet. But the gap is closing. And fast too.
So IF PRC does invade ROC, Itll most likely be at a time when PRC is already self-sufficient in producing cutting edge semiconductors.
If you can think of it, they can too. Dont be so naive and think you know something they dont.
Those at the top are smarter than you and I, combined.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@CuongNguyen-le5ic "Coming home in tears mean everything she worked so far is gone, she couldn't get anything, not only messed up industry"
What you just explained here is not human trafficking. You just described a messed up industry. Why cant you understand that this is not human trafficking? Nothing is forced and you are asked for consent in everything. If you dont want to do something then you dont. Simple.
"You think rich and powerful people like others reject them? They would lose faces and next you know, tabloid and all kinds of talk would destroy not only theirs careers, but their lives"
Again, you just described the industry. Nothing to do with trafficking. As for destroying lives, thats subjective. Failing to excel in exams also "destroy lives" if one doesnt have the ability to let go and move on dont you think?
"The worst of them all, kidnapping, forcing, drugs, death threat. You name it, they will do it"
What are you talking about here? What about the topics you speak of? You mean if you piss someone off this will happen to you? Happens everywhere in any unregulated country. Nothing to do with "human trafficking" and everything to do with pissing off powerful people.
"Seriously, again and again, you refused to even acknowledge the problem here which beyond dirty, but human's trafficking"
Can you not read? I agree that this is a messed up industry. Seriously can you really not read? Im saying this is not "human trafficking" as nothing is forced. Everything is in their own hands. In other words everything they do is with consent.
"We are talking about China"
No we're not. We're talking about human trafficking. YOU are talking about China. Not me. I said nothing about China.
"Fan BingBing, dissapeared for a while, now surface with corruption. Sound familiar?"
What about that? She committed a crime of tax evasion. Whats that got to do with human trafficking? Stay on topic will you?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@polin1710 Jesus Christ...what a long essay you wrote...cut it down and be succinct will you?
"lets move on to your hysterics and obvious propaganda tactics"
Propaganda tactics? You know whats propaganda tactics? A combination of satellite imagery of new buildings, pictures of prisons, and words. Congratulations, now you believe "concentration camps" exists because of those 3 things...so brainwashed...
"you have stated in your first comment that the concentration camps were "re-education camps" but backed out and started claiming there was no evidence they exist, you lack critical thinking..."
Wrong. Read again. I never said concentration camps existed. You say I lack critical thinking, yet you cant even read basic English properly. Either that or youre imagining things from what people say. No wonder you believe in things that dont exist from mere satellite images and words. YOURE the one that lacks critical thinking. You are brainwashed by literally the 3 things mentioned above.
"all your argument are based on denial, ignorance and emotion as we can see from your comment, you barely contain your obvious incompetence in your doing your own research"
My argument is based on facts. I provided no such emotions. Quote me where I got all emotional. Go on. Bet you cant.
And here youre are claiming Im incompetent when youre the incompetent one that was brainwashed by mere pictures and words.
"claiming that the camps don't exist at all is so patently false and easily proven wrong"
Oh? How can it be proven wrong? More words? And more satellite imagery? What a joke.
"You can literally just hop on Google Maps and find 23 different massive detention camps that didn't exist five years ago"
There we have it. China build buildings all the time. They can even build a whole town in 5 years. My question to you is, HOW DO YOU KNOW WHATS HAPPENING IN THESE BUILDINGS? Because a bunch of anti-Chinese people say XYZ therefore it must be true? Well I can find a group of people that say the opposite, does that mean that is true too? ZERO evidence is what it is. Only words and pictures. You know NOTHING of what goes inside the buildings.
"if evidence is right in front of you and you ignore...easily shows how brainwashed you really are"
Thats not evidence...pictures of newly built buildings doesnt prove torture exists, nor do words of a group of anti-Chinese people hold any water. I say those words right back at you, "easily shows how brainwashed you really are".
"i do not care for the politics or for your idiotic nationalism"
Youre hallucinating. I spoke nothing about politics or nationalism. Im not even speaking about my own country. Yet in your mind youre brainwashed to think anyone not agreeing to you "must be Chinese".
"what i care for is the lives of human beings being taken for nothing other than their religion"
Fake news. If that is true then why when all these countries called China out over their Xinjiang policies, the majority of Muslim countries in this world backed China for its practices of handling religious extremism?
'you are so deep in denial that you call concentration camps "schools" even though you stated they were "prison camps"'
Youre imagining things again. I never stated that. I ASKED you that with a question mark.
Also, I didnt "call" concentration camps "schools". Concentration camps dont exist in China. The buildings that you are referring to are schools. Can you tell the difference in my words Mrs "Critical Thinking"? Or you going to think what you like again just like how you think concentration camps exists based on a few words and pictures.
"so why aren't the han chinese being put in there?"
Thats a great question. Whens the last time you seen a Han extremist?
"why are women being sterilized?"
If women are being sterilised why is the Uighur population growing?
Why are women still giving birth after leaving the centres? Why do these Uighur women seem so angry over the false accusations of women being raped and sterilised? If there was systemic rape, why would they angrily defend these centres instead of calling out the crime? Rape is a crime in China if you didnt know that already...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS4slWZQJxs
"why are they targetting uyghur muslims?"
Because thats who the extremists are targetting? When extremist brainwash people with little to no education, they follow it. Over time, people that follow extremist ideology become extremist themselves too.
Heres a snippet of what goes on inside as well. Does this look lke "torture" to you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91FFyinPK3M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb4v7g6yM0Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiAxAwF3h5w
"you say that they are learning new skills and i am sure if that was the case it would be highly documented but you provide no proof, your "facts" are delusions, denial ridden delusions, so why don't you start thinking logically and while you are at it provide evidence"
Thats gold. You have proven yourself to be delusional by misreading what I wrote and put words in my mouth saying I said that, when in fact I never did. Whos delusional now?
You also claim that Im in denial. Why should I believe something with no credible evidence? Pictures of new buildings and words of anti-Chinese groups arent "evidence". Use your brain. Those people are part of and/or funded an anti-China separatism movement.
So Ill flip that back to you. Why do you deny the fact that satellite imagery actually doesnt prove torture? Why do you deny the fact that words also mean nothing? I could grab a few actors and have them say Person X was raped by Person Z. Heres video evidence of Person X and Person Y walking in the same building. We dont know what happened inside the building. But Person X says she was raped by Person Z. She cried and was very convincing. When in fact he didnt rape her. Are words and imagery really enough "evidence"?
Also, Its documented already...youre just too lazy to find it out yourself. Even if I showed you youre probably going to be like "oh its from a Chinese source therefore it must be fake" or "they were forced to say this"...Only the Chinese media show what REALLY happens inside. Non-Chinese media wouldnt show it because it doesnt suit their narrative.
Since you asked SO NICELY I will provide you a few FIRST HAND evidence of what actually happens inside these centres in addition to the previous links + videos debunking MSM lies. These all contain snippets of what happens inside these "buildings" shown in satellite imagery.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=soPJESgkE5k
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb-MNi8E-TA
And just FYI, the program has now finished now. All trainees have been graduated. Did your media tell you that?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFxrI6smvFU
""you acknowledge the fact that even the chinese government states that they are real without questioning it like a good moron would do"
More delusion. Just look at youre baseless assumption. And here you are telling me to "thinking logically".
Who said I never questioned? I questioned till I saw hard evidence that that was indeed fake news. The world has been lied to by anti-Chinese groups and its supporters.
You also claim that I get emotional, even though I showed no such thing, yet here you are getting all emotional to the point youre getting personal and calling others a "good moron". What a hypocrite.
'then you go on to say "And I never said they existed." so which is it? or do you just not understand English?'
WOW. The person that doesnt understand English suggests that its me that doesnt understand English. I said CONCENTRATION CAMPS dont exist. Not VOCATIONAL/EDUCATIONAL CENTRES dont exists. Learn to discern the difference.
"to you anything that speaks against the concentration camps is not credible, anything telling the truth is not credible, the only thing credible to you is lies and blind nationalism, indoctrination and complete madness"
Opinions. Whats credible to me is hard facts. Nothing else is credible. Regardless if theyre for or against a certain country, like China.
"apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c"
Debunked: www.globaltimes.cn/page/202101/1212073.shtml
"you are just repeating the rhetoric of people hurting human beings and denying it."
Other than words, where is evidence of people hurting people? I need hard evidence to believe something. Otherwise I can take a picture of Black American in prisons, and have a few said they were raped and tortured inside, and then make headlines saying US is putting Blacks in concentration camps, raping and torturing them...
Also, dont give me links without quoting me your point. You expect me to debunk every paragraph of those articles ON TOP of your already long essay?
"but i guess when your media is censored you can't really learn anything or get an honest view other than the same brainwashed propaganda you spout"
More baseless assumption. Who said my media is censored? What information that you receive for you to determine that my media is "censored"
See what I mean by you having a pre-conditioned thought? Imagining things that people didnt say is the first step of being brainwashed. You have a pre-conceived thought that anyone that doesnt agree with you is Chinese or have their media "censored". Absolutely ridiculous.
All Im saying is without credible evidence, you cant convict someone with a crime like how you are doing. That is not how the court of law works. Its innocent until proven guility. Or do you guys have different standards for China?
"at least try hiding it and being less emotional"
More nonsense. Quote me where I have been "emotional". Go on.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
"Democracy = less censorship, free speech, expression, human rights, freedom to criticize, open free market, appropriate banning, free media, freedom to elect, etc"
Lets go through this one by one...
"less censorship" - Its either you have it or you dont. Whats this "less" or "more" business?
"free speech, expression" - Really? Ask Trump about his so-called "free speech". He got silenced by pretty much all major social media companies that he can speak on.
Also, does one have freedom to say hateful things? Like verbal harassment, hate speech etc? No! Youll get arrested. Freedom of speech/expression is not without limitations. Cross the line and youll get arrested. Same applies everywhere.
"open free market" - Thats got absolutely nothing to do with system of governance...And theres no such thing as absolute free market. There will ALWAYS be restrictions in some form or another.
"appropriate banning" - whats that suppose to mean? You know how many ridiculous laws there are in "democratic" countries? Youre banned from opening an umbrella in the streets in Alabama, USA. Is that "appropriate" to you?
"free media" - You realise that every single media has their agenda right? Even in the US, you will have right-winged media, and you have left-winged media. They will only show their viewers news thats in their favour. "Free media" is a joke. Real free media is when news is shown objectively without any motives (not shown in the US).
"freedom to elect" - Election doesnt mean shit. Youll still be paying taxes governments are telling you to pay. Youll still be paying high rent. And youll still be paying for war in another country. What matters is not the ability to vote. What matters is a competent government that can govern its citizens well.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
bctvanw "Kingdom of Dongning/Formosa founded by Koxinga son was an independent kingdom, which the territory covered the areas mostly ruled by the Dutch previously only"
Wrong. Kingdom of Tungning was founded by Koxinga, as part of the loyalist movement to restore Ming. Not his son. And it was linked to Ming.
"Ming was conquered by Qing in 1644. Koxinga kicked out the Dutch in 1662, so Koxinga is not Ming"
Wth is wrong with your logic? Just because Ming was conquered by Qing doesnt mean there cant be Ming loyalist looking to restore Ming. He was Ming at heart.
"Btw talking about ancestry: Even though Koxinga was royal to Ming after he grew up, he was born in Japan and his mother was Japanese"
In East Asian culture, everything is patriarchal, all matriarchal lineage is disregarded, not sure why you left out the important part that he is of Chinese descent, and not sure why you would bring up his place of birth when you were talking about ancestry...
"After Qing conquered Taiwan, Qing extended its territory on Taiwan along the west coast only. Qing did not rule inland and most of the East Coast before Qing gave the island to Japan in 1895."
Just because you dont "rule" the land doesnt mean you dont have sovereign territory over it. Russia only rule the south most part of its country. What are you trying to say? Does that mean northern Russia is not part of Russia because its not ruled? Same as Canada?
"Also, the regions such as Tibet and Xingjiang is within Central Asia. China as a country is in East Asia"
Russia has regions in Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia. So? What are you trying to say?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@sak-x7j "According to polls, 83% of the Taiwanese population consider themselves as Taiwanese, not Chinese"
Opinions are not facts. Theyre 98% ethnically Chinese whether they believe it or like it or not. The only "Taiwanese" are the Taiwanese native aboriginals. You really need to discern the difference between facts and opinions and why opinions dont matter in a world of facts.
"54% of the Taiwan population wants full independence from China. Only 12.5% want to be reunified with China"
I advise you to due your due diligence and not just believe everything from the "media". Your source is from an organisation based in America. America is known for its anti-China/pro-Taiwan rhetoric. It is likely they skewed the data in their agendas favour. Why not use data from the Taiwanese government themselves?
According to MAC, Taiwans cabinet-level administrative agency, only 27% of Taiwan support Taiwan independence.
"KMT party claims to be the legitimate party of China but every election they lose more and more support from the Taiwanese population"
You realise that party popularity bounces back and forth right? Just look at the US, blue and few years, red a few years, back and forth for over 200 years...Its the same for ROC as well
"The current ruling party, DPP, fully rejected the 1992 Consensus in which the Chinese Communist Party and the KMT agreed that Taiwan is a part of China and that they just don't agree on the ruling system"
Partys words dont mean anything. Its the constitution that holds water. And ROC constitution refers to Taiwan as a province of China.
The DPP slowly stops using the term "China" in all of their documents and they replace it with Taiwan or put it together with the abbreviation "ROC" in form of "Taiwan (ROC)".
Yeh try doing with their constitution. DPP is a mere party, it alone cant change the constitution without support from the whole government. As long as their constitution hasnt changed, ROC still claims to be the legitimate government of China whether DPP wants it or not.
"It is because they don't consider themselves Chinese anymore but some years ago, Chinese diplomats threatened Taiwan that if it declares the change of name, they will declare war on them"
By declaring themselves not Chinese, its also treason by their very own government. ROC loyalists would also declare war on those traitors that declare that Taiwan is longer part of China.
"What the hell are you talking about? They are holding it right now, at that very moment I am writing this comment. And they hold it since 1928 when the KMT took over China"
Read carefully. I said ROC also never "held" onto Taiwan BEFORE claiming it.
And no, they held it after ww2 after Japan surrendered the islands they invaded from China. Thats from 1945 onwards. Clearly you dont know what youre talking about here.
"The Chinese Communist Party has NEVER controlled the island of Taiwan. But they still claim it"
Same as ROC. After Japan surrendered Taiwan, ROC also NEVER controlled Taiwan AT THAT TIME, yet they still claim it. Just like Russia/USA/Canada/AUS and their territories they never even touched before.
Source:
https://focustaiwan.tw/cross-strait/201910260005
Edit: oh wait they archived the full article now. Nevertheless, this data is from Taiwans own government. And the number is 27% supporting independence.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"How so... I think Tibet would be a better example... you know, there are no Tibetan people holding TOP Chinse government positions"
With how poor Tibet is, how you expect Tibetans to be educated enough to rise up the ranks? Top position in China have to be extremely educated you know?
"China restricts their freedom, etc..."
They have the freedom to rise up the ranks, as long as theyre qualified they can do so.
"but unlike Israel, the yellows actually did take all their land and now claims it to be theirs!"
Dont even pretend that the "yellows" are the only race in the world that took others land.
"not so much for the cultural genocide of the people of Tibet! "
Huh? Theres literally relics and temples everywhere and you say theres "cultural genocide" there? Have you been brainwashed that hard? You know whats cultural genocide actually is? Ask native Americans. Theyll tell if what cultural genocide is.
"You're delusional if you think Tibetans are happy they had their lands stolen and are now controlled by others and not even have equal rights!!!"
"Their land". Are you White? If you are, you are not qualified to accuse others races of "stealing" land.
And youre right. They dont have "equal" rights. Tibetans in China have EVEN MORE rights. They get FREE education Hans dont get. They get to have more than 2 children that Hans cant have. Ethnic minorities get a ton of benefits that their Han compatriots wish they can have but cant.
"Native Americans have fully equal rights. Their religion, language, culture... are allowed to be practiced freely... unfortunately for native people that China conquered, they lose those!"
Wrong. Tibetans actually learn Tibetan in school. Uighurs learn Uighur in school. Mongols learn Mongolian in school. And you see their respective culture being showcased everywhere. Do native Americans learn their native American in school? Can the American citizens that are native to Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa etc allowed vote for president? No! So much for "equal rights"
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@ragnardanneskjold7259 Im so called "spouting" the law. If CCP also states the same HK law I was speaking of, then so be it. Just because the CCP stated a certain law, doesnt mean that law is automatically void. Use your brain. Read the bill before spouting nonsense.
"Most people from Hong Kong that I've spoken to disagree with your over-simplistic, "nothing to see here," interpretation of the bill"
Thats because most HK people didnt read the bill...They used their own misguided brain to disregard the actual law, and misinterpreted the bill through disinformation.
"I also think you're doing the people of Hong Kong a disservice, by suggesting they can't think for themselves, and take their cues from the West"
Stating the fact that they did not read the bill is not a disservice. HK people NOT reading the bill is a disservice. They can think for themselves, sure, but with the disinformation that theyve been given, theyre victims of fear mongering propaganda.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@lessee_6768 "China = more censorship (especially the more explicit one, certain TV shows, Movies, Music, Artists, Video games that the party doesn't like, social media like fb, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, etc.)"
Like I said, whats this "more" or "less" business? Its either you HAVE censorship, or you DONT HAVE censorship. And whether thats a "yes" or a "no", democracy has nothing to do with that.
Also, the examples you gave it not because the "party doesnt like" it. Its because those companies refuse to comply with local laws and regulations. Whether its social media, games, music, movies etc, they didnt adhere to local Chinese laws.
"inappropriate banning like banning of Pooh, Shang Chi, Mulan, K-pop, etc.)"
Like I said, theres inappropriate banning everywhere. And no, Winnie the Pooh is not banned in China. You can literally buy it in the shops. Whats not allowed is disrespecting the head of state and mocking him, like comparing him with Pooh. Is that so "inappropriate" to you?
Im not sure about Shang Chi, but Mulan was a political one. K-pop is because China has new laws on effeminate males broadcast publicly, it applies to those within China too not just K-pop. Whether thats inappropriate or not is up for the Chinese to decide on that. Not our country, not our laws. We dont have a say.
"Chinese individuals can't elect Xi through votes"
US, UK, CA, AUS, NZ individuals also cant elect their leaders themselves. Their representatives elect their leaders. Same for China. Your point?
"free media ( Restrictions from Authorities, complete control of media )"
As long as the news is objective and unbias, who cares? Look at the US. The media is either controlled by left-winged corporations or right-wings corporations. So their news that they broadcast is bias towards their companies political views. What good does that do? The media is controlled either way. Either by the government or by corporations with their agendas.
"freedom of expression"
I already mentioned that in my above comment, no country has complete freedom of expression, including yours.
"freedom to criticize( arrested Apple Daily Jimmy Lai for being pro-democracy, people disappearing after criticizing the government)"
You can criticise all you want. But there are dedicated platforms to change laws/policies/regulations etc. And theres a fine line between simply criticising, and subversion.
And stop spreading fake news. Jimmy Lai wasnt arrested for being "pro-democracy". He was arrested for collusion with foreign forces.
And HK is already a democracy, so what does "pro-democracy" even mean? Is the other party "anti-democracy"?
And no one "disappeared" after criticising the government. Its called "laying low". Cant people be allowed to have their privacy? Must they tell the world where they are everyday to not be labelled as having "disappeared"? Everyone thought Jack Ma and Peng Shuai "disappeared". Arent they alive and well now?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@robertbenitez3647 "some official agreement does not mean anything"
Wrong. Its the official stance/agreement that means everything. The foundation of ALL diplomatic relations are based off official agreement/stance. If official agreement/stance mean nothing then why bother making official statements/agreement? Youre not making any sense here...
'The status quo is the "existing state of affairs"'
Youre right there. The existing state of affairs when US established diplomatic relations with China was as I said:
"one of the core components that laid the foundations of that relation is that the US had to recognise and abide by the One China Principle, that is, there is only One China, and that Taiwan is part of that One China.
That has been the status quo from the US-China perspective, and the status quo from the Taiwan-Mainland China perspective"
Moreover, Taiwans government, Republic of Chinas very own constitution STILL to this day claims to be the country called China. And they must abide by it till the day it changes. Again, thats the "existing state of affairs" youre on about. Anything that changes that is changing the status quo. So like I said, it was TAIWAN that changed the status quo first, no Mainland China. Where was the US when Taiwan was changing the status quo huh?
"the existing state of affairs right now is that taiwan has complete autonomy over its own affairs. that is the IMPORTANT status quo"
Now? Youre talking about the status quo now after Taiwan has literally changed the status quo? What is the status quo if it can be changed on a whim and say hey thats the new status quo UNILATERALLY?
Now that Russia has started a war, guess war is the new "status quo", so we must keep the "status quo". So who ever changes that is changing the new "status quo". Thats your logic right there...
Also, if we want to get technical, the Chinese Civil War between PRC and ROC still to this day has not ended yet. No armistice or peace treaty was ever signed. Its technically a prolonged ceasefire. So the status quo is that - civil war-in-progress. No country on this planet can interfere in another countrys civil war unless invited by the UN and/or the countrys official government (hint: not Taiwan).
"all this about the one china policy is completely irrelevant"
Completely relevant. If its irrelevant then why doesnt the US recognise 2 Chinas, or recognise that Taiwan is not part of China? Instead it recognises Taiwan is part of this "One China"? You honestly dont know what youre talking about here.
Youre just talking about "popular opinions" and not facts.
"and even if you want to talk about the one china policy. it is an agreement/compromise between the us and china. taiwan has absolutely nothing to do with it"
Wrong. Ive already stated in above. This is also the policy between ROC and PRC. But it seems like you have selecting reading...Look up "1992 consensus" and read it yourself.
Moreover, the "One China" policy is for ALL countries that established diplomatic relations with China. Not just the US.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@vitaluna1568 Congrats, you just admitted it was an insult. Instead of engaging in actual dialogue, you resort to name calling instead. Thats what "real" 5 year olds do.
Oh and I know what China is "doing" in HK alright. Theyre making sure HK actually fulfils their constitutional duty. For the longest time, HK was meant to create their own "national security law" under Article 23 of HKs mini constitution. But almost 25 of the 50 yrs, HK STILL did not create it. HK failed to do so, so Beijing stepped in. Remember, it was HK that violated the agreement first, not Beijing.
And Ill make my point clear again, if it was "one country, one system", HK would be paying China taxes, subjugated by China laws, and forced to use Mandarin and simplified Chinese and ONLY Mandarin and simplified Chinese in schools etc.
If you continue saying its not "one country, two system", lets call on China to really make it "one country, one system" to show you what that really looks like
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheTechnoid333 " After so many years, if a place works like an independent country, then it is probably an independent country, regardless of what some pieces of paper might say"
And that, is called an opinion. The world doesnt go by opinions. It goes by law.
"By that logic, North and South Korea are also still one country. When two places have a different government, a different culture, different laws, different foreign relations, etc., then they are probably two different countries"
This was a mistake of the UN to intervene on this matter. It was by order of the UN that Korea is to be split into 2 to avoid war. No country or organisation should have the power to intervene in another countrys politics. Both Koreas still believe this is a temporary split, and the Korean people will eventually reunify. But because of UNs interference, they are deemed to be "2 countries", an irreversible mistake.
"Modern wars for annexation are an insane concept to me, and I don't want them to come true ANYWHERE!"
Trade wars, economic annexation. Information warfare (misinformation and disinformation), mass's intelligence(control) annexation. Just to name a few.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@墙内人-o4p "Typical modern Chinese thought"?
For what? For using economic principles to answer a question?
"Are you suggesting Uyghurs are undeveloped...just need to be assimilated or wiped out"
Yes. Not only Uyghurs, but China as a whole is undeveloped. In terms of GDP, Xinjiang is indeed undeveloped.
And also, what country doesnt want its people to assimilate? Name one country that doesnt. Nothing wrong with assimilating. Assimilating doesnt mean you cant practise your own culture. It just means youre able to fully function within the country and accepted socially.
"I tell you, the tribes in Amazon are going very well, and tribes in middle east are also going very well, but other civilized people in middle east aren't going very well, just because lack of democracy"
How do you know the tribes in the Amazon and Middle East are doing very well? Have you been? Have you read about it? You seem so confident. Link me your source of knowledge.
Democracy is a Greek ideology. So as far as I know, tribes dont have democracy. Tribes are inherently authoritarian led by a chieftain, which is usually the most powerful or an elder.
"Terrorism among Uyghurs, who defines it, the CCP?"
I said independence movements/terrorism, not just terrorism. But who defines it? Theres a standard definition what terrorism is. Pretty much any organisation that uses unlawful violence or unlawful threat of violence for political agendas.
Now, name me one country that supports an independence movement within their own country. Name me one country thats happy to give away their own sovereign territory because a small group of people wants it.
"but in communists eye, Uyghurs should not have the right to express their dissatisfaction"
You are too self-centred. Its not just Uyghurs. ANYONE with subversive thoughts inside the country is subjected to the rule of law. Thats Chinas law whether anyone likes it or not. When youre in country X, youre subjected to country Xs laws.
"why those "terrorism" only occurred after 9.11, it means CCP hardened their iron fist on that region, with an excuse of America's war on terror"
Maybe 9/11 encouraged and empowered more extremist to act upon their beliefs?
"if you keep these idea, I'll not argue with you anymore. because it means you are fifty cent, or CCP member, or from those country heavily relied on China's aid"
Everyone is able to express their opinion. If you think Im a 50c, a CCP member, or from a country that relies on Chinas aid, then you must be funded by the CIA for having your own opinions against China. Sounds ridiculous doesnt it?
Also, someone linked me the truth on what really happens within these vocational centres.
Take a look, its better than bloodshed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91FFyinPK3M
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@solon5123 "I would like to see the studies you have seen"
As I said, just search the strings "combustion engine vs EV catch fire" and youll have a never ending list of factual data for you tor read.
"and there are many others that are not properly peer reviewed"
Lol peer reviewed. This is not a "scientific study" thats "discovering" something new. Its factual data from actual combustion of engines from combustion engines and EVs.
"I've never seen a combustion engine burn by itself while I've seen two electric ones do"
Ive never said "by itself". Obviously something triggered it. Different technologies catch fire in different ways. We have to look at the end result, and the result shows a much higher proportion of combustion engines cars catching fire than to electric cars.
"Yes I have seen EV cars on fire in graveyards in China"
Please show me a car graveyard catching fire in China, thanks.
"You are missing something. Governments want to improve the environment. Making an EV car is a way of improving the environment. If by making the car you destroy the primary purpose you by default don't have to make the car in the end because it didn't serve the original purpose."
You said it yourself, its the GOVERNMENT that wants to improve the environment, thats the governments agenda, not the companys agenda. And your subsequent point is irrelevant to my point, as my point was that thats the governments agenda, not the companies,. The companys agenda is to make a profit. Their company mission may or may not have to be the same with the governments. For example, I myself could start a "green" company if the government decided to heavily subsidise "green" companies that support "green" initiatives that lower greenhouse gases. But my agenda is to make a profit for my company, Im in it to win and make a fortune. My companys goals dont be the same as the governments, as long as its "green" my company will qualify for free money. Thats our agenda. Attaining easy money to start a business without having to pay back a loan or fork our ownership of our company. If what our company does "destroys" the primary purpose of the governments, then thats none of our business, thats for the government to deal with. Our business is getting the green light for those sweet subsidies. Get it the difference in agendas?
"Batteries contain things like cadmium, lead, mercury, nickel, lithium and electrolytes. You are telling me that none of these things can leak or drip including mercury or fluids and cannot go into the ground. have you ever seen a battery in your life?"
Since when did EV cars use non-rechargeable non-lithium batteries that contain cadmium, lead, mercury, and the likes? What era are you from?!
No, EVs do not contain batteries that leak in liquid form. All leakages are crystallised as its leaked. Theres no "drippage". Theres no chance it polluting the soil.
4
-
4
-
@vincentwong9321 "They destroy MTR only after it work with gangsters and police"
There ZERO evidence for that. Only speculations. Just because 1 politician supports them doesnt mean he represents the government/police. And whatever the case that gives absolutely NO reason to destroy more public property.
"they did not beating people with different political opinions"
Lies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk4P1oeItOA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6qjMSG27YU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jatLsO0w4tI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Wgce4ipy8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3ncPMk5KFk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6CbEiGWDD0
"they start to skip the fee after the MTR work with the gangster to beat up citizens"
Zero evidence for that. And whatever reason you say, you think its OK to do something illegal because you feel like it?
"And no single shop was damage for 4 months"
Also lies. Entire shopping centres were damages, not only physically but financially as well. In fact, the financial damage throughout all of HK is worse than any physical damage that can be possibly done.
"what you are saying is same as telling a girl going to rape by a man she should not hurt the man"
Poor analogy. But NO COUNTRY in this world are you allowed to assault police. If you get arrested you DONT RESIST. If the protesters did what theyre doing in the US, there would have been x100+ the amount of gunshots.
"And also the government, included police are paid by the people, they are only servants of the people, if they work against the people will, they are wrong in any way"
Naive thinking. If 45% of the population support Northern Ireland independence, and 55% of the population want to stay with Britain, the government works for the 55%. Not the 45%. Im afraid you are part of the smaller group. Moreover, if you want to speak about the country as a whole, you are <1% of China.
"a reporter was shot blind by the police force on the day"
ZERO evidence that the report was shot by the police (not even gunpowder residue on her face/goggles). In fact theres evidence that it was the protestors that hit her with a steel/marble ball that pentrated between her eyes. She didnt even want to report to police nor want it investigated. Feel free to prove me wrong.
https://www.quora.com/Who-do-you-think-hit-the-female-protestor-s-eye-in-Hong-Kong
"The facts are 0 serious injuries on police"
Guess bloody faces, damaged retinas and fingers bitten off arent "serious injuries" to you...
'here is the line why the protester go non-peaceful: "It is you show us peaceful protestor is useless'
And riots are useful?
"The government work against the will of people and beating them as a response"
No government in this world can please all their citizens. Even Taiwan pass the gay marriage bill when the majority of their citizens oppose it.
Also, police dont beat citizens without them breaking the law. Illegal assemblies are illegal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@pejo620 "that's not right"
Whats not right?
"Population shrinking is a social disaster"
Agree if a country is underpopulated. Disagree if population is overpopulated.
"You NEED a certain number of people working, to support through taxes those who don't work (retired people with pensions)"
Depends on country. If its a developing country where salary is peanuts, it wont make a dent in the tax revenue, that countries tax would be based off corporate tax, especially if its a resource rich country.
"If population doesn't grow, you'll have less and less younger people, and more older people to support proportionally"
It also means wealth would be distributed to a smaller population making them relatively more rich from doing nothing. But yes, that also means more support needed towards the elderly.
"our government is currently spending over 40% of the annual budget on pensions for retired people, which is a LOT, and in some decades, due to aging population, paying pensions will be absolutely impossible"
Thats why pensions is poor economic policy - poor as in poor culture. People shouldnt have been spending all their money while theyre young and leave nothing for when theyre older. If anything, a better policy would be to incorporate a compulsory contribution to a pool of funds that you cannot touch until you retire. Then you can use those funds you saved up your whole life when youre old. That way theres no need to use tax payers money to fund the old. They fund themselves.
"That is also a huge problem in China, because of the one child policy"
Yes, its a problem. But because they (Asia) have a much higher savings ratio compared to the West, the government doesnt need to fork out as much to support the old.
"Something similar is going to happen in the next years in Japan, and the government will have to get into more debt in order to pay the pensions, and the Japanese government has already an ENORMOUS debt..."
Yes...The Japanese economy is doomed...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@mng3941 No matter how cunning China can be, if its not a crime IN HK, like freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, then a fugitive cannot be extradited at all.
It MUST be a crime of at least 7 years imprisonment IN HK for an extradition request to progress.
And HK independent judiciary has the final say on whether or not the fugitive gets extradited.
There nothing wrong with being paranoid. But to hold the city to a standstill, blocking roads, affecting businesses, economy, assaulting police, all theses affecting innocent people, then you are just destroying your city.
And pointing lasers at peoples eyes is a criminal offence. A split second can cause permanent damage to ones retina. Police should arrest every single criminal shiny laser onto peoples eyes.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@tenzinkalden9073 "It would depend on your definition of oppression"
Freedom to live their lives and do what they want as long as its within the laws?
"Because of the police state China has created, it is nearly impossible to get an actual account of what ordinary Tibetans experience"
I wouldnt consider Tibet a "police state". Xinjiang on the other hand would be. Also, from the various vlogs of visitors in Tibet of locals, it honestly looks fine.
"But we do know that recently large percentages of monasteries were destroyed"
I know that PRC destroyed a lot of religious sites in the past throughout the whole country, not just in Tibet. But recently? Im all for facts, do you have a source to that claim?
"We do know the names of the hundreds of Tibetans that have self immolated themselves in recent years"
I dont know about you, but to people around the world dont care about names of people that choose to suicide. So that comment is irrelevant.
"Additionally, the appointment of a false Panchen Lama, after they kidnapped the rightful claimant, proves to many people outside of Tibet that there is religious oppression"
That is not recent though? And all these are due to politics, not because of religion. They just happen to coincide.
"and they are attempting to destroy the Tibetan identity"
I disagree with that. If anything theyre trying to preserve all ethnic minority customs within their borders. What they want to destroy are the roots of separatist movements - which is a fair action for any country.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@exnihilo415 Refusing to use a persons "preferred" pronoun is now a crime in Canada. Zie, zim, zir, zis, sie, hir, and hirs are just a tiny fraction of the pronouns claimed. If you continuously use the "wrong" pronoun, it is now considered a form of violent aggression towards someone, and therefore a crime.
Why should the English language been changed to criminalise people for speaking English as it has been for centuries? You refer to peoples pronouns by their sex, not what they "claim" to be. How do you like it if I dictate that everyone addresses me use the pronoun your majesty? And whoever doesnt is instigating an act of violent aggression towards me, aka harassment, aka a crime.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
If you cant do it then YOURE the one "barking loudly".
"Remind you, JPN is only a country in Asia in suppying drinking water through taps upon clarification device"
Irrelevant. Also, "clarification" means to make something more understanding. And a "device" is typically small. You are speaking about a massive water treatment system.
Moreover, Japan is one of the most mountainous country by % area that has rain. That means the country can capture a lot of rainwater for its population. Japans water doesnt have to be heavily treated compared to the rest of the world.
"The treated water excluding contaminants is now discharging under the quantity control per day and it continues over 30 yeard, not at once or ASAP"
That only means one thing, its obviously NOT safe thats why they have to discharge it over such a longer time period.
But that doesnt change anything. The worlds ocean will still be contaminated by the same radioactive waste waster after 30 years. Youre just delaying the inevitable.
"You can never tell the causal relationship between Sonoda's death and what he drank the treated water over 10 years ago."
Oh? Then Japan can "prove" to the world again by having their ministers drink the water and monitor their health.
His death was obviously because of the radioactive water. Stop trying to defend this nonsense.
All in all, you can talk about the contaminated water being "purified" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this situation is unprecedented. That has been no comprehensive study on nuclear waste water on the biological or marine environment whatsoever. Literally none. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
Theres only studies that it DOES cause problems.
When there is ZERO evidence to ensure that theres NO problem, then ANY country or organisation saying its "safe" is questionable. Its doubtful, unreliable and unconfirmed. Take it with a grain of salt, not as the ultimate truth.
And Ill say it again, if its so-called "safe" then you should dump in your own country. Use it as farm water or whatever. Bet you wont even dare.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tylerd8245 "You can play the game of whataboutism all you want"
Me? How about you look in the mirror before accusing others of whataboutism. I only asked you a question and brought up that HK had a constitutional duty to created their own "national security law" under Article 23 of their mini-constitution.
And what did you do?
Brought up about "freedom" this "freedom" that. Carnival this, vigils that. That literally whataboutism right there.
"The fact of the matter is (1) Hong Kongers have much less freedom today than prior to the enactment of the national security act"
They were meant to have their very own "national security law" ever since their handover in 1997. You think when HK was under the British they were able to do what they did against China towards the British? No! Protests were not allowed in HK under British rule. And HK was great prior to 1997. They had the SAME freedom has they had previously, just not politically, like under British rule.
And your argument that HK was more free when they didnt have more laws is ridiculous. Isnt it obvious that a place is more free without any laws?! I would argue that even YOUR country would have more freedom if you also didnt have a "national security law". Dont you think?
"and (2) businesses have left in droves due to an unstable political climate and unpredictable future"
Irrelevant. Abide by the laws of the country and nothing will happen. Same rule applies for every single country youre in. If China allowed the riots to continue, ie dont have this "national security law", even more businesses would leave due to its literal dangerous climate. You honestly think that businesses care about political climate? If they did, why would they do business within the Chinese mainland themselves?!
"This started well before the new law, when the CCP was beginning to impose its will, in what many perceive as the breaking of the promise that it would allow HK to retain the same rights and freedom after the handover"
You dont know what youre talking about. CCP imposed their "will"? What will? The constitutional will that they were meant to accomplish that they didnt?
It was HK that broke their promise, not Beijing. HK was meant to created their own "national security law" under Article 23 of their mini-constitution. Half way through the 50 year and still no result is a failure on HKs part. Why should Beijing sit still when HK failed? HK already broke their promise before Beijing intervened.
And their way of life hasnt not changed from under British rule till now. Actually no, under the British HK wasnt allowed to protest against their rulers nor choose their leader, under the Chinese HK was! That says everything already.
"You think the record low turnout in voting for a sham election signals the citizens are optimistic about its future? Rationalize it all you want. I don't really care. Hong Kong is a world class city, and it's in decline"
Irrelevant. Optimistic or not has absolutely nothing to do with a city being "world class". Whether a place is "world class" or not has nothing to do with the locals. Absolutely nothing I tell you.
3
-
3
-
@Cosmo1093 "Protesters in 2019 were just demanding what they were already promised"
What youre doing is cherry picking words without the full context. Whats promised is clearly specified in the constitution. Its clearly detailed and followed accordingly (Annex I and Annex II).
How convenient for you to be ignoring that the method of selecting the Chief Executive is meant to be "in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress". What does that mean? That means there will be changes, and the changes will be "gradual and orderly". Thats exactly whats happening. Theyve been given what they were promised.
Moreover, youre also conventionally leaving out the 2nd half of the sentence: The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES", in accordance with democratic procedures specified in Annex I and Annex II!
"Following your logic of trying to ignore the spirit of the law, there was no time limit set under Article 23 for HK to implement a national security law, so it would be legal for HK to never implement a national security law at all"
No, its common practice that no specified date means theyre meant to do it in g00d faith within a reasonable time period, not "never do it". Half of the specified time and still no result is not in g00d faith.
If going by your logic, the 50 year agreement also never had a start date. Beijing could also legally have the 50 year of time period start in year 2200, instead of from 1997.
Agreements are meant to be done in g00d faith. And that means ASAP or within a reasonable time period in this case.
"I disagree. Elected government officials are ultimately held accountable by their voters"
Youre wrong, but you are entitled to your opinions. You are using the Western democratic system to judge a non-Western democratic system. Accountability is largely irrelevant in this specific scenario, Ill tell you why.
HK is a special administrative region (SAR) of PRC, whereby HK is to have a high degree of autonomy, but still ultimately under the behest of PRC. Remember, HK is to have a "high degree" of autonomy, not "absolute" autonomy, its clearly stated in their mini-constitution.
When there was such a huge legal loophole in the HKvsTW murdr case, I bet you it was Beijing that told HK to close this legal loophole by proposing the "controversial" extradition bill using HKs legal system. So my point still stands. Regardless of who was elected, the bill wouldve still been "proposed" as this was an invisible hand pushing this from Beijings side.
And I use "proposed" in quotation because its not in Beijings interest to forcefully do it their way, the Beijing way. They want to do it the HK way through HKs legal system. So directed by Beijing, passed by HK, and implemented by HK. So whoever HKs leader was, they wouldve still had to propose it no matter what.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Sleepyirishcoffee Thats not the definition of a "police state". Thats all in your mind.
Police state just means the state is controlled by a police force.
Firstly, thats not true. The police is controlled by the government. Which has a set of laws they must follow. They dont have "ungodly" powers. If there were anything unjust going on, they can be sued or atleast have the responsible person fired.
Secondly, you cant just be "locked up" simply from an accusation without some sort of evidence. If anything, "detained" is the word, and that is temporary. And there must be sufficient evidence that said person is a suspect.
Lastly, "limited freedoms to do things" is subjective. People that reside in these so-called "police states" would argue they have the freedom to do whatever they wished to do. You think people that live in such a safe society would want the "freedom" to bear arms or "freedom" to speak ill about their leader? They dont even think about such things.
Some countries have "freedom" to drink or get tattoos in their early teens. If a country cant do that, does that mean they have "limited freedom"?
And you say you lived in a "police state" before. Just because that country was a "police state" and you experienced something terrible, that doesnt mean all "police states" are like that. Likewise, Im sure many people would experience terrible things in democratic countries, like police brutality etc, does that mean democratic countries are terrible?
What you dont like is corruption, not the model of governance.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@krashme997 'I have no idea what you were trying to say with your "government" comment. We were talking about the reporter, weren't we?'
You were talking about the "Chinese market" and "countries" agreeing with China were you not? Only countries that have diplomatic relations can access the Chinese market. And only governments have that power. Its got nothing to do with the reporters opinions. Their opinions do not matter. Thats why I say you cant lump the 2 together.
"Also, you can totally pretend. For example, you can have unofficial taiwanese diplomatic missions in your country effectively working as substitute embassies"
Thats not recognising them as a "country". And the word "diplomatic mission" is not used. That word is out of bounds. They only have "cultural offices"
"But what I mean by that is that politicians will dance around the subject, and the people will look at the situation and obviously think Taiwan's independent"
As mentioned in my other comment:
'Your "Taiwan" claims to be the country called CHINA. If people all knew that then they wouldnt think like the way they think!
If people knew that ROC and PRC fought a civil war, and understand that civil war means war within the SAME country, again, they wouldnt think that!
Its ignorance thats blinding them from seeing the truth. And its in the Wests interest to keep their people ignorant of the truth!'
"On paper, it's ambiguous, in most people's heads, it's definitely not"
No, its the other way around. On paper its NOT ambiguous. Its set in stone. All world powers agree that Taiwan is part of China. To even enter into a diplomatic relation with China they MUST abide by it.
Only in peoples head is it ambiguous. Just read the comments on the topic (from all news source, not just Western reporters). The opinions are split. Thats the very definition of ambiguity.
Whereas all countries/governments (paper) say Taiwan is part of China without any misinterpretation.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sunsetgames4682 'mate you do realize "China" is a nationstate'
Irrelevant.
"As long as a majority of the population identify as "Taiwanese", they are TAIWANESE"
They can identify themselves to whatever they want, but that doesnt change the fact that they are Chinese. Just like people of Hongkong identify themselves as Hongkongers, but that doesnt mean theyre not Chinese.
"Just because they were chinese 70 years ago doesn't mean they are chinese now"
What are you smoking? If you "were" Chinese, and the constitution, flag, and name of the state hasnt change, then you STILL ARE CHINESE.
"People change, ideas form/dissipate, etc"
Doesnt matter what they THINK, the FACT of the matter is their government identifies themselves as the country called "China". Until their government changes their name from Republic of CHINA to Republic of Taiwan or whatever, and change their constitution to revoke their claim as the country called "China", Taiwan will never be a country called "Taiwan".
"The People's Republic of china has 0 influence in the Republic of China"
That only shows that theyre independent states. That doesnt change the fact that "Taiwan" is not a country. Republic of China once sat in the UN representing China, and till this day, still claims to be a country called China, not "Taiwan". Thats fact for you.
So even if you want to call Republic of China a "country", its a country called China (what they claim to be), not "Taiwan" (a province of Republic of China, as per their constitution.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Eason Lin Right. If you want to talk about it that way then. You ancestor arrived in Taiwan ILLEGALLY. Your ancestors had no documents to allow them to legally cross into Taiwan borders. Thats fact.
Now, if you want to stop talking nonsense then Ill say this. Taiwan is the way it is today because of the Chinese descendents in Taiwan. Whether itd be from Ming, Qing, Japanese rule or ROC, Taiwan was and is built by the Chinese. Tell me why it isnt part of China again.
Also, legally speaking you can claim anything and everything that is unclaimed. When Japan relinquished its claim to Taiwan, Taiwan wasnt claimed by anyone, not even Taiwanese themselves. Therefore, who ever claims Taiwan first and is not contested, has claim to Taiwan. Which is why Taiwan is still governed by ROC. And yes, it was legal if theres not laws stopping China from doing so.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@robertbenitez3647 Just because youre ignorant on that matter doesnt mean Taiwan hasnt changed the status quo. They fundamentally changed the status quo, not just a mere visit from Pelosi.
Just a little context so you know whats going on. The current Taiwan government, Republic of China (ROC), once sat in the UN representing the country called China. Heck Taiwan wasnt even part of ROC till after WW2 after Japan surrendered its occupation over the island.
After WW2, ROC effectively lost the Chinese civil war to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), only having Taiwan as its remaining territory under its control. But make no mistake, they still claim to be the country called China, not "Taiwan".
In 1992, ROC and PRC sat down and came to a consensus that Taiwan and Mainland China was part of the same ONE China, but disagreed on who was the legitimate ruler of this "One China". They each believed that they were the legitimate rulers of "One China".
And the US also acknowledges this "One China" principle, that Taiwan is a part of China. Thats why they dont have diplomatic relations with "Taiwan".
In 1995, everything changed, Taiwan started their pro-Taiwan independence movement and had them lead their government. This fundamentally changed the status quo of "We are China", to "We are Taiwan, not part of China".
Tell me again how Taiwan didnt change the status quo again?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@marconi "so many bugs in your latest reply, so hard to repel them all"
Bugs? This isnt a program lol. Theres no flaws in my words. Only something that you dont fully comprehend so you think theres something wrong. Ill respond to all your rebuttals.
"1. Authoritarian model is a you-obey-me model that by itself is unjustifiable"
Name me a country that does not have a "you-obey-me" model under the law. Everyone must obey the law of ANY country regardless of political system, democratic or not.
Or were you suggesting everyone must obey Xi when you say "you-obey-ME"? China isnt under dictatorship, its authoritarian. Even Xi needs permission from his government before he can implement what he wants.
"2. Name a few countries thrived post WWII without FDI to make your point"
"Name me a few country that needed FDI to thrive in Q3 2021 to make your point". See how limiting time frames are? After globalisation, every single country in this world received some form of FDIs. How you meant to differentiate whether one country thrives or not with FDI when ALL countries in this world have FDIs?
The only way to find out whether FDI is a factor in determining whether FDI makes a country thrive or not is go back to a time when FDI does not exists (pre-globalisation era) and see whether ANY country economically thrived during this time period.
So Ive already made my point very clear, and its proven by history. China and India for example did NOT need FDI to thrive centuries before the West arrived in Asia. History has proven my point already.
"3. China spends more in social stability than military every year"
As does every other country. Your point?
"War drains funding to expose instability risk accumulated for the last 70 years"
So why is the USs economy still great after all these years of war?
"Sanctions? China could not even bring Australia and Canada to its kneel, let alone when more than 130 countries boycott it altogether to stall China's exports to trigger more instability"
Chinas dispute with AU and CA were in RETALIATION to AU and CA. Its a "did-for-dat" strategy. 1 for 1. "Ai for an ai" (words were censored...). Sanctions are not meant to "cripple" economies. Didnt you know?
And where did you get this "130" figure from? Youre literally making numbers up at this point. Theres only around 30 countries sanctioning Russia right now. What makes you think EVEN MORE will sanction or "boycott" Chinese goods?
Moreover, China is the #1 exporting country to almost all the countries in the world. And China also controls 85% of the worlds Rare Earth Metals. Good luck to the technological development of that country when China sanctions them back on the tech front.
And the PRC vs ROC conflict is a DOMESTIC issue. Its called the Chinese Civil War. Civil war meaning war within the SAME COUNTRY. No country is that dumb to launch a kamikaze attack on something thats got nothing to do with them in the first place - a domestic issue of another country.
"4...for starting a war that is going to cripple itself more badly. Keep our own fabs as hostages and sacrifice is a tactic to raise the urgency to foreign countries and is not rare to see in past wars. Leave nothing to help the enemies"
Why do you keep thinking that PRC invading Taiwan will cripple itself? Its an obviously win. Even if TSMC is completely destroyed, thats only $50 billion lost every year, compared to Taiwans whole GDP of $750 billion. Thats a net positive of $700 billion added each year!
And by kamakazeing, it only destroys local Taiwanese peoples livelihoods, not mainland Chinas.
"5. China can make some chips but not competitive in cost that's the fact. 5nm in which process can be done in China? You might be very naive to relate lab samples to mass production end products"
Youre basically rewording what I said earlier here.
Capable of creating a lab sample means capable of creating it. As said earlier, theyre just not able to produce it commercially at economies of scale (aka mass production) for them to be profitable yet. But make no mistake, theyre still capable to do so, they have the tech.
"Keep your blind faith and history would prove you wrong"
Actually, no. History is proving China to actually be catching up technologically. Even surpassing and taking the #1 spot in some fields (like 5G and AI for example).
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@AmorphousEcru "how do you know Tik Tok is following local legislation?"
Because if they didnt they would be sued. Not asked to be sold to an American company...
"And if US apps and sites, like FB, Twitter, YouTube, and Google aren't following local legislation, why are they still allowed in the rest of the world?"
You do realise every country has different laws right? China wants FB, Twitter, YouTube, and Google to censor certain things illegal in their country. But FB, Twitter, YouTube, and Google refuse to comply therefore they cannot do business in China.
3
-
3
-
3
-
"don't feel bad that I look more closely at sources..."
Are you gaslighting or you misinterpreting my words? I dont feel bad at all. Not one bit.
And it doesnt matter how "close" you look at the source if you only look at source that suits your narrative, ie biased. You may be right that "It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored". But did you "look closely" at the data for men too? And provided a balanced assessment in your post? If you dont look at the data for men, then from the conclusion youve made youll also receive an F if you wrote a thesis on our topic of discussion.
"You've stated that you're comfortable with the idea that proportionally more women complain"
Ok now dont put words in my mouth. I never stated that. I could very well be stating something Im very uncomfortable with, uncomfortable that theres some much complaint from one side but not the other. It baffles me how you keep misinterpreting things. I truly question your ability to interpret information. As a "researcher", you lose credibility every time you misinterpret something. And youve done it many times now...
"If you were doing a thesis in...and you submitted work that compared the behaviour of one woman to that of 9 men, you would be heavily penalised, and possibly even fail. You would be using mismatched sample sizes but comparing them; this is a big no-no"
I honestly surprised how you keep coming up with obvious misinterpretation after obvious misinterpretation. For someone that supposedly interprets information and what information CAN mean, thats certainly surprising.
That is obviously not what I meant. Youre talking about "reports" and "unions". I did not give an absolute number of 9 to 1. I gave a ratio of 9:1. The numbers could very well be 9 million to 1 million.
If the sample size is big enough (which it is when it comes to reports and number of people in unions) and if the data has a sound level of consistency (which again is, based on data) then the conclusion is valid. Yet youre somehow trying to discredit that? Again, thats so disingenuous of you to do that.
"The point I was making to you earlier, about women self-reporting that they don't make complaints because they feel it isn't worth it, cannot be compared to male experiences within the workplace because the female employees are made to feel uncomfortable through their gender"
Youre moving goal posts here. "Uncomfortable through gender" is not "misogyny" - the very word I was refuting. Do you know the definition of the word youre using?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@CuongNguyen-le5ic "You defend agencies that exploit on young girls prefer Under 18 years old, but mostly THE YOUNGER, THE WHITER, THE BETTER as mentioned in the article"
Articles are subjective. Never take subjective articles seriously. If younger is better, then why not hire infants? The younger the better right? Youre too emotional, you cant think straight.
"Since their parent signed the contract and barely know anything, you think it is a "good excuse" for "consent".
Anyone that signs a contract without reading is an idiot. You dont need higher education to read contracts. Are you saying those parents are idiots?
"Again, CONGRATULATION, you are defending China and this whole argument of exploitation of CHILDREN"
China again? Clearly this business involves more than just 1 country. Yet you clearly choose to pick on 1 and not the other. Shows how bias you are. Bias and irrational people are not worth my time. This may very well be my last message to you.
"Because of enough people like you, child bride is possible, exploitation is possible because theirs parent "CONSENT" to something they barely even know, understand"
You looking down on parents? How dare you. Who do you think you are to assume parents consent to depart their children on something they "barely even know"?
Moreover, Im am specifically speaking about THIS video, on how its is NOT human trafficking. Im not deny human trafficking exists. Learn to discern the difference. From our conversation we've had so far, I can see youre not very bright.
"Seriously, with your excuses, you could basically defend anything since they "CONSENT" to it, SCAM, FRAUD, COERCION"
Excuses? I provided legitimate reasons. I cant be sorry for your inability to comprehend logic.
"but I know how young a child around 15 years old can't make financial decision, even with the agreement of their clueless and poor parent"
Again. How dare you look down on a 15 year old! When I was 15 I was able to manage my finances very well tyvm. This isnt rocket science. We're not talking about investments here. Just basic cashflows.
"That's why UN has laws to this which you clearly ignore"
Yes, the UN has laws. And the modelling industry is huge. You think that if it was really human trafficking it wouldntve made headline on the news have brought to the attention of the UN already? Clearly its not human trafficking. All models have freedom!
"Yerris here think a 14-15 YEARS OLD Child can make sound Financial Decision to themselves"
Yes. Every 15 year old and add and subtract. We're not talking about investments here. We are talking about basic cashflow.
"Drink Free Flowing Alcohol at Night Club"
Who said they need to drink alcohol at a night club? Who said they are FORCED to go to a night club? If they do, its with consent, its THEIR CHOICE.
Seems like you dont understand what "THEIR CHOICE" means.
"So Young girls from another countries at the age of 14-15 YEARS OLD can work at Night Club, In debt and can "CONSENT" to all these"
I never agreed that thats appropriate. I said it very clearly already. If you failed to read my words then thats your problem. Im saying IF they do, its THEIR CHOICE. No one is FORCING them to go.
"Yerris here also think it is fine to be in DEBT since these young girls "CONSENT" to do this either by themselves or their POVERTY, UNEDUCATED parent who signed it"
Umm it IS fine to be in debt. Almost everyone is in debt in some way or anything. 99% of all business owners start off in debt. 99% of all house owners also start off in debt.
99% of uni students also start off in debt.
And stop assuming that their parents are in poverty, thats false information. Thats just a tiny margin if there is. Most of them have land, a house, AKA assets.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Peter Kroll So what exactly is "political" about all those that you have mentioned? You mean "societal" correctness right? Everything you've mentioned has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with society and their feelings. Yet what the original commentor mentioned things that actually has something to do with politics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Political correctness is saying plus-size instead of fat, a retarded child is mentally disabled, very stupid person is an unschooled person, a cleaner is a sanitation engineer, saying morally challenged instead of a crook, comb-free head instead of bald, lies become alternative facts, robbery is wealth redistribution, a dirty old man is a sexually focused retiree, a sex worker was previously a prostitute, a tranny prostitute is a an equal opportunity sex worker."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Turnip Society "monetary system, own legal system, own political system, own tax-collecting system, own flag and national symbols, own army (or navy) = own country."
Yes. Chinese monetary system, Chinese legal system, Chinese political system, Chinese tax system, Chinese army, and arguably the most important of all, a Chinese flag. All this equates to a Chinese country.
And ROC claims to be a country called China, not Taiwan, if you didnt know already.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@墙内人-o4p If you keep saying Im a 50c due to my "explanation" then I will also continue to say youre funded by the CIA because of your "explanation".
"I know very well about those camps, because I came from XJ, I know what's going on there"
Just because someone is from a certain area doesnt mean they know whats going on behind those centres. I could say I come from Nevada, does that mean I know whats going on in Area 51?
"about low, if they broke some low, they were in jail, or sentenced to death, not putted in those camps"
From my understanding, these vocational training centre is not for those who broke the law, its for those that have been in contact with those that have radicalised views.
"if you interested about democracy among some tribal people, you can investigate yourself"
Im not interested in tribal people. Im interested in how you knew about the isolated tribes social hierarchy. You still didnt answer my question.
'How do you know the tribes in the Amazon and Middle East are doing very well? Have you been? Have you read about it? You seem so confident. Link me your source of knowledge'
"about "Terrorism" after 9.11, you just copied it from CCP's propaganda, also confirms you a a fifty cent"
I used my brain tyvm. I also said "maybe". By saying "confirm" when you have nothing to confirm, confirms you are stubborn and have irrational thinking.
"about assimilation? who said to you they can practice their own culture? even before fully assimilation CCP don't allow people to practice their own culture, even don't allow they teach their children in their own language....about assimilation in fascistic way, if you still defend CCP's policy, it means you are one of them.
If they cant practise their own culture then how come Uyghurs can wear their traditional clothing? How come Uyghur dance is publicised everywhere?
And about suppressing language. Its sad, but this is practised everywhere across the world. But I get it. In order to integrate everyone to be on the same page as everyone else in the country, a standard language is needed. But just because they dont teach it at school doesnt mean they cant speak it.
They dont teach native American Indian language in the US too. Do you have something to say about that?
"you said name one country, for example UK, if there is enough Scottish voted for independence, UK will let them"
Try again. Scotland is already a country. United Kingdom is a pact between the 4 countries to work together as one. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are all in their own right their very own countries. Remember, compare apples with apples, not with oranges.
3
-
@墙内人-o4p UK unitary system like China? UK was originally 4 separate tiny countries that agreed to united as to work as one. Since when was China made up of many countries that voted to unify as one?
AND UK is democratically voted in. If they democratically voted in, that gives grounds for them to democratically vote out. Can you really not see the difference?
"you agree they don't broke any low, and you agree they should be held in those camps, it prove you are CCP's "agent" (just working for CCP for money or willingly, if you are not comment for money I assume you are one of Chinese descendants in Nevada who admires CCP's Rule in China)
Proves Im a CCP agent? Im commenting to correct you. I have interest in correcting people. What worldly "agent" am I part of now?
I didnt a "agree". I said "from my understanding". I could be wrong. And Im open for correction. I also didnt "agree" with anything regarding those camps. I said those vocational training centres are a better solution that bloodshed.
Now, you havent answered my question yet. Terrorist/independence movements in any country is unacceptable. How do you suggest a country tackle this issue?
"I said there are some people at 70s, why they keep those people in those camps, just for contacting with some problematic person??"
I didnt respond to that because I dont have to answer to everything. If you want to know, then ask CCP. Its unwise to make bias comments without knowing both sides of the story. I could be that he was brainwashed by extremist.
"and I ask you if there are millions of terrorist, how could they hold XJ so firmly."
No one said there were millions of terrorist in Xinjiang. No one can even confirm that these centres can hold 1 million people. Only speculations.
If you watched the video I linked, you would understand the impact on what these extremist have affected the minds of the "victims".
"at that time if you wan't you answer you came visit"
Sure. Do link me when thats uploaded.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
0:04 0:29 0:35 0:47 1:07...(I lost count) This is basically propaganda. "Taiwan" is not a country by any world standards. Even your country doesn't recognise Taiwan as a country, so who are you to say they are? As you said, "Taiwan" once sat in the UN representing the country called China. The situation here is not 2 separate countries, but ONE country undergoing civil war. And no, this is not "communist propaganda", its literally taught in Taiwans education system as well. You simply dont call a civil war between 2 powers in the SAME country, another "country".
0:38 No it wouldnt have been that way regardless. Taiwans GDP per capita is ahead simply because they were shielded from decades of war within Chinas mainland. And decades of war obviously negatively affects the economy.
1:10 No, Taiwan was not "poorer" than mainland China, at least not per capita if youre being consistent with the theme here. Taiwans GDP per capita in 1950 was $1400, Mainland Chinas was $600.
6:48 Its still written in "Taiwans" very own constitution that they claim Mainland China has part of their territory. So its still official.
9:07 Youre forgetting that when the ROC government retreated to Taiwan, they literally took all the assets that they were physically capable of taking from the ENTIRE country of China. From national treasures, to the whole nations military, navy, gold, entire national companies like airlines etc. Thats A LOT of assets, so that "debt" is nothing.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aribethdetylmarande8228 "First, do not deny facts. Most of countries have their own one China policy which stating there is only one China, but Taiwan is not part of China. One typical example is USA. USA trades to China and states very clearly that Taiwan is not part of China"
You are confused. If you want to talk about governments, use PRC and ROC from now on. Taiwan (island) is part of China as written in their own governments constitution. ROC and PRC came to an agreement in 1992 that Taiwan and the Mainland are part of the same ONE China. If both Chinese governments agree that Taiwan is part of China, who is anyone to say theyre not? Who are YOU to say theyre not?
"Second, do not twist the concept of Ethnicity into Nationality. Sharing same culture, speaking same language, inheriting same ancestry do not equal to the same nationality"
Taiwan was given back to China from Japan after WW2. Meaning Taiwan is Chinese territory from then onwards. All citizens of Republic of CHINA are by default Chinese by nationality.
"Third, if you don't like the term of colonization, then please define the condition of a foreign government ruling the Formosa island without its sovereignty. I believe it perfectly fits the definition of colonization"
Again, Taiwan was given back to China from Japan after WW2. Meaning Taiwan is Chinese territory from then onwards. Chinese migrating into their own territory is not called "colonising".
"Fourth, Voting is natural human right.
That is your opinion. Not fact. Speak facts.
3
-
@aribethdetylmarande8228 "it clearly stated that the Japanese Empire gave up the sovereignty of Formosa island but didn't give it to any country"
Sure. Its obvious everyone knew it meant returned to China. It was signed off from China, so after the war it was returned to China. Only reason they didnt specify is because no Chinese government was present during that treaty, and civil war was still ongoing in China so it was uncertain who to give Taiwan back to.
And legally speaking, any unclaimed land can be claimed by any government. So it is infact legal for KMT to claim Taiwan, especially when it was not challenged by another government.
"According to the self determination principle of UN Charter, only the resident of certain land can vote to decide their fate...Since the KMT ruler never allowed Formosan vote to decide"
Lies. No where in the self determination principle does it say the word "resident". If anything its the people of the country that determines their fate. Taiwan is a mere island of 24 million people. Even if there was a vote, youll need to ask all of Chinas 1.4 billion people, not just a province.
"Second, the newly elected government of Taiwan stated clearly that there was no agreement made in 1992 because the meeting was setup by KMT and CCP without be authorized by Taiwanese"
You mean the failing government of DPP? They lied about a lot of things. You believe them? In ROCs constitution, it clearly refers to Taiwan is a province of China.
And what do you mean "without be authorized by Taiwanese". If they are the government in charge, who do they need authorisation from? The people? Do they need authorisation of the people to claim more territory? Or should I say do they need authorisation of the people to claim territory they once had?
"Neither ROC nor PRC had ever claimed the sovereignty of Formosa island, it is colonization...and takes no responsibility to follow the constitution of their colonizer"
Qing Dynasty ordered Han Chinese to live in Taiwan and develop in Taiwan. And the ROC government succeeded Qing. If their descendants are today in Taiwan. Then how is it called colonisation from ROC? Shouldnt it be the Han Chinese in Taiwan the real "colonisers" before 1945?
"Third, voting is natural right because it's part of liberty. And, it's identified as fundamental rights that "being life, liberty and property" and these could not be surrendered in the social contract. If you want to argue this part, you go for Locke's and Rousseau' works, not me."
Again.
What you said are opinions. Not facts. Its subjective.
3
-
@aribethdetylmarande8228 "First, historical sovereignty is prohibited to be reclaimed. It's one of the basic principle of UN Charter"
Source me this "basic principle of the UN Charter". I found nothing under the names of "historical sovereignty". And dont twist principles without considering other factors. Assuming you are right, that is true only if it is claimed currently by another government. When Japan signed off Taiwan, Taiwan legally belonged to no sovereign state in this world. It is literally unclaimed land by any government. ROC was the only government in this world that laid claim to Taiwan, and was unchallenged. Therefore KMT had sovereignty over that land. Its actually that simple.
"Second, only people who live on certain land have the right to vote to decide they own fate, not the citizens of the country"
Again, voting is not universally a "right". Stop spouting opinions. Just because someone says it doesnt mean its true. Find me where it says voting is a "right" in the UN. Then we can talk.
Moreover, if you still think you are right. Then every local government, community, territory or state in this world can vote to be their own independent sovereign country. Then this world would break into a million+ different countries. You honestly still think youre right?
"Third, Formosan have right to vote for they leader...ROCer are colonizers"
Again, opinions. Voting is not a "right". Also, if ROC are colonisers, then Qing and Japan are also a colonisers. The whole island of Taiwan except the Taiwanese aboriginals are colonisers. What do you have to say about that? You still havent answered me.
"Fourth, Qing Empire gave up the sovereignty of Formosa island, and PRC has no right to reclaim it because it's historical"
I never said anything related to PRC claiming Taiwan. I said Taiwan is part of China. As agreed upon by both PRC and ROC. In 1992, PRC and ROC came to a consensus that Taiwan and the Mainland are part of the same "One China". The only disagreement was who ruled this "One China".
3
-
3
-
@sanataniswapnadarshi Missing? Jack ma was spotted in all of the world during this period. In 2021, he was spotted in China, Spain, and Hong Kong. In 2022 he was spotted again in China, Japan and Lithuania. 2023, Thailand, China, Australia, Hong Kong, and Pakistan. And in 2024, he was spotted in France, New Zealand and China.
He was spotted all around the world during this period. So much for "missing"...
3
-
3
-
3
-
5:43 "Japans education in TW mainly had to do with science. So when the Japanese left, there was nobody left who knew anything about politics"? What does having a science education have anything to do with politics?
6:07 So youre telling me they shipped fully installed machinery back to Japan after WW2? And Im pretty sure after WW2 TW was richer than before WW2 as the ruling Nationalist government of China then took all then wealth/gold/assets of the whole China to the tiny island. And without Japanese doctors they couldnt run vital medical services? Whats that suppose to mean? After Japan left there was a huge influx of doctors from China. Till this day, TW still heavily practices traditional Chinese medicine.
6:31 They didnt "lose" the civil war. The civil war never really ended. The situation is officially a ceasefire. And "TW becoming the Republic of China" is incorrect. The island was already part of ROC in 1945. TW is part of ROC, not is or "became" ROC.
6:59 No. They, ROChina, not TW (lets not be politically ignorant on a political topic), was already "allied" with the US. They were allied during WW2 to fight against Japan.
7:09 TW at this stage had a lot of money already. They took whatever they could take from the whole mainland China to the tiny island of TW. The whole national treasury of China was in their hands, as they were the official government of China then so they had access to everything. Thats why all of Chinas most important relic and treasures are in TWs museums.
7:20 Half correct. As this point is a about military strength, they had better technology because they literally brought the whole country of Chinas military tech from mainland China to TW. To the extent that they literally left the communist with literally no navy to even cross the sea.
12:53 Again, they didnt "lose" the civil war". Its still officially ongoing. No peace treaty nor armistice was ever signed. And the 1.5mil people were primarily militants and those already with wealth thats why they fled the communist as the communist were taking away their pot of gold.
22:04 / 23:22 / 29:00 / 36:57 TW isnt an "independent country". Theyre dependent on ROC, and ROC claims to be the country called China, not "TW". TW is just a part of ROC. Its in their constitution. You even mentioned a civil war. Civil war means war within the *same country*. So how did they become "another country"? The whole world recognises TW as part of China. Even the ROC government even recognises that themselves. Again, its in their very own constitution. If they themselves dont even consider TW a "country", who are you or anyone to say that they are?
24:21 No. For most of TW, they were under dictatorship. Period. They didnt even had elections so how are their "elections" rigged?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Benny Jet "all the countries that had no lockdown ( South Korea, japan, Taiwan , Hong Kong , Sweden , Belarus , ) and all of the states in America who had no lockdown . Are doing far better than countries who had an early and strict lockdown"
No, the best states in the US arent doing better than the best countries with lockdowns. Compare apples with apples, not the best apples with all the fruits that are red.
Those that you mentioned did great because they had forced quarantine and contact tracing from the START (as well as wearing masks when out), not 2+ months later like a lot of other countries.
Also, HK and Taiwan arent countries. Belarus is sparsely populated in ALL its towns/cities. And Sweden is not doing good...
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
papa 107 Whats so difficult? If a healthy person was critically injured from a car crash and was admitted to hospital, and was highly likely to die, then contracted C19 in the hospital before he died, did he die from the car crash injuries or C19?
When it comes to complicated health conditions, but C19 made it worse, when they die, did they die from the pre-existing health conditions like heart failure etc, or C19?
The way China counts their C19 deaths are deaths purely from C19 only. That is, if theyre already suffering from pre-existing dire health conditions, but C19 made it worse, and they died, they dont count that has C19 death but death from their pre-existing dire health conditions.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What do you mean there was no evidence? Just because you dont know about it doesnt mean theres isnt. Its literally documented.
Here:
'In 1958, the People's Republic of China issued a declaration defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly and Paracel Islands. North Vietnam's prime minister, Pham Van Dong, sent a diplomatic note to Zhou Enlai, stating that "The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision." The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper(Vietnam) on September 22, 1958.
The content of Pham Van Dong's diplomatic note to Premier Zhou Enlai is as follows:
"Comrade Prime Minister,
We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration".'
Dont say theres no evidence again.
Also, what did you mean by "international site"? All sites are "international". Did you assume I was Chinese or something?
Im not sure if your government wants the average Vietnamese know this, but the Vietnamese government knows exactly why China attacked them in 1979. Backstab, after backstab, after backstab. From trying to take back the islands that you acknowledged were Chinas, and attacking Chinese soldiers over the islands + allowing their enemy USSR to build military base on some of the islands. To being ungrateful of the assistance that helped you win the Vietnam war, and instead discriminated against and mistreated ethnic Chinese in Vietnam with various anti-Chinese policies, forcing them to leave. To attacking Chinas puppet ally in Cambodia. Every action taken was a stab at China one after another. And you wonder why China attacked Vietnam in 1979?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@thejinn99 "sorry, you're misinformed here. I'm a Taiwanese American, and definitely not from China"
Sorry, but what exactly am I misinformed about? I never spoke about you before. So how does where you come from suddenly matter? How is that relevant?
"I was born in Taiwan, which is a different country than Taiwan. We're culturally and politically different"
You were born in Taiwan, a different country(?) than Taiwan?
If you were born from Taiwan under Japanese rule, then yes, you were from from a different country than "Taiwan", aka China.
By the way, "Taiwans" very own constitution explicitly refers to Taiwan as a province of China. And let me tell you something, every single province of China is somewhat culturally different from one another. Your point?
HK is also politically different. Again, your point?
"Plus, you think the Nationalists who lost the war against the CCP treated my islander ancestors well?"
Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant points? I spoke nothing about the treatment of anything. Why assume how I "think" when I spoke nothing on it? Thats baseless.
"No. From my perspective they took over the island"
I hope youre a Taiwanese aboriginal then. If not, then your ancestors were the ones that took over the island from the aborigines.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@frauwolle2417 As I have mentioned in my comments above:
'Refusing to use a persons "preferred" pronoun is now a crime in Canada. Zie, zim, zir, zis, sie, hir, and hirs are just a tiny fraction of the pronouns claimed. If you continuously use the "wrong" pronoun, it is now considered a form of violent aggression towards someone, and therefore a crime'
"When you start demanding others to pretend that theyre a sex theyre not, and have laws change in their ridiculous favour, that becomes a problem for not only me, but the majority of the world"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Paul Adams Oh look, a proud Taiwanese that adopted an Anglo surname. I bet your ancestors are proud.
"As long as they leave behind the money and land they stole from the Taiwanese when they invaded"
You mean when the ROC Chinese of KMT party invaded the ROC Chinese that were on ROC territory called Taiwan? Makes sense.
In the past 350 years, Taiwan was part of China for about 300 years. The West has called "China" China ever since ancient times, regardless of which Dynasty was ruling "China". Its the longest continuing civilisation since ancient time so dont give me this "but Taiwan doesnt belong to China" bullshit. The Chinese built Taiwan island to be what it has become today. Whether it was the ethnic Han Chinese that built the island, or through Chinese leadership under Qing and ROC. It was built by the Chinese for their Chinese descendents. Period.
"Taiwan is already de facto independent. Our own government, passports, money, army, etc, etc"
Taiwan was never independent ever since the beginning of times. EVER. It was either controlled by Qing, Japan, or Republic of CHINA. Taiwan was just a small part of the respective states.
And Taiwan doesnt have its own military. Get your facts right. China's ONLY "National" military is in Taiwan. PLA serves the CCP, whereas ROC serves the "country"(China). So no, "Taiwan" doesnt have its own military; the military of Republic of China is in Taiwan. Theres a difference. ROC can reclaim its territory back, whereas Taiwan cannot. Taiwan is just an island administered by ROC.
PRC and ROC both claim to be the legitimate government of China. Now, both agreed to be part of "one China" under the "One China Policy".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bianshij8280 "same word here: if Huawei obey US law, don't Sell US product to Iran, don't spy US information, none will ban it. Another interesting thing is: you can still buy Huawei phone in US, US government just don't allow US company do business with Huawei, but can you use Google, Facebook, Twitter in china? So don't play victim card, china deserve it"
No evidence to support your argument. Theres absolutely no evidence at all in this world that Huawei has spied on anyone. Only evidence of US spying on its allies and the world.
And yes you can use Google, Facebook, Twitter in China. With a VPN. LEGALLY as well.
Moreover, Company ABC is to obey laws of country XYZ INSIDE country XYZ. Company ABC has no obligations to obey country XYZ laws OUTSIDE of country XYZ.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hywatha2011 "Qing only took Taiwan as colony, and only along part of the shores, so , no didn't belong."
No. They were a province of Qing then. Province does not mean "colony". So they belonged.
"ROC which claimed by KMT, retreated to Taiwan, they are government in exile, it's a state of ROC and Taiwan co-existing, not belonging"
ROC claimed TW in 1945 immediately after Japan surrendered and left. They werent the "government in exile" then.
"Taiwan doesn't belong to China now, nor ever before."
Till this day, ROC still officially claims to be the country called China. And in their very constitution, it clearly refers to TW as a province of China.
So TW does belong to China.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yos8736 "uhh yeah keep spreading misinformation, search on the google..."
WHO already came in to investigate in January 2021, and announced their findings in Feb 2021. But of course your media isnt going to tell you that. Whos spreading misinformation now?
"And you are just using a media to give informations to others?"
Media? When I said "media" I mean mainstream media (MSM) aka news media, not social media (YT) or Google (not a media company).
"Confirmed by scientists and professionals in the studies so the studies are 100% correct? What if they just gave out false informations?"
Of course its correct. Its been cross-checked. The antibodies are very specific. Scientific misconduct is illegal. You suggesting these scientists are putting their careers on the line by deliberately lying to the world? When these blood samples can be so easily cross-checked by others?
"Both US and China, either of them could have created the virus and you can't know unless China or US can somehow prove they are innocent lol"
The US has a track record of initiating bio-warefare on others, while China does not.
Also, research shows the vrs was in Europe and US much earlier than China. No ones talking about Europe anymore as evidence that the vrs was in the US much earlier.
'when some words from a stranger could be a fact, instead of something that has been proved accurate by majority of people that led to the final result'
Since when was consensus of the majority means thats a "fact" or can be "proven" to be "accurate"? Only science can determine the facts and whats accurate. And research has proven so. The only reason the mass doesnt know is because the media is hiding that from the mass. It doesnt suit their "China bad" narrative.
"if they have done that in the past, the hate on China won't grow as huge as nowadays"
Like I said, the hate from China is because of the media. The media brainwash the mass with all these "China bad" news. Whens the last time you heard something g00d about China from your media? Oh and trust me, these "China g00d" news exists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Flora-vo2cb "Let's say you' got married early, had an accidental pregnancy, now you have a child to care for that you didn't plan on having"
Again, planned or not planned is irrelevant. It does not affect the child any differently. You are making the assumption that EVERY SINGLE PARENT does a hefty amount of "research" to "prepare" themselves to be a parent. Youre also making the assumption that a couple does not do any research in the 9 months prior to a baby being born. If they didnt abort the baby, although unexpected, it eventually becomes "planned".
"To make the situation worse, your partner either dies or leaves you to care for the child alone"
In almost all cases, its a partner that separates, leaving child with mother.
"made worse because now you lost support and financial resources that you thought you would have had"
No? Theres still child support, whether from father or from welfare payments.
"That is the kind of situations that single parent who did NOT have a choice find themselves in...Whereas single parents by choice plan to become single parent right from the start, planning BEFORE they have a child"
Every choice theres a risk. And as adults they understood theres that risk.
They also had a CHOICE of abortion, but CHOSE not to. Therefore, even though it was not originally "planned", it became "planned" afterwards as they made preparations towards having a child. Thats why I said "planned" or not "planned" is irrelevant, as in the end its the same for most cases.
"They do research on child rearing, they make sure they have the financial ability to care for themselves and their child, they build a support network, they ensure that they have a job that is family-friendly and flexible etc"
Youre making a bold assumption that every parent, or single-parent in this world is responsible. That is not the case. We dont live in such a perfect world.
"Single parents by choice put a lot more work into preparing because they intend to do it alone"
I beg to differ. But even if true, your point does not address the negative social issues.
"And yes, single parents do not have to be super wealthy but they are typically in situations where they are financially sufficient"
I would like to see the stats on that. As far as everything is concerned, that is not true. I myself have a single female friend that wants a child and is "prepared" to have one, even though shes not financially able to comfortably raise one herself.
"However, from your tone you appear to have a moral personal bias against single parents for whatever silly reason"
I raise the moral/socially superior point as means to say that just because a child is "planned" to be raised by a single parent, does not mean they will not face negative social impacts, like a child having "daddy issues", psychiatric illnesses, alcohol abuses etc which are more prone in children raised by a single parent.
"Additionally no, there are many people who live together and don't marry because it's just not necessary. Marriage is not necessary to build a family"
Context is important here. This video is about China. Marriage IS about building a family in Asia.
"and people are raising families with their significant other without getting married"
Not in Asia.
"Thus, child out of wedlock does not equate to being a single parent"
Children born outside of wedlock have astronomically higher rates of ending up being raised by a single parent.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Video Outtakes
"Such arrogance. Taiwan is a country, has a Parliament, President, Navy, Army, Airforce"
Wrong. "Taiwan" doesnt have their "own" government, flag, navy, army, airforce etc. Theyre called Republic of CHINA Armed Forces. And "Taiwans" own government is called Republic of CHINA. Their government was founded in CHINA by CHINESE people. The flag they are flying now is the SAME flag that China used to fly. Why? Because Republic of China claims to be the country called "China"! Due to civil war, their territory was reduced to just the island of Taiwan. The country never changed its name nor constitution. The state of Republic of CHINA today still claims to be the country called CHINA, not "Taiwan". Such arrogance and ignorance thinking you know it all and calling other "arrogant".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thats not the definition of a "police state". Thats all in your mind.
Police state just means the state is controlled by a police force.
Firstly, thats not true. The police is controlled by the government. Which has a set of laws they must follow. They dont have "ungodly" powers. If there were anything unjust going on, they can be sued or atleast have the responsible person fired.
Secondly, you cant just be "locked up" simply from an accusation without some sort of evidence. If anything, "detained" is the word, and that is temporary. And there must be sufficient evidence that said person is a suspect.
Lastly, "limited freedoms to do things" is subjective. People that reside in these so-called "police states" would argue they have the freedom to do whatever they wished to do. You think people that live in such a safe society would want the "freedom" to bear arms or "freedom" to speak ill about their leader? They dont even think about such things.
Some countries have "freedom" to drink or get tattoos in their early teens. If a country cant do that, does that mean they have "limited freedom"?
And you say you lived in a "police state" before. Just because that country was a "police state" and you experienced something terrible, that doesnt mean all "police states" are like that. Likewise, Im sure many people would experience terrible things in democratic countries, like police brutality etc, does that mean democratic countries are terrible?
What you dont like is corruption, not the model of governance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@blue runner Seems like Im speaking with only a high school educated person with no proper sourcing etiquette and education. Thats fine. You can learn now. Its never too late to learn.
When person A makes a claim, person A must have evidence to back that claim up. It is not on the onus of person B to provide evidence to reject that claim.
Otherwise, person A can make the claim "Trump sexually assaulted Jill", and it must be true if person B cannot find evidence to prove he didnt.
If youre from the US, then you should know the phrase that one is "innocent until proven guilty". Same situation applies here. Unless you have credible evidence to back your claim up, what you say is not true, just another opinion on the internet.
"No need to type so much garbage. I will believe any facts provided here"
If you think providing logical reasoning is garbage, then you are garbage. Oh facts were provided here. You just dont believe them. Youre still turning a blind eye on how Google is being controlled by the US government. And how doe you think the NSA spies on people? Its because they secretly ordered telecom and phone companies involved to give them a back door to spy on them! These are facts! Do you believe them as you said you will?
"They have to do whatever ccp tells them to including disclosing private data. Even the communist law says so"
Seems like you just described what the US does. Did you forget about Snowden? Or are you turning a blind eye on wikileaks as well?
"just tell me who Huawierd's owners and the board of directors are if you don't think its owned by the government.
As of 2019, the members of the board are Liang Hua, Guo Ping, Xu Zhijun, Hu Houkun, Meng Wanzhou, Ding Yun, Yu Chengdong, Wang Tao, Xu Wenwei, Chen Lifang, Peng Zhongyang, He Tingbo, Li Yingtao, Ren Zhengfei, Yao Fuhai, Tao Jingwen, and Yan Lida.
And its wholly owned by 100000+ employees of their company.
Now that Ive answered your question. Did that make a difference? Are you going to believe what I said now? Lets here what you have to say.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"It lacks the markers of statehood (sovereignty and international recognition)."
First of all, you did not mention "sovereign state" in your first comment. If you did, I wouldnt have brought my examples up. So you werent being clear.
"Taiwan operates independently..."
If you want to have an intellectual conversation on this topic, then lets not be politically ignorant and say "TW" when in actual fact you mean Republic of China (aka China - because they officially claim to be the country called China). Contrary to popular belief, TW and ROC cannot be used interchangeably. Those that do do it are either politically ignorant, or have an agenda to push a certain narrative.
TW is part of ROC, not is ROC. So TW doesnt operate "independently", theyre dependent on the Chinese state of ROC. ROC is independent.
"This is different from Ukraine’s situation, where security guarantees were not backed by a formal law like the TRA"
You literally said one sentence before this that security was not guaranteed. And in the next sentence you said they have security guarantees...Make that make sense...youre contradicting yourself.
"Many people in Taiwan today view themselves as Taiwanese rather than Chinese"
Irrelevant. If Americans no longer identify as Americans, does that make them any less American if the country they live in still claims to be America? Until the congress or whoever makes the official change on the countrys name, the people are still American/Chinese.
"Just because it is taught in schools does not mean Taiwan views itself as part of China today"
Also irrelevant. Facts are facts, and that doesnt change just because they "feel" they dont see themselves as Chinese.
"Many modern Taiwanese reject the notion of being part of the People's Republic of China, and the curriculum covers that period as a historical event"
Sure, theyre part of ROChina afterall. But that doesnt change the fact that theyre Chinese ethnically and nationality-wise whether they like it or not. Remember, facts dont care about feelings.
"The name "Republic of China" persists for diplomatic and historical reasons, but in practice, Taiwan operates as a separate entity"
In practice, the Chinese Civil War never ended (as no peace treaty nor armistice was ever signed), and so the war can resume anytime.
And in practice, the world recognises TW as part of China, so when theres a war, the international community cant really do anything to China, especially when we are talking about "quarantine zones" into Chinese territory (TW) that the world recognises as Chinas.
"Furthermore, the outdated language does not reflect Taiwan’s current political identity or the will of its people"
One is naive to think that politics is about the "will of the people". Politics is about the "will of the state". Its not the peoples will to be sending billions abroad to support a country no one knows about still a couple years ago. Thats just 1 example.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@overworlder "you don’t know the meanings of words. Taiwan is de facto independent. It’s government is not ‘dependent’ on the ROC, whatever that means"
FYI, "Taiwan" is the name of the island. The island IS in fact dependent on the Republic of China, because theyre ruled and governed by the Republic of China, a Chinese state mind you, not a "Taiwan state".
In other words, ROC is the one thats independent. "Taiwan" (island) is not.
And another FYI, Taiwan =/= ROC. That is for the politically ignorant. Taiwan is a PART OF ROC.
"The old KMT claims are just a historical curiosity. They can change their constitution if they want although it is a difficult process."
Not at all. That is still KMTs CORE VALUE - that THEY are the legitimate rulers of China. Its possible to change their constitution, its not difficult. The thing is wont be able to, simply because theres NOT enough support within the government to! They need 75%+ of the seats to vote for it. Thats impossible since KMT hold about half the votes (give or take). And theyre not going to vote against their own core values.
"The real reason they don’t is because of the antics and constant threats of violence from the desperate Chungnanhai clique"
The Chinese Civil war has not technically ended yet. There was no peace treaty nor armistice signed.
Do you understand what "civil war" means? It means war within the SAME country. Tell me, now that PRC has succeeded ROC, all ROC territories "de facto" belong to them. There, I used your favourite word. How well does the word "de facto" hold now?
"But Xi’s tricks can’t hold off the inevitable as China’s economy flatlines"
Your tricks dont fool me. Chinas economy is "flat-lining" around 6-7% GDP growth a year. Which is MUCH higher than the rest of the developed world. Who are you trying to fool?
"See the USSR or Nazi Germany for the stupidity and failure of dictatorships"
Use the failed minority to judge the rest? Thats not a very intelligent thing to do. You know Kings are also dictators right? How many Kingdoms thrived in the history of mankind?
Too many.
So what does that say about dictators? If the country/kingdom is run by a good dictator, they will thrive; if the country/kingdom is run by a bad dictator, they will not. Its simple as that. Dictatorship isnt inherently "good" nor "bad", its the person behind it that is. Same goes for democracies. Vote in an incompetent leader, their country will fall into shambles. "Weve seen it all before".
"Democracies last for centuries, dictatorships come and go. We’ve seen it all before"
Youve never heard of failed democracies?
Youve never heard of kingdoms that last of centuries? Monarchs are effectively dictators too you know?
Moreover, China is authoritarian, not run by a dictator. Even Xi needs permission/support from his government to do what he wants. Do dictators need permissions to do things? Clearly you dont know what youre talking about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jennychuang808 Taiwans government, Republic of China, claims to be the country called China, and claim mainland territory as theirs. Its written very clearly in your constitution.
And check the nationality of your "Taiwan" passport. Its says CHINA!
Also, there is only 1 reason why ROCs economy is a little further ahead of PRC in terms of GDP per capita, its because Taiwan was shielded from decades of war! Decades of stable economic growth due to no war compounds to what you see today.
As for HK, HK had a CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to create their own national security law under their Mini-Constitution Article 23:
It states that Hong Kong "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
Almost half way through the 50 years of non-intervention in HK and HK STILL failed to create their own national security law stated by Article 23, and you still blame PRC for intervening? Who broke the agreement first? It was HK. Not Beijing. Dont push the blame.
And bear in mind, it was BEIJING that gave HK their "democracy". When the British ruled HK they had a governor that HKers had absolutely NO say in. And you STILL blame Beijing. Just wow...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EadricRicmund "the difference between number 1 and the rest combined is a whole 9x"
Irrelevant. Why? Because that doesnt change the fact that #2 and #3 are just a couple years behind. If TCMC was to collapse, all their "9x" clients will go to #2 and #3. That doesnt change anything. Its still going to be just a couple years behind. Not 20 years...
"TSMC is number 1 isn’t just because of cheaper labor, but because they can mass produce cutting edge semiconductor consistently. If #2 and #3 can do it they would have done so already"
I dont think you understand. This is WITH THE ASSUMPTION, that TSMC dissolves. Once TSMC dissolves, all its clients will go to #2 and #3. With that increase in demand for #2 and #3, theyll be able to reach economies of scale for mass production. The reason why theyre not able to now is because they dont have the number of clients, but once they absorb TSMCs clients, theyll be able to produce equally as well.
"Since they can’t, you are assuming they can in a short time 9x their output when they can barely make the same semiconductor consistently right now?"
4.5x each if split equally between #2 & #3. And yes, with the adjustments in supply chain, thats indeed very possible. All thats needed is clients. In the short term, prices for consumers will rise and they may be some delays due to the disruption in supply chains. But the key technology know-how is still there, and as said earlier, theyre only a couple years behind. So its not going to set the world back 20 years...
"Also have you looked at the background of the people in the think tank? Cause I just checked and there are economists and engineers in there"
And who are they funded by? Anything but funding from independent sources will be criticised for having agendas. All research or think tanks should be independent in nature and not affiliated by any power or government if you want unbias reporting.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Bob Faggot "That’s incorrect; because if that was the case , then China and Poland would be classified as a developed country"
You misinterpreted what I meant. You got the most part, but I didnt mean 50% was the cut of line. When someone says youre at an average height, it doesnt mean your exactly at the worlds average height. Likewise, when someone says youre tall, it means your above the average height, not literally 1% above average height means youre tall.
"The assumption that China’s economy will magically continue growing is ludicrous"
No. How is an economy growing exactly "ludicrous"? 1% growth is still growing. Thats not ludicrous at all.
"China’s population is actually predicted to start falling between the 2020s and 2030s, during which time their production will fall significantly"
This is were GDP per capita increases. Also, slower population growth does not mean their "production" will fall. Manufacturing maybe, but as an economy develops, they usually transition from manufacturing to high tech. Like how the US outsourced its manufacturing and focused on technology a couple of decades back. The biggest companies today are mostly US tech companies (excluding oil). Education in China is increasing drastically so its getting ready for that transition. So no, "production" will not fall. Tech companies are on the rise in China and that is "production" too. Not ludicrous at all.
"It’s extremely unlikely China will overtake the US in GDP per capita (regardless of timeline)"
I said GDP per capita PPP , not GDP per capita.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Fried Bananas "1) A big fat lie. France challenged China's claim over Paracel islands and Spratly Islands long before China made a formal claim in 1949"
Wow youre going to talk about France. Alright then, I'll talk about Imperial China. How far back do you want to go? China was on those islands long before any Europeans even sailed to Asia.
How far back do you want to go?
Modern claims is what Im speaking of. And France is no longer in Asia. Your argument is invalid.
"It's not true that China's neighbors did not oppose the claim because it was blatantly challenged by Vietnam (Paracel Islands) and the Philippines (Spratly Islands). You chinaman believe your own lies"
Do you even know your history? It was challenged by SOUTH Vietnam. A different political entity. NORTH Vietnam won the war and wrote a letter to China to acknowledge that the islands belongs to China. Your argument is void again.
As for Philippines. That was hardly called a "challenge". They wanted to claim the Spratlys for themselves, but then their master USA made it crystal clear that the sovereign handover did not include the Spratly islands. So they dropped their "claim". Till the 1970s when oil was found in the region which they then unilaterally used military force to invade Chinas islands. And by Chinas island, that means China was to only country in the world then to have sovereign claims over those islands.
"China harasses it's neighbors relentlessly"
Biased opinion. You think Chinas neighbours didnt relentlessly harass China? Vietnam and Philippines were the first countries in the region to militarise the SCS. Those action itself is harassment to its neighbours. Why dont you speak about that hmmm?
"Philippines and Vietnam installed military hardware in that region, but only to patrol its 200 mile EEZ, which under UNCLOS is their respective jurisdiction"
Another idiotic comment. Vietnam and Philippines militarised the SCS in the 1970s. UNCLOS didnt even exist then. Fool. What jurisdiction? What EEZ? None of that existed then.
"China however have dangerous missiles that could reach the mainland of its neighbors"
Errr pretty much every country in Europe, North America and Asia have missiles that can reach its neighbours...Are you stupid or are you stupid?
"Philippines won the arbitration case held in Europe. China never showed up, which is a clear signal China don't want fair trial. Why be part of UNCLOS if you don't abide by the rules, chinaman?
You argument is invalid again. I aint no "Chinaman". If you insist on calling me a Chinaman. Youre an Indianman.
You dont seem very bright. The arbitration has nothing to do with "sovereignty". China is claiming sovereignty in the region. There is no law or court anywhere (whether itd be the UN or any other international organisation) that can determine the sovereignty of a country.
"Missiles that are pointed at Vietnam's and the Philippines' mainland"
Ahh Indian propaganda. Heres your "big fat lie". There is absolutely no evidence to even remotely suggest that the missiles are pointed to Vietnam and the Philippines.
"USA clearly cannot hand over south China sea to China, even if they control Philippines because there are many claimants to the region, including Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, and on to the tip of South China sea, even Indonesia.
No. USA didnt, and cant "hand over" anything in the SCS, because they never had sovereignty over it. Before international law existed, most territory is won by war. Its through bloodshed. China is the first country in the region to lay claims to those islands. If other countries want it, then they must fight for it. Its simple as that. Other countries never owned it in the first place.
2
-
@jeremiahdanielsamuel2505 As of 2024, Russia, South East Asia, Central America, South America and some countries in Europe. Its only in 2023 that Chinese became the #1 exporter of cars.
The reason you dont see many Chinese cars its because people buy cars from many years ago, year after year. So the cars you see on the streets are from 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016 etc etc. China wasnt even in the market then, they only started exporting in like 2021 or something. In 3 short years they because #1 exporter from nothing. So its safe to say, within 10 years time, the majority of the world will be driving Chinese cars.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnvp3606 You dont seem to understand my point. My point is not that the Han Dynasty royal family did not have the haplogroup O2. My point is that theyre NOT the ONLY ones with the O2 genes from that era. Other people in the era also had O2. In fact, O2 existed since the Neolithic caveman era in China prior to the existence of any Chinese Dynasty! Han Chinese today are descendants from the ancient cavemans, not descendants from the Han royal family. Do you understand?
And although O2 is the dominant haplogroup in Han Chinese, about ~60% of Han has it, but its even more dominant in other ethnicities, like Nyishi (94%), Adi (89%), Tamang (87%), Kachari/Boro (85%) Apatani (82%) Ranha (77%) Naga (76%), Naiman (68%) etc.
This is what happens when you read "articles" on topics you dont truly understand about. Your research is biased and leaving a lot of information out. Your research was on Han/China and Han/China only. It doesnt include other ethnicities outside of China. This is how information can easily be misinterpreted and misconstrued.
And you dont know what youre talking about when you mean Northern Han people are "purer". When in fact Northern Han Chinese have been heavily mixed in with the Mongols and Manchurians for over half a millennium. And youre comparing Northern Han to Southern Han, are a completely different ethnicity, so ofcourse theyre "different". Its like comparing Koreans to Japanese. And saying Koreans are "purer" than Japanese. Sounds ridiculous right? Yeh thats what youre doing. Based on your logic, the ethnicities Ive listed above with higher concentrations of haplogroup O2 in their people means theyre are "purer" than Han Chinese right?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Willy Wang "Your comment implied she broke the law just not in US. Maybe your writing has problem"
The word I used was "alleged". Alleged means "said without proof". It was the US that made the allegation. Not me. So I implied nothing. If anything, I implied the US made that claim. Youre the one with the English problem. And you have the audacity to say Im the one with the problem? Ridiculous.
"Yes, if you break US law in another country, you will be arrested when possible"
No. That is in violation of international law. The US is not above the law.
China can say criticising China is a crime. If you land in China (or a country they have an extradition treaty with) will they arrest you?
"Many criminals are never convicted"
Based on your logic, you are also a criminal. Just not convicted. If you ever celebrated Christmas in your life, then youre a criminal. If you ever land in NK, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Somalia, Tajikistan or any of the countries they have an extradition treaty with, you will be arrested. Dont say you wont go to those countries. There are many other laws youve never heard of youve broken from other countries. Haircut not a certain style? Illegal. Own a gun? Illegal. Drank alcohol before? Illegal. As long as you land in ANY of the countries anyone that has broken those laws will be arrested, no matter where they committed the crime. How does your logic sound?
Theres a reason why its international law that one can ONLY be arrested if they committed an illegal act WITHIN their borders or within the borders of the country they have an extradition treaty with.
"You have too much to learn"
2
-
@simplenglaog33020 "you need to get your timeline STRAIGHT; the Scarborough Shoal and Spratly Islands are part of the Philippines from the year 1700"
We are talking about MODERN countries here, not ancient history. If we want to talk about ancient history, then China made their claims much earlier. But under international law, countries cant make territorial claims based on historical rights. Thats why ancient history has been ruled out.
"Aren't you aware of the Velarde map by the famous cartographer Pedro Murillo Velarde? This map which was created 1700 century shows Scarborough Shoal (Panacot Island during) and Spraty Islands (Los Bajos De Paragua) as PART of the PHILIPPINES"
Haha I always here that from Filipinos. Guess what? Borneo was also on the map. Is Borneo also part of PH? Maps are maps. Theyre there to incorporate everything within the region, regardless of politics. Just because its included in there, doesnt mean its part of the PH. Same goes for every other map that includes territory of neighbouring countries.
"So your 1940 claims are null and void by the 1700 map of the Philippine; yes?
Wrong. China has documented claims prior to 1700. But all that doesnt matter, because the law does not support historical claims from ALL parties, including PH.
What does matter are treaties. When the Spanish handed over sovereignty to the US, it did NOT specify any transfer of ANY islands in the SCS. And when the US handed sovereignty to PH, it also did NOT specify any transfer of ANY islands in the SCS. Whats transferred to PH is documented, its set in stone. PH does NOT have sovereignty over ANYTHING in the SCS, whether its a rock, reef or island.
"And speaking of 12nm how far is china again from the island they claim as theirs? thousand nm?"
Since China claims sovereignty over the islands, 0nm from the island, as the islands itself is part of China.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@@pingmeup5908 Looks like my comment was deleted..
"So how did China "illegally occupy" something thats not "owned" by any country?"
Something is only "illegal" if a law states that its prohibited. There is NO law that states anything about occupying territory not owned by anyone, ESPECIALLY when China is the FIRST country in the region to lay claims on those territories in the 1940s. It was only in the 1970s when oil was found in the region that Vietnam, PH and the likes started claiming areas in the SCS. So as the first country to lay claims and was uncontested, it should be theirs imo. So again, China did not "illegal occupy" those territories. Your words are showing extreme bias.
"It goes both ways as well"
Where was your comment that PH was "illegally occupying" territories in the SCS too?
"if this is not owned by any country but is currently being used by the said countries as an EEZ, , then why build islands and harass fishermen that is just trying to fish?"
I never said its "owned" or "not owned" by any country. The territories are called "disputed territories" for a reason. YOU were the one that said China were supposedly "illegally occupying" it. Im telling now that theyre not "illegally occupying" anything. Theres NO law that prohibits buildings islands outside of another countrys sovereign territory, thus Chinas actions cant be deemed "illegal".
And although I dont agree with the harassing of fisherman in the area, again, theres no laws against that in international law, so nothing can be done about that.
"china does not own the place right? then why act as if they own it?"
I spoke NOTHING on whether country X owns or does not own territory Z. Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many parties claim that they own the territory, including the PH.
But China has the strongest claim on the area as they were the first country in the region to lay claims to the islands in the 1940s, while others made their first claim in the 1970s...
"shouldnt it be joint extraction since no country owns it?"
And thats not how the world works. Especially since China was the first to lay claim in the region and was uncontested. So to them its theirs, so why should they split something that they deem as theirs? If your neighbour suddenly claimed half your house 30 years after you, would you split it with them?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Who said theyre all under sea? Most of these islands/reefs are ABOVE sea level at HIGH TIDE! You can see the before and after pictures.
And if you bothered reading the 2016 SCS tribunal, the tribunal concluded that Johnson reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef are all legally considered "rocks".
Excerpt from the Tribunal:
554. In the Tribunal’s view, Scarborough Shoal is a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3)
557. In the Tribunal’s view, Johnson Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
560. In the Tribunal’s view, Cuarteron Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
563. In the Tribunal’s view, Fiery Cross Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
566. In the Tribunal’s view, Gaven Reef (North) is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
569. In the Tribunal’s view, McKennan Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
Whos the one thats "malinformed, or deliberately spreading misinformation. A propagator of false information in the internet" now?
YOU!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@1988kcmo Since you dont know, then Ill make it clear. You made 2 incorrect statements/
You said "If people use these substances though, and are able to lead happy and productive lives, what's the problem?"
And I said "Just because theyre happy doesnt mean their family is happy, nor does it mean that their children are not affected from such behaviour."
Thats the problem. You make it sound that theres absolutely no way there can be problems from consuming alcohol as long as theyre "happy". Well let me tell you, there are MANY problems that arise from substance abuse, like domestic violence, sexual violence, dysfunctional families, drink driving etc where the abuser is BOTH "happy" and "productive".
2nd incorrect statement you made: "moderation with all substances is key to leading a healthy life".
Not everyone consume these substances. You make it sound like taking these substances is key to leading a healthy life.
So what about those that dont consume these substances? They cant lead healthy lives?
And "you do you" is one thing, but youre here now deciding for others that only consuming substances in moderation can lead a healthy life. If youre on about "you do you" then why are you telling people what to do? Like, how they can live a "healthy life" by consuming substances in moderation?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@luonggiaphat7946 "First off, hose islands were already part of Vietnamese territories before 1940s, all the way to at least the 17th century, and when Vietnam was incorporated into French Indochina, the French also incorporated those island into the colony"
Did you miss the 2nd part of my comment? If you want to speak about history centuries back, China can too. We talking about MODERN history now.
But if you want to talk about it, then sure. The French took the islands from China, how do we know this? Because the French couldve taken it any time, but they specifically took the islands when China when Japan invaded China, when China was weak, because they knew it was Chinas. Soon after, Japan took over the islands. Again, because they knew it was Chinas too, as they were waging war against China, and only China then.
But yes, with all those shenanigans, South Vietnam government had control over the islands in the 1940s leftover from the French after Japan surrendered them after WW2. But wheres the government of South Vietnam now? Non-existent! So no point talking about that. Why? Because in the 1950s, North Vietnam wrote an official letter to China, "acknowledging" and "respecting" Chinas claims over the islands. So North Vietnam had no claims over the islands whatsoever. Thats why China helped North Vietnam with the war and won. Once North Vietnam won, the islands were Chinas and Chinas only. No dispute from there onwards. Till the 1970s when Vietnam made their first modern claims after oil was found.
"Secondly...those islands were territories of South Vietnam, which was attacked by China in 1974, and later, after North Vietnam reunified Vietnam, in the 1980s, China began escalating tension and asserting their dominance more agressively, including attacks on those territories"
China was helping North Vietnam with the war, so of course they attacked South Vietnam. Is that even a question? And it was precisely that Vietnam backtracked on their words that they "acknowledged" and "respected" Chinas claims that led to the tensions. It was Vietnam that attacked China when China approached their very own territory (remember, Vietnam then recognised Chinas claim over the islands then). With the backstabbing, along with Vietnam messing with Chinas puppet ally in Laos, Vietnam was basically messing with China at every turn at this point in time.
"Also, historically, China has rarely, if ever expanded its maritime borders beyond Hainan island, so those islands probably belonged to Champa and other South East Asian maritime kingdoms before they come into Vietnamese possessions. Therefore, China has no legal claim over them."
Opinions. Whats legal or not is not determined by you. China was the first country in the region to lay sovereign claims to the islands. The government of South Vietnam that also had claims dont exist on this planet anymore. And the first president of the current ruling Vietnamese government specifically wrote a letter to China recognising Chinas claim to the islands.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aya-_-3045 Youre a bit late in this conversation. This is no longer news...
"No matter how much you argue with everyone else, it will not change the fact that the MAN started this fight"
Whats a "fight"? If someone provoked you, and you threw a punch, who started the "fight"? Some might say the one that threw the fist, some might say its the one that provoked the other person. Whos right? Whos wrong?
"A man was sxually harssing a woman and telling her inappropriate things"
Wrong. He initially just tapped her back, thats not sxual harssment. Do you even know what sxual harssment is? Watch the FULL video, not the edited clip SCMP cut out.
"Understandably, the woman was disgusted and stood up for herself"
One can stand up for themselves without escalating the situation.
"He put his hands on her, punched and chocked her because his ego was hurt"
Sure, and thats why he was arrested.
"HE is the one who escalated the situation"
No, it was the WOMEN that escalated the situation by RUDELY SHOUTING at his tap on her back. Literally, it was JUST a tap...
"Her friend hitting him with a wine bottle was the LEAST she could do"
Oh? So whats the most she could do then?
"You are a horrible person if you're going to this length to defend an abuser."
Did I defend him? State where I defended him. Go on. Quote me. There was not one time in this whole thread I supported nor defended his actions. I merely stated that it was the women that escalated the situation thats why it got out of hands. YOU are the ones thats a horrible person for putting words in other peoples mouths.
YOU are fake news
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Hkchinese888 "the one who first claimed? Who justifies your first claim, everybody can have the first claim not only China"
There can only be one "first". As I said, China made their first claim in the 1940s (come source says 1930s). PH and the others made their first claim in the 1970s, 3 decades after Chinas first claim. So obviously China claimed first.
"yes, that island is belong to Philippine as the Philippine fisherman had been fishing there from the very beginning"
Fishermans have no power nor rights to make their claims over territories, its sovereign powers that do. Moreover, your example was based on "historical claims" which the tribunal you speak of says has no legal basis.
"You used excessive force to expel others which is against the law, the military leaser gun is a weapon. It's been proved in HK courts. Also deploying obstruction in internal waters is also against the law, you need to grow up"
"You", "you", "you" again. I did nothing. Nor did my country. Stop making this personal, only losers in an argument do that.
Water guns are "excessive force"? If no one was hurt how is that "excessive force"? Moreover, the argument for China is that people were trespassing their sovereign territory, and they have every right to be safeguarding their territorial integrity based on international law, including the use of force if necessary.
And you keep repeating the same thing and also misspelling the same word. Since youre bringing up the same thing I already responded then I will also repeat the same thing: that area is not defined as "international waters", its defined as "disputed territory" for a reason. If a country claims sovereignty over those islands/reefs, then its evidently not called "international waters".
2
-
2
-
@ "Acting" like "nobody" in Japan speaks English? When clearly I said "most dont" and not "all"? You even admitted that they have a very low English proficiency rate so why you even attacking my point that most dont know English. Thats a fact, not an opinion.
There you go. You said "travel guide". To even be a travel guide they must have interested in the world, tourism, and must know another language (English).
And "English cafe", another example where someone must have interested outside the world of Japan to be so invested to even open up a a cafe.
And "hotel", another bias there all staff (or a significant portion of the staff) must undergo screening and/or training for those interested in hosting "international" guests, so ofcourse their knowledge of the world is much broader than the average person.
And who knows that background the women in her 40s had too.
All in all, all the encounters youve made in Japan, are specifically tailored to international guests such as yourself. Everyone youve met due to this special "tour" of whatever skewed your perception on the whole country. Next time you go, walk out on the street and speak to the average Japanese thats not in the "international" industry. Bet youll have a very different experience then.
And its not deleted by Asian Boss, its automatically deleted by Youtube. And its not just "positive" comments. "Negative" comments get deleted too. The algorithm is flawed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I said:
0:21 Taiwan isnt a "country". Why is Asian Boss allowing their host to spread misinformation? No world power in this world recognises "Taiwan" as a country. And Taiwans very own constitution specifically refers to Taiwan as a province of China.
1:14 No, the reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs.
7:28 This guy is uninformed. Its not "illegal" per se if its no laws against it. ESPECIALLY when its disputed territory. PH does NOT have sovereignty over the islands, so its not "theirs". Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many countries claim these territories, not just China and PH.
7:35 You "won" because China was not even there to defend themselves. China was not there because China knew it was useless to go, as the current international laws present is incompatible with a countrys sovereignty claims. What that means is the current international maritime laws only define whats considered a countrys territory based on the 12nm distance from a countrys coastline, EEZ etc, but has no laws to define whether a piece of territory falls under the sovereignty of Country X or Country Y.
7:51 No, you cant forcefully implement it because that court you won that case from has ZERO authority to enforce anything. Even the US cant.
12:44 No, it was not "proven that it belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country (including PH) can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pootispiker2866 Yes, the Chinese will get by with the bare minimum set by the respective governments. If the West have stricter standards, then itll push the Chinese to met those standards to profit in. And since the Chinese have lower standards locally, companies will just get by by those lower standards.
And youre conflating Chinese EV companies that passed Western standards with Chinese EV companies that havent, thats a false equivalence there. Those that made it through to the West will also have high standards in China. Youre focusing on those that didnt make it to the West. If they didnt pass all the regulations to be sold in your country then why you talking about it?
As for your comment on data mining, theyll grab as many data as they can legally. Even Tesla and other non-Chinese EV companies are doing the same. Privacy regulations in this industry barely exists as its still relatively new. So blame your governments for allowing this to happen, not the companies behind it, especially if theyre legally allowed to do so. Remember, non-Chinese EV cars are doing the same too, dont just cherry pick China, itll be seen as xenophobic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelg4158 Oh you want to continue going on nitpicking semantics huh? You think you slapped me in the face but little did you know you actually further slapped yourself even harder when you responded me again.
Dont believe me? Alright let me tell you why.
Firstly, I didnt claim the "word" is "Chinese" under nationality. You made that up yourself in your head. I said "shes both ethnically Chinese and Chinese by nationality as stated in her passport under nationality".
Do you understand what "stated" means? Stated does NOT mean written word for word as it is. According to Google it means "clearly expressed or identified; specified".
Let that sink in.
For any noun, the adjective of the noun can be used in place of that and still be called "stated" (as long as the sentence is grammatically correct).
Heck, something "stated" can be reworded or paraphrased as long as the full meaning is conveyed.
So how about you educate yourself in some English before nitpicking someones elses English. Youre only embarrassing yourself here.
Need me to further educate you? Here, Im feeling generous. Take it all in.
"Republic of XYZ" is the full name of country "XYZ".
In this case, Republic of CHINA is the full name of the country they claim to be called CHINA. The sentence I used phrased ones nationality as an adjective instead of a noun. Because I can.
I could say a someone in Malaysia is Malaysian by nationality as stated in their passport under nationality, even though in their passport its "Malaysia" under nationality, not "Malaysian".
Would you bat an eye to that and say someone is "wrong" and spreading "misinformation" for using the adjective version of the noun instead of the noun itself?
Remember, "stated" means "clearly expressed or identified; specified", NOT written as it is word for word.
Secondly, how about you read what I said again before attempting to be a keyboard warrior.
I said, going by YOUR anal logic (if that doesnt spell out clear enough for you), '"Taiwan" doesnt have their "OWN" passport. Their passport is called the Republic if China passport. Theres no "Taiwan passport" IN THEIR LAWS'.
Where did I say the words "Taiwan" and "passport" arent on the same page again as you claim?
How can a mere province of ROC have their "own" passport?
Just because ignorant people "refer" to ROC as "Taiwan", doesnt mean it is and can be used interchangeably. Taiwan is PART OF ROC, not Taiwan IS ROC. Taiwan has no law that stipulates they have their "own" passport, their passport is the Republic of China passport. Is that wrong?
They slapped "Taiwan" on there to not confuse the politically ignorant. In the past, it caused a lot of confusion at immigration and whatnot for pretty much all the countries in the world between the Peoples Republic of China passport and Republic of China passport. Both PRC and ROC claim to be the same country called China after all.
But make no mistake, just because the slapped the word "Taiwan" on the Republic of China passport, it doesnt mean now the country is called "Taiwan", nor does it changes the legality or ownership of the passport from ROC (China) passport to "Taiwan (island/province) passport". The word is merely for cosmetic purposes only.
So dont go about saying "this is the argument you can't win over me". This is me playing your stupid pedantic game, nitpicking over mere semantics instead conversing the actual issues at play here.
I repeat, ME playing YOUR little game.
The fact that you say I cant "win" basically means YOU cant win, fool.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ShuCarolina "You need to do a better research"
I need to do better research? More like YOU need to do better research. You just used ONE poll to make a judgement? Good research requires MULTIPLE polls, from MULTIPLE polling companies (as they may be polling in locations with a bias towards or against certain parties). And most of these polls poll her around 40% as of right now. As of right now her disapproval rating (50%) is HIGHER than her approval rating!
In the beginning when her approval rating (TPOF) is in the 50s percentage point, her disapproval rating was only in the 20s. Which was still somewhat acceptable to the mass. But now, her disapproval rating is about 50%, which is HIGHER than her approval rating, from the SAME poll (important), then that says everything already.
Clearly Taiwan is dissatisfied with Tsai. And Im not talking about DPP. Im talking about Tsai. Theres a difference.
"KMT which just lost in this Presidential election today blamed Ma for his remarks in the interview with DW"
Im not surprised. Politicians always deflect and blame others.
"Ma also claimed that Taiwan has NO ability to defend itself against China. Such remarks may have made voters deviate away from KMT"
If you bothered watching the whole interview, he did not say Taiwan has "NO" ability to defend itself against China. How can people even misinterpret words so wrongly when its even taken from the primary source?
"To answer your question, everything Ma has said and done clearly is helping President Xi to advance Xi's "unification" agenda on Taiwan"
Wrong. His stance was "NO unification, NO independence, and NO use of force". Seriously, didnt you watch the video? His position was to avoid conflict of wars. And IF there is reunification, which is KMTs goal from the start (might have changed) then it is to be "peaceful and democratic" as he mentioned. Thats NOT on the side of Beijing. Again, how can you misinterpret words so easily when the primary source is right in front of you? Whats your highest level of education?
"It is another evidence that President Tsai's work in her 8 year terms gained widely recognition by the Taiwan people"
No majority vote is called "evidence"? If its that evident then DPP should have a MAJORITY vote. Most Taiwanese did NOT vote for DPP Hows that "evidence"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
0:21 Taiwan isnt a "country". Why is Asian Boss allowing their host to spread misinformation? No world power in this world recognises "Taiwan" as a country. And Taiwans very own constitution specifically refers to Taiwan as a province of China.
1:14 No, the reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs.
7:28 This guy is uninformed. Its not "illegal" per se if its no laws against it. ESPECIALLY when its disputed territory. PH does NOT have sovereignty over the islands, so its not "theirs". Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many countries claim these territories, not just China and PH.
7:35 You "won" because China was not even there to defend themselves. China was not there because China knew it was useless to go, as the current international laws present is incompatible with a countrys sovereignty claims. What that means is the current international maritime laws only define whats considered a countrys territory based on the 12nm distance from a countrys coastline, EEZ etc, but has no laws to define whether a piece of territory falls under the sovereignty of Country X or Country Y.
7:51 No, you cant forcefully implement it because that court you won that case from has ZERO authority to enforce anything. Even the US cant.
12:44 No, it was not "proven that it belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country (including PH) can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@avatarairbinder6157 "but revised by US and spain for 150k$ under 1930 "treaty of washington" after US discovered d existence of Spratly islands"
Nonsense. Ive read the Treaty of Washington 1930. The treaty was to define the boundaries between PH and Borneo. I even double checked with all the listed coordinates. Theyre all in the Sulu Sea and Celebes Sea, nothing in the SCS. If you dont know what youre talking about then dont talk about it as if theyre facts.
Also, when Japan annexed the Spratlies in the 1938, the US did nothing and never asserted that that was their territory. Thats says everything already.
"Ur claiming vietnam agreed wherein reality vietnam dont even recognized china dashline"
If you bothered reading what I wrote, I spoke absolutely nothing about the dashed lines. I spoke about islands only. And yes, in 1958 North Vietnam wrote a formal letter "acknowledging" and "respecting" Chinas territorial claims over the Paracel and Spratlies. Thats why China supported North Vietnam and helped them win the Vietnam War.
Heres the translated letter:
"Comrade Prime Minister,
We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration".
Then they backstabbed China in the 1970s by claiming the very islands they "acknowledged" and "respect" were Chinas.
"Taiwan is d first country occupy Spratlys in 1947 back and escoeted by US Taiping and PH 1968 vietnam 1970s China 1980"
We are not talking about "occupy" here. We are talking about sovereign claims.
Republic of China (ROC) aka China (not Taiwan) was the first country to make the claim in the 1947, PRC did not exist then, ROC was the official government of China at that time, its politically incorrect to say "Taiwan" when Taiwan specifically refers to the island only.
As soon as PRC effectively won the Chinese Civil War in 1949, they succeeded all territory ROC claimed mirroring them 1 to 1. So PRC made their claims in 1949, not 1980 as you say.
And PH made their claims on 1978, when "President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines issued Presidential decree No. 1596, declaring the Spratly Islands as Philippine territory".
Sovereignty already belongs to China as theyre the first claimants in the region, yet PH wants to claim something others already claimed? Youre just looking for war.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CuongNguyen-le5ic "Read this, Ukraine's child BRIBE is one of the common places Chinese look for and EASTERN EUROPE"
If youre going to link me a few thousand word article, you better be quoting something there so I can search. Aint nobody got time to read every single word in your few thousand word articles. Moreover, your article is irrelevant to the topic at hand here. That is, this video is NOT about human trafficking.
"Now these models agency raked up the debt for these young girls, then force them to work at night club, DRINKING while they are UNDER 18 YEARS OLD"
I urge you to get educated on legal drinking age in other countries. THE WORLD DOESNT REVOLVE AROUND YOU AND YOUR COUNTRIES DRINKING AGE.
And NOTHING is FORCED. Its their CHOICE to go to the night club. Same for drinking.
"Is your stupid reason of "CONSENT" enough? THEY ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OLD for most of them"
Contract with under 18 girls are obviously signed by their CONSENTING parents. Whos the stupid one now?
"Get it through your stupid skull.You are defending Scam, Fraud and all sorts of thing just because the VICTIMS "CONSENT" to these things"
Scam? Do you know what a scam is? You cant get your money back from scams. This is legitimate business. If they failed to return their debt, thats their problem for jumping into the model industry overestimating themselves. Almost all businesses have debt. Does that mean 99% of all businesses are victims to scam/fraud? Idiot.
""RECRUITMENT" BY MEANS OF DECEPTION FOR CONSENT TO CONTROL ANOTHER PERSON FOR PURPOSE OF EXPLOITATION"
How did you know the girls in this video where deceived hmmm? Do you have evidence to your claim? Or is this just more nonsense to suit your narrative?
Also, were the girls in this video or any modelling agency "controlling" the models? You telling me that these models cannot at any stage not work for a venue? THEY GET TO CHOOSE!
They have more freedom than most peoples boss/manager telling them what to do! THATS controlling.
"Now tell me, with a high chances that these girls will be in DEBT from Agency and lots of them FORCED to work at Night Club or others while UNDER 18 YEARS OLD.
Firstly, its a given that they will initially be in debt. Thats the contract. And nobody FORCED to work at a nightclub. ITS THEIR CHOICE. Youre obligated to pay back your debt by whatever means necessary. How they get their money is their CHOICE. If they choose to go to a nightclub to work, then its their CHOICE. AKA CONSENT.
And again, dont be so self centred. The world doesnt revolve around your countries legal age to enter a nightclub. Different countries have different age limits. Some countries is 21, you going to shit on them for not allowing "adults" to enter at 18/19/20 as well?
"It is clearly an EXPLOITATION. Yes some of them get to go home, but what about the rest?'
Because they choose to? Clearly you dont know businesses work. If you borrow a loan from any organisation (bank or whatever) you are obligated to pay back your debt. If you dont, interest will accrue. If you still dont, then assets will be taken. If you still dont, then youre f*ked. Literally and metaphorically.
If you lose your job, you will be forced to take on all these shitty jobs you dont want like cleaning the toilet to fulfil your obligation to pay back your debt.
The modelling industry, or any other industry in business is the same. Pay back your debt, or youll be living in hell. Life will leave you little options but to do shitty jobs you dont want. And this is WITH CONSENT mind you.
You can take your time, or work your ass off. Completely up to the model. If the model has a CHOICE, then its OBVIOUSLY not human trafficking.
"CONGRATULATION, You have successfully defend human's trafficking and slavery for pretty much a whole day because they "CONSENT", but forgot to even remember THEY ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OLD"
Who said its human trafficking and slavery? You? Where is evidence to your claim. Im talking about this video. SHOW ME TH EVIDENCE!
These are WILLING models that were given CONSENT by their PARENTS if they were under 18. NOTHING IS FORCED.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Elena P. " It is a little unfair. US tech can not go in China, which huge market, because obviously have strict rules"
Its not that "strict". Its about complying to local laws. Microsoft, Amazon and many many others did it. Google, FB, twitter etc can do it too, but they outright refused to comply. They didnt even try...
Also, China WANTS US tech. For hardware tech, its the US thats stopping US tech companies from working with China. For software, its individual companies that refuse to work with China. None of which is Chinas fault.
"But on that contrary, chinese company can invade the market of USA"
Your country is founded on capitalism and freedom. So you cant complain. Businesses ONLY thrive if it enough consumers want their products. Thats exactly what capitalism is. You feel "invaded" simply because your companies cannot and will not compete with the low quality goods - that are highly demanded by your people btw. And now you blame China for out-competing you? You guys set the rules yourself!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are talking about history here, so of course we have to talk about happens in history. Whether you agree with it or not, that happened, and is still happening till this day. Doesnt matter if I "want" it or not. It is what it is. If the US was to take over Canada and Greenland. Who can stop them? Will "disagreeing" stop them? You can disagree all you want, but thats reality. Territory belongs to those that conquered.
Invalid? What makes it "valid" then? Do you even have a proper answer to that question? Is Vietnams claims "valid"? Are the Frenches claims "valid"? What makes it "valid"? By occupying it? By "building" on it?
Again, territories does not need to be inhabited or physically marked. There are many forests, deserts, mountains, grasslands etc in this world that are uninhabited. Must countries inhabit them or build upon them or "mark" them for it to be theirs? If that is your logic, then the MAJORITY of this words land cannot be claimed by their respective countries. Who are you to say countries must "build" upon that territory otherwise their claim is "invalid"?
And like I said already, China did have physical markers. Look it up yourself. Markers dont have to be buildings. It could be flags too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wintermalerkey6830 Im not Chinese. Nor do I need to be Chinese to have an input.
But I do know that after strenuous investigations, out of all the claimants, China has the strongest claims. Next is Vietnam, and PH has the weakest. In fact, PHs sovereign borders are set in stone due to your treaties. Not a single speck of dust nor drop water in the SCS belongs to PH.
And no, according to international law, UNCLOS is incompatible to sovereign claims. UNCLOS only delineates the maritime boundaries, not determine sovereignty.
Also no, they dont claim the EEZ, they claim sovereignty, 2 completely different things.
Do read more before repeating what others say without verifying.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@holysnyper " Trying to make a false comparison. You also conveniently left out Australia did not ban Huawei to punish China for anything. The decision was made based on national security grounds"
LOL the "national security" BS is just a convenient excuse. Firstly, the US first started saying Huawei was a "national security" threat because they couldnt compete as part of the China-US trade war. Upon negotiations the US said Huawei would be allowed in the US if XYZ happened. If it was really a national security threat, there would be absolutely NO grounds for allowing Huawei to enter the US market, but unbanning Huawei was on the table if a trade deal could be reached.
Now that the US couldnt win the trade war it wanted to drag its allies into suppressing China simply because they couldnt compete. "National security grounds" pfft. The "national security grounds" you speak of is to suppress competitors and allowing domestic/allied companies to grow.
Secondly, theres absolutely NO credible evidence given whatsoever that is actually is a security risk. Huawei even offered to sign a legal document stating that theyre willing to be prosecuted under local laws if they are caught spying - something even Google and Facebook isnt willing to sign. If theyre going to ban Huawei, they should be consistent with their words and ban Google and Facebook too under "national security grounds" as well.
"If Australia's Telstra were to set up a 5G network in China, would they allow it? I doubt it. PRC does not even allow any foreign acquistion of any of its national assets (on the basis of national security concerns)"
Yes they could, if they have superior products and partnered with a local company. US/AUS can do that too you know? But Telsta has inferior technology so that can never happen..
Moreover, you dont even need to "allow" Huawei/Telstra to manage the network. You can just buy their product and have a local company manage the networks instead. But no, US and AUS and the likes just outright ban Huawei simply because they couldnt compete. This "national security" bogus is just a convenient excuse to fool the public.
"Would the CCP like it if USA could buy any Dam or power infrastructure in China? In addition there are many Chinese owned assets in Australia"
Whether they "like it" or not is not the concern. The concern is that every country has different laws and regulations and that must be followed. Chinas infrastructure is STATE owned. They have NO plans to privatise public infrastructure to local nor foreign companies. Whereas in Australia its PRIVATISED. Moreover, the Australian government ALLOWS foreign companies to own infrastructure. If you dont like it then tell the Australian government that. Not shit on China for not allowing what Australia allows.
What you gave here is literally the definition of a "false comparison"
"Full of holes in your logical reasoning"
No holes at all. You just dont understand that every country has different laws and regulations that must be followed. The bans out of "national security" (with no hard evidence mind you) is simply a convenient excuse to fool the mass.
2
-
@holysnyper 'Nonsense. Many large Chinese companies have deep connections with the CCP. aka "guanxi"'
Irrelevant. Guanxi is relationship at an individual level. Not at a corporate level. You clearly dont know what youre talking about here. Nor are any of your points in that paragraph of yours countering what youre quoting me on.
"Other Chinese telecommunications companies like Dahua and Hikvision in the past have been found guilty of having backdoors in their survelliance equipment sold to the US"
Because 2 companies have breached security, therefore ALL Chinese are security risks? Thats called discrimination. Illegal in both Australia and the US.
"In addition chinese companies - under the law (whether private or partly state owned) can be forced to work with Chinese intelligence if they are ordered to"
If that is your concern you can just not select Huawei as an operator, which theyre not, not ban the company/hardware itself. Huawei was under the worlds scrutiny, till date, there is no evidence that there are any backdoors that can compromise national security.
twitter.com/Huawei/status/1235128718869164032
"This poses very high risk considering the CCP has proven to go any lengths to undermind other countries to get ahead"
You mean the US right? The US is the one with a proven track record on waging literal wars to overthrow governments. Based on your logic, we should not use anything made from the US due to its "high risks" right?
"your assertions are based on blind Chinese nationalism"
Baseless opinions.
"The fact that any foreign company is forced to work a local company just to establish business in China is already a telling sign it doesn't fully trust foreign companies and plus they use it to their advantage to cheat economically"
Opinions. And its allowed by WTO. If its allowed by the international organisation in charge of trade then its not called "cheating".
"That is one of the many reasons why China is accused an unfair trading practices amongst many reasons"
Sure, and they can do the same in retaliation if they dont like that practice, not outright ban a company from that country just because they cant compete with them.
"There are many real life instances where it has resulted in forced technology transfer = IP theft"
Youre brainwashed. If a business is willing to trasfer their tech to China for profits, its not called "theft". The knowledge share was with consent.
"look up the legal case regarding Huawei stealing source code from Cisco. Huawei even admitted to stealing it"
Irrelevant. There are countless companies within every country that have legal cases involving IP infringement. Including Apple, Samsung, Microsoft etc.
"But it doesn't mean China will allow a "5 eyes nation" to build 5G in their country just regardless of whether it is good or not"
2 points here. Operator and hardware. Every country has their own laws and regulations. China does not privatise their infrastructure. Im not sure about the specifics on US/AUS telco but I know that if a Chinese company comes in they would try find ways to block that, presumably under "national security grounds". As for hardware, I see no reason for China to block foreign hardware coming in. They wont be able to compete anyways. US/AUS on the otherhand, they cant compete therefore they find reasons to ban them.
"What do you mean it is not a concern. The reason why PRC has this law in place is because they don't trust foreign ownership."
State-owned means its state-owned. Domestic companies cant buy ownership in them even if they wanted to. Does that mean they dont "trust domestic ownership" too? Flawed logic. Like I said, every country has their own laws and regulations, just because you dont agree with it doesnt mean they dont "trust" XYZ.
"NOT ALL assets sold to Chinese companies are PRIVATISED. You are seriously misinformed...Chinese state owned enterprises have bought Australian Government owned..."
Excuse me? Dont put words in my mouth. I never said that. Also, state owned enterprises are legally private companies. Selling to them legally private companies is the very definition of "privatisation", regardless of ownership.
"But I am did bring up this topic to highlight the hypocrisy of your argument ...It does not allow foreigns to independently operate without a local cooperation. So using banning Huawei 5G as a "Australia started it" excuse falls flat again"
False comparison. One is protectionism applied indiscriminately. The other is discriminating against ONE company because they cant compete. Not only that, theyre also sanctioning key personnels from that company as well - something that even other companies found guilty of what theyre accusing Huawei of arent even given the same treatment.
"Once again, I have pointed out many issues you have not considered"
No you havent. And theyve all been countered. And just because I didnt mention it here doesnt mean I havent "considered" it. See how flawed you logic is?
"It is an authoritarian nation that does not abide by international laws and rules. ie. South China Sea and WTO rules."
Which international law have they violated? Just because they exploited grey areas doesnt mean they violated international laws. As for WTO rules, a lot of countries dont follow 100% of the rules there. Even the US hasnt. Your point?
"I'm afraid you might be one of those nationalist Chinese that isn't aware of being lied to by censorship and domestic propaganda. Honestly why would you even trust a government that does that?"
Another baseless assumption. Im not Chinese. As for your propaganda statement, propaganda is in every country, including yours, you just dont realise it.
"Don't lie to me"
Excuse me? What "lie" have I made?
"In addition to my counter argument, You should ask yourself, how does banning 5G in the name or security concern means Australian started a trade war?"
Let me flip a question back to you. Why should someones subjective opinion matter? If I say yes or no, does it change anything?
Australias ban of Huawei is because the US told AUS to. As mentioned earlier, its not a "national security threat". Otherwise the US wouldnt even consider allowing Huawei back into the US under a trade deal. Its all just a convenient excuse to stop a competitor from growing.
"Does Australia have to accept every foreign investment deal for it not to be a trade war? How ridiculous is that? Australia has blocked other foreign countries deals in the past and its not like it is aimed at China"
Since when was this conversation about "investment deals"? I spoke NOTHING about that. Its ridiculous you find what I didnt say ridiculous. Rejection happens in deals all the time. But outright banning a whole company for honestly nothing? Thats just discrimination. One must be blind if they cant see its aimed at China.
"Australia has the sovereign right to accept or refused deals based on their national interest - just like any country"
"Deals" was the keyword here - something we are not talking about. Not ban a whole company that complies with domestic laws and regulations.
"I'm sure the Australian Government or any other government would understand"
Youre bringing subjectivity in an objective discussion. Whether they "understand" or "like it" does not matter. If youre singling out one company (one that complies with local laws) and banning them, then youre launching an economic attack on that country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Emsyaz "We are not talking about ancient time. We are talking about post ancient time"
Did my message fly though your head? I provide BOTH ancient time and modern time to prove my point.
Language can change due to being colonised. Which is exactly what happened to the Orang Lauts. Theyre were "malayised". They completely assimilated to the dominant regional power.
If language is used to "define" what people are, then are modern day Singaporean and Canadians, Australian, American, and English the same?
"Chinese and Korean/Jap are very different in terms of language and culture in post ancient time and the Korean/Japanese never regard themselves as Chinese"
As for culture, on a worldly context, Korean/Jap culture are very similar. One would be blind to not notice the difference between Korean/Jap/Chinese is no where near the difference between Middle Eastern, African, Western, and South Asian cultures. Culture between Korea/Japan/China is extremely similar.
"On the other hand, Orang Lauts do consider themselves part of a large Malay ethnic group and the Malays regard the Orang Lauts as part of them"
Orang Lauts in the past never consider themselves Malay. They WORKED for their Malay overlords. The mindset may have changed due to assimilation over the centuries.
Just like China. Its as diverse as Europe as a whole. Theres as many ethnicities in China as is there in Europe. But they all consider themselves "Chinese" even though every region of China is of different ethnicities. DNA tests have proven so. What does that tell you? Just because you "THINK" or "CONSIDER" you are something, doesnt mean you are.
"Most important of all, both the Malays and Orang Laut share common linguistic, ancestry, culture and genetic similarities"
Same can be said between between Korea/Japan/China, except linguistics which I have explained what assimilation can do.
"Thus, the Malays are indeed native to modern day Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia"
Based on your argument, those native to Korea and Japan migrated from China, thus they are indeed Chinese.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RobotRebelCinema "You're right there is "SOME" fake news against China"
Theres actually a lot...
"but being racist against blacks (or dark skinned people in general) isn't one of them... Do research dude"
How about YOU do some research. The discrimination has nothing to do with "race" (hence not "racist") but to do with "status". Those of higher status typically look down on people of lower status. This happens in every single country.
Traditionally in ASIA (not just China), farmers and labour intensive workers are of low status. They are exposed to the sun a lot thus getting heavily tanned, acquiring a darker skin. Those higher up on the social ladder dont want to associate with these lower social class workers. Again, this phenomenon occurs in every country. Just that skin colour here is more apparent due to the obvious physical differentiation in a light skinned continent.
Similarly for those in Africa (or of African descent), theyre mostly poor, in other words of low social status. Theyre looked down upon by those higher up on the social status again, they just dont want to associate with the poor. Again, not a "race" thing, but a "status" thing.
There are many Black people with high status that these Chinese (and Asian) do not look down upon but in fact respect, like Obama, Lebron, Jordan etc. If theyre racist against Blacks they would be racist to them too regardless of their status. But theyre not, they respect then.
So in essence, Chinese being "racist" to Blacks is more FAKE NEWS.
2
-
2
-
@RobotRebelCinema "It's called sweet and to the point..."
Oh yes, I made by "sweet point" very clear, but it seems like you still dont understand, that is why an explanation is needed...
"That's your own personal thing that you feel you have to quote everything I say..."
Yes it is. But whats that got to do with you? Trying to change someones personal way of responding now?
"You're talking to me and just me, I know what I said so I don't need it read back to me so you can analyze it"
Sure, but you can delete your comment and change your narrative half way. Many people have deleted their comments before. Then the change their narrative half way and I got no reference to quote what they said again.
"Now as to the detergent commercial, there was an uproar online about it (which is why I brought it up), many people including non-blacks had a problem with it"
Yeh, thats my point. It wasnt racist when it was done to a White person, but when the exact same commercial is done to a Black person, its suddenly racist? Did you even watch the video?
"Only in your narrow mind do you believe Chinese aren't racist towards blacks"
See what I mean? I provided you with reasoning of this discriminatory behaviour on how its a "status" issue not a "race" issue. Yet you havent rebutted the point and keep bringing "race" into the picture. That is not how you make a point nor enter into a conversation. You respond to the points and provide evidence for such case. And you here have the audacity to call me "narrow minded". How about you attack my points instead of attacking me?
"I've heard Chinese Americans admit that the people of China hate black people..."
Oh? Since when did people from country ABC speak for people from country XYZ just because theyre the same race? Where is the logic in that?
If I find another Chinese American that "admits" China isnt racist against Black people then that must be true too? Can you see how flawed your logic is?
"The biggest saying is blacks are ugly and resemble monkeys"
Im pretty sure Ive heard Blacks calling Asians slit eyes with tiny dicks before. Can I say Africans or Black Americans are racist against Asians now?
You are literally painting everyone with the same brush. In every country, there will always be murders and racists. But to say a COUNTRY is racists, or their people are racist because of the actions of a tiny portion of their population, then that is wrong.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@virusindeed My point is that that video IS biased due to omission of key information, making it a one sided report.
And its not only that, by revoking Kashmirs autonomy, Kashmir can no longer make their own laws and have its own constitution. THAT is more important than just mere development projects. This was the promise the Indian government made to Kashmir when they decided to join them. It forbade outsiders to settle in, buy land etc. Meaning Kashmir was mean to only be for Kashmir natives, but not anymore.
This move, as you know, caused much protests and unrests, which resulted in mass arrests and detentions WITHOUT trial.
And not everything is about the "economy". Im sure joining China would boost your economy several times too, but so what? Are you willing to forgo your autonomy for a boost in "economy"? No right? So using economy as the main reason is a mute point.
And what you said didnt change the fact that there were communications blackouts, curfews, lock downs, arbitrary detentions, no free speech, no freedom of movement, no peaceful protests, etc etc
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Groaker A "few" is subjective. It is indeed a few compared to the tens of thousands reported. I can also work with recounts from first hand witnesses, provided its consistent with other first hand witnesses.
But the numbers not the point here. The point is that the truth has clearly been hidden by both the East and the West. China just literally shut up and didnt say a thing, and dont want you to know a thing. The West however was there, with cameras recording evidence and everything, yet lied and still make it to seem like the CCP killed tens of thousands.
Yes, a number of people died. But did they tell you that it was rioters that started killing unarmed soldiers first? Yes, there is hard evidence. Did they tell you that rioters were surrounding tanks, destroying them (mind you these were 3rd world tanks - easily damaged) lighting them on fire, and murdering the soldiers inside?
When the soldiers were surrounded and attacked, trying to protect themselves from being killed what do you think will happen? A few bodies run over obviously.
But what did the west report? "PLA runs over students in tanks". Clearly propaganda. And yes, there were hard evidence recorded as well.
It was not until soldiers were getting murdered, and things got out of hand that the PLA was ordered to control all the destruction, using force if necessary. Thats when guns were used. Those rioters were not innocent as the media portrayed them to be. Most of them were. So we thought. But shit got down real quick when they started murdering soldiers etc . The truth is out there. Just keep watching different videos. But dont listen to the anchor, theyre just spouting propaganda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cyzcyt "If Mongols in Canada are Canadian, why aren't the Chinese in Taiwan Taiwanese?"
Because "Taiwan" isnt a country? Republic of China claims to be the country called China? Therefore all citizens of Republic of CHINA are Chinese? Duh
"So what is the huge difference? I am not seeing it. The leadership and government is independent, but the land which they govern isn't independent? but just "merely" a territory of the government? Huh???"
I believe Ive already answered that question. That is not what I said.
I said : "ROC has sovereignty. Provincial Taiwan doesnt. Its just a province of ROC as clearly stated in ROCs constitution. And "Taiwan independence" is against ROCs constitution and ROC supporters around the world. During the war, supporters didnt donate money to ROC for it to be independent from China. They donated money for them to unify China"
How can you not see that Taiwan is just a mere territory of ROC? Taiwan is less than 1% of what ROC actually claims. You are confused because ROC and PRC are still technically in civil war. And line of control, territory, and governance can be very blurry during this period. That is why you need to refer to the constitution and signed documents set in stone when making rational arguments. Not some mere opinion off the streets, even if its a significant number. If its not official, then its not official.
Now, that being said. It seems like you are for Taiwan independence. Even if youre not, let me ask you this. Why hasnt ROC revoked its claim on Mainland China including Tibet, Xinjiang, Mongolia, and the so called "ridiculous" 11 dash lines in the South China Sea?
ROC constitution has been revised many times in Taipei. Why havent they revoked those said claims yet?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fjo348 "If you are so obsessed, u should know it’s more like current China(PROC) is many provinces of Taiwan (ROC) according to their constitution"
Theres nothing wrong about being "obsessed" with facts. Also, Taiwan is not ROC and ROC is not Taiwan. Taiwan is PART OF ROC. And ROC claims to be the country called CHINA.
"They have longer history (than China), democratic government, territory(which China never occupy), civilized 23.5m people, military and issues their own passport! At least from what I read,"
ROC indeed claims more land and sea territory than PRC. And population of claimed territory of ROC exceeds 1.4 billion, not 24 million. ROC is separate from PRC but its not separate from "China".
'Btw, do you know in article 35 of PROC’s construction said: “Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy FREEDOM OF SPEECH, of the press, of ASSEMBLY, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”'
You seem to be brainwashed. China does have freedom of speech. But like any country, freedom of speech is not without limitation. You can be prosecuted for "hate speech" in North America, and verbal s*xual harassment. Wheres the freedom of speech there? Who you trying to fool?
As for protests, again, youve been brainwashed. You can protest in China, but as mentioned earlier, every country has their laws and limitations. Try protesting and a busy highway, see if you have the "freedom" to do that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Mustang-ll9ud "As a Hongkonger I am pretty damn sure the pro-establishment also, in their ways, expressed their support to their CCP overlords!"
So youre going to paint every pro-establishment supporter with the same brush?
"Have you not seen street interviews of people complaining about the protests? Well I'm pretty sure you didn't"
Im pretty sure youre wrong. Also, you also going to lump everyone thats complaining about the protests in the same group regardless of their political affiliation as well? Cant I be politically neutral and complain about the disruption and chaos from the protests/riots?
'And those pro-China gangsters beating up protesters? Are they the "silent majority"?'
Dumb question for even linking that. The Yuen Long incident was not political. That was a matter of gtfo-of-my-turf case.
Nothing "pro-China" about that.
Also, dont also go lumping ALL the gangsters as "pro-China" just because SOME of them are here as well.
'Plus, the "splitting up family" claim is also a load of bullcrap, as if every single family has a healthy normal distribution of political spectrum'
Did I say EVERY SINGLE family? Even 20% is big enough for it to be an issue.
"Bunching up Hong Kong and Taiwan is already pretty hilarious in itself. The government is clearly in favor of pro-establishments in Hong Kong, while Taiwan enjoys a good degree of freedom of speech"
BOTH governments in HK and TW are in favour of the status quo. Freedom of speech has got nothing to do with this. Stop bringing in irrelevant points to this already long response.
"And is the cross-strait relations thingy sensitive? In China, certainly, in Taiwan is it really?
Yes. The fact that you cant recognise this I can already tell youre an insensitive person...
"Plenty of old uncles and aunties come out yelling around and showing their faces on camera. Somehow they all find this topic sensitive all in a sudden?"
Do I have to spell it out for you? Supporting KMT in general (not sensitive) has NOTHING to do with cross-strait relations (sensitive).
"And who did that LOCAL TAIWANESE CONTRACTOR worked for? Is it not Asian Boss?"
Irrelevant. Theyre independent from each other. If I was hired by a company to do interviews in SK on how they feel about NK, and I could find no one saying anything non-negative about it, and was asked by the company to create a form and find applicants online for a more balanced view, if I created the form and said "LOOKING FOR SOUTH KOREANS THAT WANT TO REUNIFY WITH NK", when CLEARLY this has nothing to do with reunification, whose mistake was that? The company or the person that made the post (thats presumably not paid yet at this point)?
"If they really met the guy by chance, what is the point of posting that?"
Judging from the locations and microphones used, the interview took place at least 3 times. What if the post was made after the FIRST interview? No one applied for the post so they did round 2 and round 3. Sounds very plausible no?
"Isn't it reasonable to ask for an explanation when it is within reasonable doubt that they might have not done a genuine street interview?"
Except no one is QUESTIONING that. Theyre all making STATEMENTS that "this is it" as if they already have a CONCLUSION. If this was simply a question and hypothesising that this MIGHT not have been genuine, I wouldnt be posting this in the first place.
"Am I supposed to just buy into that Youtuber's claim when there is evidence against it?"
Yo lets be clear on this...Evidence of a form is not evidence that any one of those interviewers had signed up to that form.
2
-
2
-
@Mustang-ll9ud You didnt tag me properly. Didnt get a notification.
"I didn't bunch them up alright"
Quoting words of someone doesnt mean you didnt bunch them up.
You DID bunch them and paint them all with the same brush.
Pro-establishment could mean someone that supports the status quo of 1 country 2 system, and the democracy Beijing gave HK that the British didnt.
But not ALL of them want that. Some could be on the fence between the parties, but ended up supporting the pro-establishment side simply due to policies that favour them instead.
"first, you're clearly not sure enough because those complaint clips are literally made into memes among locals"
You asked me if I have seen street interviews of people complaining about the protests. I said I did. Now you want to change goal posts and specifically meant youre talking about specific memes? What a joke.
"And second, did I mention those who're complaining against the protest as of the same political affiliation? Seems like you're putting words into my mouth"
Did I put words in your mouth? I asked you a question. Know the difference.
"all I'm saying is the "silent" "majority" in Hong Kong is not actually silent."
Again, lumping a group (silent majority) up again. MOST of them are silent, SOME are not. Stop painting a group all with the same brush again.
"Oh did I mention Yuen Long? I don't think I did?"
Oh? Then who were the pro-China gangsters beating up protesters you were mentioning about? Only the Long Yuen gangsters made headlines. What other gangsters beating up protesters made headlines? Link me.
'and there are clear statements made by those gangsters "saving their country". Hell, some of them took group photos posing with the Chinese flag before going about beating people up"
Again, painting all gangsters in the same brush again? You trying to say ALL gangsters must have the SAME political view as that guy?
And idk about you, but some of those rioters/protesters sure look like "gangsters" to me, with all those weapons and violent behaviour. Some even flew US/UK flags, calling for "independence". Can I say they represent ALL protesters like how youre saying those gangsters represent ALL gangsters?
"Now call THAT not political"
Whats the point of this sentence? I previously said "cant I be politically neutral and complain about the disruption and chaos from the protests/riots?" in response to your comment about pro-CCP people on the streets complaining about the protests. This whole farce is obviously political, but not every single incident in this time period involved is.
'Though, it being an issue is irrelevant. The main point is this issue being so-called "family splitting" will still not botch the interviews so much that literally no one on interview is pro-reunification'
Again with this "pro-unification" nonsense. This video/interview was NOT about that. So asking about that is irrelevant.
"If the street interviewers take good samples and take their time, it shouldn't result in such one-sided result at all"
And thats MY point, not yours. Like I said, I dont know where the interviewer walked nor what the said/asked to come to their conclusion prior to making the post. This is something that you nor I will ever know.
Im saying that 40% of Taipei voted for KMT, which is almost half, so finding people thats not pro-independence shouldnt be that hard.
This "reunification" business was a mistake made by the interviewer themselves. Asian Boss never requested that. As you can see this video isnt even about that.
"Let's not forget you brought Hong Kong in first"
Yes, and I associated that example with TW, given that both had a status quo and a movement opposing the status quo. Its linked, therefore relevant. You on the other hand spoke about "freedom of speech" out of no where without linking anything to your point...
"And no, HK is not in favor of the status quo"
Speak with the mid and older gen, not just within your bubble of youths.
But regardless, opinions dont matter. When it comes to politics, its the governments official stance that matters. And the HK government is in favour of the status quo, whether you like it or not.
"And yes, freedom of speech has something to do with this when speaking out against the government and doing news that paint the government in a bad way literally gets you arrested in HK"
This is where HK people are so dumb. You CAN speak out against the government. Just dont break the law.
Whats the law? Any acts of "treason, secession, sedition, subversion". Just dont say things that break those laws and you can say anything you want. But some just HAD to commit the above...
"In Taiwan, no one gets arrested when speaking against the mainstream/government. YES, it is RELEVANT because YOU BROUGHT IT IN"
I did not bring in "freedom of speech" into this, and you did NOT LINK "freedom of speech" to any of my/your points in anyway.
Taiwan also has laws against treason and sedition.
And strictly speaking, pro-Taiwan independence (not ROC independence) movements violates ROCs constitution, just that laws against that are not enforced thats all, whereas in HK its enforced.
"Ah yes, the typical ad hominem trick. Just because it is sensitive for you doesn't mean it is for everyone else, including those who are interviewed up there"
Oh yeh? Then tell me, why did the interviewer post on Dcard saying it was difficult to even find people to conduct this interview on the topic of cross-strait relations? Surely if its not sensitive itd be quite easy to find people to speak about this. But the experienced interviewer, said she found it difficult to even find people to interview on this topic (for both sides).
"Even if they find it sensitive doesn't mean they are unwilling to talk, as I have said, the right of anonymity is always there"
If I was asked to be interviewed on a sensitive topic, my first thought its "no, I dont want be interviewed" not "yes, but I want anonymity".
"I am sure there are people who find it sensitive, but somehow only pro-independence supporters are willing to speak out, while those who are pro-unification, which you have assumed there are a good number of them"
Dont be like the other guy. Read properly. Ive already addressed your first point, lets no go around in the circles. I said: "And its no surprise that the younger generation is more outspoken than the older gen. And most of the older gen are pro-Blue. It doesnt take a genius to figure out why there were more pro-green willing to undertake the interview".
And youre putting words in my mouth again, I have NEVER assumed there were a good number of "pro-unification" supporters. KMT supporters does NOT equate to pro-unification supporters. Most support the status quo. And thats not an assumption, thats a fact.
"And those supporting the blues tend to be pro-unification!
No! Those PEOPLE supporting Blue tend to be pro-status quo! Its the KMT GOVERNMENTs official stance thats has reunification on their mind, not the people voting them in. Know the difference!
"And the contractor is doing whose bidding again?"
Cant the contractor misinterpret their employers bidding?
Its proven that they DID misinterpret as this video is NOTHING to do with reunification.
"Well it is pretty clear you know nothing about Hong Kong, that I'm sure"
If I know "nothing" about HK then what were all the points about HK I brought about about? Youre contradicting yourself there.
"But then again, what should I expect from a person who demanded a Taiwanese to speak English instead of Chinese when discussing an issue about Taiwan to understand"
You again, are putting words in my mouth. I never "demanded" him to speak English. I said translation is not making any sense, Ill be more than happy for him to speak in English, otherwise I dont see our translated convo being fruitful in any way. He, on the other hand said its MY problem that I cant speak Chinese...on an English speaking channel...
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'Shaking hands as a greeting method is him "presuming", especially with Muslim woman'
Thats not "presuming" that thats the "norm". Thats sharing his culture, he was trying to greet her and her family in a nice way. Sharing culture is not arrogance. You think Chinese people dont "share" their culture too?
"The culture norm with regards to physical contact between man and woman in a religious conservative society should be well understood by any cultured person"
Firstly, why are you assuming shes Muslim? You think everyone there is Muslim just because thats the main religion there? Secondly, like I said, shaking hands with Muslim women in the West is the norm. So whats this "Islam custom" you were speaking about that he "should have learnt" from Muslim women in the West when they all shake hands? Even if we take your point on them being conservative, that falls under ignorance, not arrogance.
"If you cannot even understand this, you are more like the kind of lads go on club18-30 holidays to Ibiza"
All Muslim women from the West shake hands, if you cannot even understand this, then...actually Im not going to stoop to your level and make wrong assumptions about others with zero information like what you are doing.
"The same goes with the silly sad music interpretation. Totally unnecessary, if not a bit juvenile for a grown man"
Youre shifting goal posts. Unnecessary or not, juvenile or not, thats got nothing to do with arrogance, you know, the topic at hand?
"I can say generally, unless there is a large group, Chinese tourists when travelling individually or in small groups are more observant and try not to create unnecessary tensions. Whereas westerners, particularly Americans are more likely to do things to their own likings. Of course, this is on average, which includes approx 70%"
You are shifting goal posts here as well. I spoke nothing about "creating tensions". I specifically addressed your point on not being bothered learning the basics of the local language when travelling. Most Chinese do not learn the local language when travelling to non-English speaking countries, they just try speak English instead. This applies to most travellers across the road. Im asking you, why bother mentioning this point when it applies to Chinese travellers too?
As for your "creating tension" point. Whats this about 70%? Whats "to their own likings"? Doing something "to their own liking" means "creating tension"? Well one can say that people speaking another language "to their own liking", especially loudly, in country XYZ is "creating tension". That applies to more than 70% of Chinese. Your point again? This is about this guy in the video, not the worse of the worse from country X. So why bother bringing it up, especially when it can be said for Chinese tourists too?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@SunnyIlha A non native English speaker such as like yourself, trying to teach me, a native English speaker on how English works? What a joke.
One CAN (keyword) say those words you mentioned, but NO ONE DOES. In English, we say our nationality and ONLY our nationality. Only when SPECIFICALLY asked on our ethnicity do we ever mention it.
No American would ask another American "what are you?" unless theyre living under a rock. It is presumed that the other party is American unless they have a foreign accent. And youre making irrelevant comparisons now. The fact that you even mentioned "Yeah, duh, but what ARE you?" already proves my point that only when asked is there a need to state ones ethnicity (in that persons mind they wanted to know their ethnicity).
When a White American of German descent goes to say Thailand, and asked about their identity, they will say theyre "American". Same for an Australian of Irish descent, they will say theyre "Australian". Theres no need to say "Im Irish Australian" or "Im German American". Same goes for other ethnicities.
In English, one just doesnt say their ethnicity unless specifically asked. One wouldnt introduce their Australian friend of Irish descent to people with "Hi this is John, he is Irish Australian". Even though it factually might be true, we just dont speak that way. One would simply say "Hi this is John, hes Australian" or "hi meet my Australian friend John", or "hi this is John, hes from Australia".
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
0:21 Taiwan isnt a "country" shame on Asian Boss for spreading false information. No world power in this world recognises "Taiwan" as a country, and "Taiwan" doesn't even claim to be a "country" in the first place.
1:14 No, the reality is that PH does NOT have sovereignty over those islands. When the US handed over its sovereignty to the PH, they SPECIFICALLY said it did NOT include the Spratly islands etc. So PH does NOT have legal sovereignty over those islands. PH just wish they did, and made their citizens to believe its theirs.
7:28 This guy is uninformed. Its not "illegal" per se if its no laws against it. ESPECIALLY when its disputed territory. PH does NOT have sovereignty over the islands, so its not "theirs". Its called "disputed territory" for a reason. Many countries claim these territories, not just China and PH.
7:35 You "won" because China was not even there to defend themselves. China was not there because China knew it was useless to go, as the current international laws present is incompatible with a countrys sovereignty claims. What that means is the current international maritime laws only define whats considered a countrys territory based on the 12nm distance from a countrys coastline, EEZ etc, but has no laws to define whether a piece of territory falls under the sovereignty of Country X or Country Y.
7:51 No, you cant forcefully implement it because that body you won that case from has ZERO authority to enforce anything. Even the US cant.
12:44 No, it was not "proven that it belongs to the PH". This is how facts get misconstrued. The arbitration ruling ruled that China had no legal basis on "historical claims" to those islands, because NO country can make claims on any territory based on historical claims with our current maritime laws, including the PH. If China reversed the role and initiated this ruling, the same thing would have applied to the PH - that PH cannot claim those islands based on "historical" records as well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jakerio8 "Actually much of the entire SCS. On what internationally compatible legal basis?"
Just because one supports the US, does not mean they support and agree with 100% of all US actions. Likewise, just because one supports China, it also does not mean they support and agree with 100% of Chinas actions.
'Why "protect" its unilaterally declared territorial claim and be a co-signor in agreement to the UNCLOS whose clause is to respect each state's EEZ?'
Hold up, since when are EEZs more important than sovereign territories? EEZs are DETERMINED OFF sovereign territory. Sovereign territory trumps over any economic zone of any sort any day.
When China declared the islands/reefs in the SCS as their sovereign territory, PH didnt even exist as a sovereign state. And the fact that you worded your wordings as such, shows exactly how much you know about international law, extremely limited. UNCLOS does NOT determine a states EEZ, it merely defines those boundaries. It didnt say PH has this, or China has that.
Moreover, just because China signed and ratified UNCLOS, that doesnt mean it contradicted Chinas SOVEREIGN claims over the islands/reefs.
'Your arguments appear to be needlessly hung up on specific definitions of "territory", whereas usage on EEZ was loosely meant for the purpose by claim and enjoyment of the term as defined. Hence "Exclusive"'
See, this is how I know you dont know what youre talking about. You accused me of being "hung up" on certain words, and yet here you are being "hung up" on the word "exclusive". Please, dont be a hypocrite. Law is law and needs to be defined and interpreted properly. Otherwise this is how dispute arises.
What happens when 2 of more countrys EEZ overlaps, what happens then? Its not so "exclusive" now hey?
"Side note: no other country of Earth brazenly stakes an entire sea as their own sovereign territory. 🤭 So the world continues to watch China's "legitimacy" acrobatics on this one"
Vietnam is half way there. They claim half of the SCS as their sovereign territory. And besides, there is no law that prohibits that action. If you want to talk about "legitimacy", whats the "legitimacy" on your US buddy invading and taking over North America?
Anything that happened prior to International Law existed is legitimate? Then Chinas claims over the SCS is also legitimate then since they made that claim prior to international law even existing.
2
-
Wow...I almost TLDR this. Since you gave me the time to write for me, the least I could do is respond back.
"You didn't answer the question and digressed. You can remove the U.S. out of this..."
Oh I answered the question already. Its you that failed to comprehend words once again. Since it doesnt spell it out for you, I DONT AGREE THAT CHINA SHOULD CLAIM THE ENTIRE SCS.
Moreover, I can bring it whatever country I want into this if I wish to. If the US is not involved they why they sailing warships there all the time? Clearly they want to be involved.
"Your explanation is laughable. You keep on bringing in the sovereign claim and its importance over EEZ when the claim itself does not hold water (no pun)"
If youre the first country in the region to lay sovereign claims to the island, then its yours. So how does that not hold water? Its PH and the others that made sovereign claims over 3 decades AFTER Chinas sovereign claims.
"I never stated that UNCLOS "determined" the states' EEZ but read it again,,,It's not the wording that's inaccurate but your skill in reading/ comprehension"
You said "in agreement to the UNCLOS whose clause is to respect each state's EEZ". That, coupled with the fact that youre so adamant that Chinas within PHs EEZ, implies you meant the states EEZs are already "set" from UNCLOS.
If its not "set" then why you complaining Chinas in it? According to you NOW, its not "determined/set" by UNCLOS now right? If its not "set" by UNCLOS, then the 200NM from PH is NOT set in stone. If the 200NM EEZ from PH is not set in stone then why you complaining that Chinas supposedly "in it"?!
And here you are trying to mock me of my reading/comprehension skills when its YOU thats lacking in the comprehension and logic department.
"You just faceplanted on your attempt at acrobatics or diversion. How the heck does it NOT contradict??"
Not at all. Just because you dont understand doesnt mean it contradicts. UNCLOS is incompatible with sovereign claims, theyre 2 completely different things, and UNCLOS does not address that. You could say its a loophole.
"This is NOT an exacting analogy but let's try this..."
Yeh, poor analogy. You disregarded something called sovereignty. "People" cant claim territories. Its sovereign states that do. And when one sovereign state claims a piece of territory as theirs, it cannot be owned by another. Thats just how the world works.
'The word "Exclusive" is elementarily defined and is not contestible'
Oh yeh? So when 2 countries have overlapping EEZs what happens then? Some countries have split their overlapping EEZs into 2. What happened to "exclusive"? What you call "exclusive" has now been split!
And what happened to it being "uncontestible" then? Those that dont resolve the overlapping of EEZs will forever be in a dispute. There are many countries in this situation. Hows that for "not contestible"? Looks like it isnt me thats faceplanted themselves...
2
-
2
-
"The limits or absence of inclusion in international law does not necessarily make it legal until universally chartered and ratified by all affected and witnessing bodies, or at the least recognizes it by a vast margin"
Theres a difference between "not legal" and "illegal". Theyre not necessarily the same. Much like, whats "not right" doesnt always make it "wrong", or whats "not g00d" doesnt always mean its "bad".
"There's no law prohibiting claiming the moon as China's 'territory' as soon as it steps on it, will it do it then since the U.S. passed on it? Pls. don't answer that, I haven't recovered from laughing 😅"
Like I said, just because you dont know, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. There IS law prohibiting claiming the moon as part of a countrys sovereign territory. Its called the Outer Space Treaty. You can continue laughing at your intelligence.
"I'll try to answer for you the main questions you've dodged from the beginning:
1. China didn't defend it in any court as any responsible global citizen would do because..."
Youre delusion if you think you or I can speak on behalf of another country. Why should I be representing China to be answering that question? Im not even Chinese.
"2. China has NONE of the historical, moral and legal authority to claim the SCS as 'sovereign territory"
Actually there ARE Chinese historical artifacts found on the Spratly islands. But no country can make claims based on historical evidence. As for "legal authority", you really dont know what youre talking about. China made their sovereign claims BEFORE international law even existed, just like how the US and every other power claimed their pieces of territory they didnt originally owned before. Got anything to say about their "moral and legal authority" to claim those territory?
"the natives surrounding the gulfs and larger bodies of water would have carved out large portions of the seas for themselves, but why hasn't anybody done it?"
Thats a g00d question. Why dont you ask them themselves? Oh wait, you already represented them to answer on their behalf...Im not so delusional to think I can represent others.
"I didn't learn anything new from you"
From our interaction, I can tell youre not a very bright learner.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kashutosh9132 "are you Indian? If not it's definitely not be much of a concern for you"
No. But doesnt mean I cant have an input. Just like how the world can have their input in Gaza and Ukraine.
"Chushul is a Indian village,the lac lies further 5 miles east ahead. These grazing lands for 100s of years have been used by local shepherds,local Shepards lived for 100s if not 1000s of years are there,Chinese from east came later"
Yes, but just bear in mind, Chushul has never been part of India till the British came along. So the region was never traditionally "Indian" to begin with.
In the past 1000 years, the region of Ladakh was ruled by Mongols, Tibetans, Chinese, and then the British. Never by Indians untill the British left.
So when you say the people of Ladakh are "Indian people". Thats like saying China saying the people of Ladakh are Chinese people, since most of what is traditionally Ladakhi territory currently resides within modern day China. You think thats "correct"?
If anything the region of Ladakh is split. Just like many regions in this world today.
But just because it was "traditionally" their peoples lands, it doesnt mean they can cross the modern day "borders" or "LAC".
2
-
@kashutosh9132 "That region was part of Hari Singh empire. Hari Singh merged his kingdom with India by signing instrument of accession. So those lands rightfully belong to India"
Like I said, that region was not part of India until the British came along. The signage youre speaking about happened after the British left. Which was my point: none of this region was part of India till the British came along. Just look at the historical timeline map of India. None of Indias maps included the region as theirs (inc Hari Sigh empire) until the British came along around the 1800s.
"They did also not rule those territory throughout history,same is for any country. At one point Indian territory touched to uzbeks but we are not claiming those lands..."
True. But we are talking about modern history here, or at least the history leading up to modern day countries. So in the context of everything, the previous governments of China and India in the 20th century, namely Qing China and British India, matters. If British India did touch Uzbekistan, then there will be legitimate claims from the current Indian government. But thats not the case.
"Unlike Chinese who have occupied Tibet,we have rightfully inherited the lands from the king"
Actually when Qing China collapsed, their transfer of sovereignty included the territory of Tibet. It was Tibet that governing illegally. Not the other way around. The "Imperial Edict of the Abdication of the Qing Emperor" is available for everyone to see.
"Laddhaki people are more culturally similar to Indian than mainland Chinese. You can ask laddhaki people of India,what they consider themselves"
If you ask a Indian citizen from Ladakh of course they would say theyre Indian. But similarly, if you ask a Chinese citizen from what is traditionally Ladakhi territory, then the answer would be Chinese. Im assuming youre talking about nationality here right?
I dont think you understand how large the real Ladakhi territory actually is/was. Its 10x larger than what India calls "Ladakh" nowadays. And at least 5x larger than Sri Lanka. Most of 90%+ of traditional Ladahk territory is in modern day Tibet and Xinjiang.
And culture means nothing in this context. Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese are also culturally similar to China. What is that even suppose to prove? Ladakis culture and ethnicity is most similar to the Tibetans than anything else.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@NomadWalker-io3ne "Taiwan is a country, it's official name is the Republic of China"
Wrong. The "country" that ROC claims to be is the country called CHINA, not "Taiwan". Taiwan is PART of ROC, aka CHINA.
"Taiwan no longer claims the mainland it simply never updated its constitution to say so because China which refers to the People's Republic of China says it will invade if they do"
Wrong. They STILL claim mainland China as part of their territory. Its the core value of KMT. And they TRIED to constitutionally revoke their claims in the constitution, but FAILED as they need 75% of the votes to make that change and they couldnt get 75% votes. This is got nothing to do with PRC. The leading DPP already revoked their claims over the mainland. If PRC didnt "let" them how come they didnt invade already? And whats ROCs constitution got to do with PRC? What PRC does not allow is the name change to Republic of "Taiwan". Thats what will trigger the invasion, not revoking claims over mainland territory.
"Taiwan has claimed itself to be a country before the PRC was even a country"
"Taiwan" never claimed to be a "country". ROC did. And ROChina claimed to be the country called CHINA as stated in their name.
"it simply went from the name China to Taiwan after the PRC stole that name"
Repubilc of CHINA never "changed" their name to "Taiwan". Theyre still called CHINA. Theyre just REFERRED to as "Taiwan" to differentiate themselves from PRC so that the international community doesnt get confused. But make no mistake, they till this day still claim to be the country called China.
And no, ROC effectively lost the Chinese Civil War so they were replaced by PRC. Its common for successor states to use the same name of the country they claim to be. Whats this "stealing" nonsense?
"Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China not the PRC"
And PRC is recognised internationally as the successor state of ROC. A successor state inherits all of its predecessors debt, territory, assets, etc.
"the ROC has two provinces, one of which is Taiwan"
Wrong. Read up ROCs constitution. They clearly mention their other provinces like Xinjiang, Tibet, etc.
"since Taiwan is the main province and the mainland of ROC people simply call the country as a whole as Taiwan"
No. ROC claims that their "mainland" is mainland China. And calling ROC simply as "Taiwan" is for the politically ignorant. Lets not be politically ignorant. Taiwan is PART OF ROC, not Taiwan IS ROC
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fancyfart911 Joshua Wood "Most of your statements are pretty accurate"
Correct me if Im wrong but I believe that ALL the facts I have stated was accurate? Not just "most"?
"But most Taiwanese don’t consider themselves Chinese anymore"
You see, when we talk about facts, especially on the world stage, it doesnt take into consideration of opinions. What the people of Taiwan "think" is not important. Its whats the official government stance is is whats important. So even if you dont consider yourselves to be Chinese, you are, both nationality and ethnically.
"The reason you still read that Taiwan claims to be China in the ROC constitution is the result of “1992 consensus” in which PRC and ROC both agreed to the “One China Policy” to prevent war and to prevent Taiwan from claiming sovereignty"
3 different points here. Back then, Taiwan never wanted to claim sovereignty - separate from China (ROC). ROC already has sovereignty.
"1992 consensus" was basically a consensus where they both PRC and ROC claim to be the legitimate government of China and that Taiwan and the mainland is part of the same "One China".
ROC constitution stating Taiwan as a province of China was made 70 years ago, after Taiwan was returned back to China after WW2.
"The fact is, if not for the constant military threats and political pressure from China, we’d have declared sovereignty long ago. Keep in mind that we have our own land, military force, and a working democratic"
No, you wouldnt be able to. Because KMT would stop you regardless if there was pressure from PRC or not. Then there would be another civil war within Taiwan. And when that happens, all those "Taiwan independence" supporters will lose because your Republic of CHINA (not "Taiwan") Armed Forces pledged their allegiance to defending ROC territory, ie China. In the eyes of the military, those that take away their territory will be attacked. And theres no other military force on Taiwan other than Republic of China Armed Forces.
1
-
@fancyfart911 You mentioned a lot of things that are basically opinions. Remember, facts dont care about opinions.
"For instance, you keep saying ROC and PRC are both China, while the constitutions of both parties do state that, it is awkwardly far from truth"
No that is the truth. As long as ROC does not revoke its claim over mainland China, that fact still stands that they still claim to be China. Im pretty sure PRC will welcome ROC to revoke their claim over mainland China in their constitution. They just dont want ROC to revoke their claim over Taiwan to give room for "Taiwan independence".
'You have to understand that the 92 Consensus is ironically an agreement of “agreeing to disagree”. On the PRC part, One China means “one China, two systems”, On ROC’s part it means “One China, two countries”. Never in the history has Taiwan agreed to the “two systems” agenda'
No. Youre confused. PRCs "one country two system" refers to the SAR governments of HK and Macau, and the stretched that offer to ROC. But that was not the 1992 consensus.
The 1992 consensus was that PRC and ROC came to the consensus that Taiwan and the mainland are and inseparable part of "One China". And the only disagreement was who was the ruler of this "One China". PRC and ROC both claim to be the sole legitimate ruler of this "One China" that includes Taiwan and the mainland.
"Nowadays ROC is synonymous to Taiwan, and PRC China, that‘s a fact regardless of what the constitution says"
Thats not a "fact". Its synonymous for ignorant people because they dont know the facts and listen to what their media tells them. So in a sense you could say theyre brainwashed to think that way. Everyone keeps repeating it so it "must be true".
ROC is not synonymous with Taiwan. Taiwan is part of ROC.
"(again, the only reason that Taiwan hasn’t scratched that from its constitution is because of the constant pressure from China.)"
Theres no pressure from PRC not to have ROC revoke their claim over the mainland yet ROC still hasnt. Can you explain that if you claim ROC doesnt claim to be China?
"Moving on, your statement of KMT stopping the independence of Taiwan is purely a speculation"
No. Its not speculation if its their core value. KMTs core value is that ROC is the true China.
"KMT is a dying political party that has long lost its popularity since they regrettably became a puppet of CPC. With Taiwan having a democratic system, it is very unlikely that they’ll be the majority of congress again"
You need to understand the cycle of politics. They go back and forth indefinitely. Just because the opposition is not popular right now, does mean its "dying". It literally means theyre not popular IN THIS PARTICULAR TIME PERIOD. So what you said there is an opinion again. Not facts.
"As of the likelihood of a civil war within Taiwan, I can assure you right now that it will never happen. ROC military IS the military of Taiwan, names don’t mean a thing here, it answers to the people and the people only"
Yes. The likelihood of Taiwan independence will also never happen. Because if it does, within a few hours they will be invaded, rendering the the "independence" void.
Also, ROC military is not the military of "Taiwan". Its the military of ROC, Taiwan is just a part of ROC. If one day PRC collapses, I assure you ROC military will be the first ones to conquer mainland China again. Why? Because they freaking claim it!
"As a former marine, I can tell you that we’d been trained to see China as our biggest enemy, not our own people"
*PRC. Clearly youre confused on the term "China". Your government also claims to be China.
"Moreover, contradicting what the Chinese propaganda says, most of the people of Taiwan would like to see independence happen one day...since basically, all Taiwanese are independence supporters"
Who are you trying to fool? Youre talking to someone that value facts here. I know my facts, and the facts certainly do not point to over 50% of Taiwanese wanting independence. The latest figure is only 27%!
"In conclusion, most of what I stated are the hard truth that aren’t written in books but is common sense if you spend enough time in Taiwan"
Remember, facts dont care about opinions. Youve stated a lot of opinions. The worse one being that "most" Taiwanese want independence, when it was only about a quarter. I take is as most of your bubble wants independence, but you seem to be forgeting the older generation.
"The CPC tries to shield it from its people fearing that the notion of Taiwan’s independence would threaten their regime"
More opinions. Whether PRC or ROC, or any other country (or individuals), no one wants to lose a part of their land. Its got nothing to do with "threatening their regime".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@netwar6152 "looks u're just overrate huawei or trying cover it up"
Like I said, youre ignorant of this issue. Youre in denial. You refuse to look into the facts and just repeat what the media is telling you.
" Let's just say about Harmony OS, which be claimed all develop by huawei itself. I can tell u that its just another aosp which replace ui and renamed stuff"
Oh? So you used Harmony OS before? Or did you just "hear" about it again?
Regardless, remember what I said? Even if Huawei completely drops its mobile phone department, it wouldnt shake the company one bit.
"It's what china can do all the time, copycat"
In the tech space, theres bound to be some sort of "copying". Just like now every phone looks the same. A palm sized rectangular block - touch screen at the front, multiple cameras at the back, volume and on/off buttons etc etc.
What cant be "copied" are patents ie intellectual property. Copy that and you will be sued. Even Samsung and Apple has accused each other of IP theft. Do you call them out for being "copycats"? Clearly youre just a China hater.
Like I said, Huaweis R&D investments are ranked now 5th in the world, and almost all that money is spent on 5G; they have the most 5G related patents in the world. No company even comes close to their 5G capabilities. This is public information, so not sure what you mean by "trying to cover it up".
This is why the US wants to ban Huawei. They dont want the Chinese to beat them, theyre used to being number 1. What "national security threat"? Its all just an excuse. Remember Trump saying theyll "unban" Huawei once there was a trade deal? Its all a political ploy. If it really was a "national security threat" they wouldnt "unban" them no matter what!
1
-
1
-
1
-
matthew o "I traveled all over the world on 2005, Europe, Africa, Dubai, India, Nepal, and Thialand and never heard of this"
Thats over 15 years ago...times have changed...
All the following places have implemented women only carriages in trains:
Brazil (2006), Egypt (1989), regional Germany (2016) India (2009), Iran, Indonesia (2010), Japan (2000-2006), Mexico (2008) Taiwan (2006), the Philippines, Malaysia (2010) and the United Arab Emirates (2015).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryanp8925 "You are over a week late lol"
Ill respond when Im free to respond. Not everyone uses YT everyday...
'Even the CCP commented it on it and said it was a "security guard" even though that guy has always been around Winnie the Pooh and is common knowledge its his bodyguard'
Security guard and bodyguard are 2 very different occupations...
"Why do I call him that, I mean it is apparent, he looks exactly like Winnie and is a complete joke of a man"
Thats rather immature of you. But if you want to joke you can joke. But dont mix in serious talk with your jokes. You lose all credibility with your words. It makes it seem like your words are also part of the "joke".
"I mean look at his smirk, he knew exactly what he was doing like the evil dictator he is"
Since when do dictators need permission from his government do implement what he wants? Theres a difference between authoritarian and dictatorship.
Also, I dont see any smirk. Hes got a poker face.
"The secretary of the entire Chinese Communist Party was wearing a name tag dumb dumb"
And? What youre trying to say is a secretary equates to a bodyguard now? Since when were bodyguards so old? Thought you were referring to the young man. You cant confirm and verify who the young man was was what I meant.
"Nobody in this thread said that he came back but you will see other bots saying he returned (which he did not)"
Ive been through a number of these videos and went through the comments like with this one. I didnt see anyone say he returned...
"So if you want a source, you can watch this Chinese lady break it down and actually see for yourself"
I watched that video. Theyre all speculations based on the documents and name tag. Nothing else is known. All speculations.
If I got anything from this, its that Hu was not happy with the list and made a fuss. For such a formal event, making such a fuss is grounds to be booted. This whole "sickness" thing is probably to help Hu save face from being booted.
"It is so easy to tell Chinese lies. I mean it is so amateurish. How can you still not tell?"
Its called verifying the matter. I dont believe ANYTHING until it can be verified. Whether its from the government or from you.
"I mean they do the same steps to try and spread misinformation every single time and never change it up"
Misinformation is everywhere. Every country has their misinformation, including yours.
"Seriously, you still have not learned?"
Why are you assuming I have not learned? Have you not learned that its not smart to make baseless assumptions?
"When you see the foreign shills which have also been confirmed to be paid by China start making videos, then you know it is a lie"
What are you on about here? Who are you speaking about? Whats this video got to down with foreign shills?
"They are all demonetized, that is how they get their money from Winnie the Pooh's regime"
Anti-China YTer also get demonitised. Your point? That theyre funded by the US or whatever government?
Why cant YTer have funding from elsewhere? They could be running a business or using their savings or even funded by a private organisation or people for all that you know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TWCHHK Also fake news. "Han" is a cultural identify, not a singular homogeneous ethnicity what the Chinese government wants you to think. According to DNA studies, every province of China has different DNA admixtures. Even among the Hans. There is not "wiping" out of "opposing" ethnicities. Thats simply fake news.
Also, if what is happening to the Uighurs were indeed true, that is indeed horrendous. I did an indepth research on that and fortunately found out that to all to be falsified reports. Yes, there were new buildings built, and yes, there were Uighurs in them. Buts its not what we all think. None of that "forced labour" or "genocide" the media speaks of. Literally zero evidence.
As for Hong Kong, sorry but Im on Chinas side on this one. HK had the freedom to destroy their city and get away with them and they had to audacity to claim they had no freedom? And it was HK that violated the agreement first.
Article 23 of Hong Kongs Basic Law:
Hong Kong "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
Article 23 was clearly violated and nothing was done, thats why Beijing had to step in, and they had every right to do so under their declaration.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ColoniaMurder20 "so you admit many parts in China weren't control entire Tibetan, Xinjiang, and many parts of China?"
Wrong again. People cant "admit" to something that has no relation to them. If I say youre Chinese, did I just "admit" youre Chinese?
Tibetan, Xinjiang, etc had been part of China (Qing) for longer than USA has been a country. So why wouldnt they be part of China? When Qing transferred sovereignty of China to Republic of China, it also included the territories of Tibet and Xinjiang. So sovereignty was legally theirs to begin with.
"take note indigenous people in Taiwan were related to Filipinos"
Im not sure if youre deliberately doing this, but your words truly are filled with ambiguity, thus misinformation. Its Filipinos that are related to the indigenous people of Taiwan. Not the other way around. All Austronesians originated from Taiwan.
"Spanish mentioned about black people in Taiwan.. let me guess those black people were annihilated by Han during their occupation"
How black is black? Some people call brown people black. If youre talking about Taiwan aborigines, then they still exists. But whats this got to do with the above points?
"you said Spanish and Dutch only control southern tip?"
Read properly. I said Spanish controlled the northern tip of Taiwan, and the Dutch controlled the southern arrow tip of Taiwan. And your map just proved I was right. So not sure what youre laughing at.
Just remember, YOU where the one that said the Dutch controlled the "ENTIRE" island. Your map has proved you wrong and proved me right.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryuseiken Kyokushin "FBI and UN have reported China sold nuke materials go NK. Those materials above u said were just parts of many that u didnt mention. Nice try.
You are so hypocritical. I'll just play your game. "Back that shit up!"
China and Russia were caught selling oil to NK and those are clear violations of the sanction agreements.
"Back that shit up!"
"Logic! Use it!"
Exactly. PRC signed the agreement. Not Company ABC. "Logic! Use it!"
"It is laughable to cite from wikipedia as real fact. Dont u know it is not to be used as evidence when u submit your researches?"
Submit my researches? Do you expect me to use Harvard referencing as well? The sites I linked were references. If youre not a denier of facts then you should do your own due dilegence and research. To disclaim wikipedia and anything from there as laughable is pure ignorance. Use it as reference and do your own research.
"Why would they support the Khmer rogue when they already didnt want to further funding for that war?
To stop Communist Vietnam from potential expanding even further. US intelligence is smarter than you think. They know things you dont know.
"Plus, Khmer rogue was another communist, what would that give them?"
Khmer Rogue was as communist as Democratic Peoples Rupublic of Korea is democratic. Theyre just names of parties. Just like the "communist" party of China. Theyre arguably more capitalist than communist. KR dont claim to be communist, and they discriminate between races. Not everyone is equal.
"US bombed and killed more than Khmer rogue ever did??? You kidding me? Red Khmer rogue killed millions and you slapped that statement in without shame? You probably believe Hitler was worse than Mao. Fun fact, Mao killed more than Hitler and Stalling ever did"
Ahh there you are again going off topic. If I dont mention this you probably wouldve though I was the one going off topic like last time. Heres another fun fact for you, China had more than 10x the population of Germany. Ofcourse more wouldve died in China. And Maos numbers include those that died from famine due to poor regulations. Personally I wouldnt call that murder. But whatever.
No one knows how many they killed. The media likes to exaggerate claims, especially from ruthless killers to make them sound even more ruthless. But let me say this, theres not ONE credible source out there that knows exactly how many the regimes killed nor how many the US killed. Theyre all numbers that can be made up to better suit their story (propaganda even if you will)!
"Let me state it again: China attacked Taibet, killed Tibetans bullies Taiwan, attacked Vietnam, invaded the south seas, hacks the US, steals technologies, backed NK regimes, disturbs the Indian seas, sold weapons to Burma to kill muslims, harvest organs.... yea China did nothing wrong they said
China attacked Tibet? Or did foreign invaders like Japan and Europe invaded China and destabilised China and its control over its outer borders? Tibet was part of China longer than USA was even a country.
Bullies Taiwan? You mean Republic of China right? The civil war between PRC and ROC never officially ended. You can almost jokingly say theyre showing their political enemy compassion by not completely annihilating them.
Attacked Vietnam? Yeh they also helped Vietnam, something people never really mention.
Invaded the South Seas? The Chinese laid claims on the SCS before internation law of the seas even existed. If youre gonna call out China for "invading the south seas" before internation laws even existed, then you should also call out the Americans for invading America...
Hacks the US, steals technologies? When Whites steal its okay, when China does its not okay? Throughout history who stole from who more?!
Backed NK regimes? Absolutely nothing wrong with backing an "ally" right? Isnt that what the US say all the time to justify aggression?
Disturbs the Indian seas? China is learning from the US. They do it all the time.
Sold weapons to Burma to kill muslims? If Company A sells you a knife, do they worry that you might use it to murder someone? No. Business is business. They could care less what they do with their weapons as long as its sold. Just like the US.
1
-
Ryuseiken Kyokushin 'We talked about China has eyes and ears all companies inside it. Nuke materials are serious and important that China has to control it closely. No way in hell China “has nothing to do with it.”'
Where is your evidence that china sold nuke materials to NK? Link me a credible source. Unless you find us a credible source, what you speak of is propaganda.
"The same lie they said they didnt know anything about the ship that sent oil to NK"
Link me a source that the Chinese GOVERNMENT (you know, the ones you signed the agreement) sold oil to NK. People and Businesses are different to the government.
If the CCP is so powerful that it has eyes and ears in EVERY SINGLE company, then why does corruption still exist in China? Corruption is illegal there. Shouldnt they have eyes and ears everywhere within the government too? They should know 100% of whats happening right? Lemme give you a hint, "eyes and ears" arent perfect. Its not absolute. Nothing is.
"So, finally You ADMIT that china hacked and stole the US technologies. Take you long enough"
Read carefully , since when did I say anything saying they didnt? I said there are US spies in China too. How did you know it was China that did it first?
'About the part “US does it all the time throughout history” is crap. What did the US steal from China again?'
READ CAREFULLY . I referred specifically to Whites. Not countries. Governments can change. Race does not. The Whites, namely western Europeans, the ones that invaded pretty much the whole world, are the ones that committed the biggest crimes in human history. They were the ones that invaded, raped, murder and stole from more than half the world, 30x the landmass of their own homeland. 30 fucking times the size of their own countries combined! Tell me that the Whites didnt steal again. And they didnt even give it back..
"You also ADMIT that China backed NK, too. Took it long enough for you to have some dignity. Yeah right! They backed NK by selling them nuke materials and violate the agreement"
Your choice of words make you sound extremely uneducated. Especially from someone frowning upon wikipedia. I did not "admit" to anything. Its got nothing to do with me.
Again, READ CAREFULLY . Can you not comprehend English? I never said China didnt back NK. Also, no credible source that China sold nuke materials to NK is propaganda. You can go spread your propaganda somewhere else.
"Man you bit your own tail by arguing China didnt sell nuke materials to NK but also admitting they did back NK. You are funny"
Wheres your logic? You can have your brothers back, but that doesnt mean you have to give him nukes. "Logic! Use it!"
The US backed many countries including dictators, does that mean the US sell them nukes too? Idiot.
"China disturbs the Indian is true , and they pissed off India. “US does that all the time?” Really? Last time I checked, the US never disturbed Indian Seas"
Is this how you graduated? Your comprehension skills are atrocious. For the last time, READ CAREFULLY . “US does that all the time" refers to the act that US disturbs countries and regions all the time.
"Since when Taiwan is a part of China? Taiwan is never a part of China. You shamelessly claim Taiwan the same way China claimed it and the south seas"
Since when was it not part of China? Taiwan was part of Qing China, then Japan, then back to China. Since Republic of CHINA was the ruling CHINESE state of CHINA then, ROCHINA had administration over Taiwan. ROC China is the successor of Qing China. So dont "shamelessly claim Taiwan" and "Taiwan is never a part of China" me.
"The question is: what evidence did china have to claim those? Oh, none!! That’s right! That is why they lost in the international court- no evidence"
Your response is uneducated as ever. Always needing me to correct you. China didnt have "no" evidence at court. They just didnt have substantial evidence at the time to satisfy the international tribunal.
But heres something for you to look at since you believe there was none:
https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-does-China-offer-to-substantiate-its-claims-of-sovereignty-in-the-South-China-Sea
"Oh no! China didnt back vietnam. They back the communist Ho Chi Minh to use him as the puppet to beat the southern vietnam"
Communist Vietnam is current Vietnam...
"Need I remind you that China has been attacking Vietnam since ancient time?"
Chinese kingdoms had been attacking Chinese kingdoms since ancient times. Viet and Vietnam (Southern Viet) was no exception. Infact ancient Vietnam was in and part of modern day southern China. They were part of the many kingdoms in the current day "Chinese" area.
"Even now they still claim vietnamese islands. Oh do they have evidence? Zero!"
Vietnam islands? Do the Vietnamese have evidence that the Paracel islands are theirs? You somehow acknowledge that with ZERO evidence that the Paracel islands belong to Vietnam? I thought you were all about evidence.
Whos biting their own tail now hmm?
"Since when Taibet is a part of China again? Oh when the communist party of china came in with guns. Yea, a part of China..."
I think you need to learn some history before arguing over things you dont even know. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, Tibet (not Taibet) was part of Qing China for longer than USA was even a country. China only temporarily lost control of its outer borders due to foreign invasions from the Japs and the Whites I spoke of earlier.
"So, again let me state some facts here again:"
And again, let me state some facts here again:
"China invaded Taibet and killed many in the process"
Whites invaded the world and killed many in the process (why didnt you mention that?)
"Back the NK regime and violated the sanction agreement"
The US backed the SK regime when it was under brutal dictatorship. And still backs 70% of the worlds dictatorship.
"Hacked, spied, and stole technologies from other countries"
Invaded, raped, murder and stole land from other countries.
"Invaded others’ territories( south seas, taibet, vietnam) China bullies Taiwan by threatening them with bombs"
Invaded, raped, murder, stole and overthrew governments.
"Top general of Zimbawe went to china a few days before starting a coup... i will leave that to you to draw conclusion whether China meddled with foreign affairs"
USA supported assassination and coup of then president in South Vietnam 1963. And thats just one of the MANY countries the US meddled with.
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why just point fingers at 1 country. When the country youre defending is even worst when you count all the wars, invasions and countrys the US has meddled with all these years?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ryuseiken Kyokushin Not only cant you read properly, you also like to assume things without any connections. Ive mentioned already, wikipedia is a reference, I never claimed it to be a credible source. Also, with how your brain functions as seen in your statement "I give a statement and let people do the search to clarify it so they will have their own answers", somehow you cant seem to link statements on wikipedia and "search to clarify it so you will have your own answers". Or does it for whatever reason apply to your statements only?
"Your “sources” have been debunked"
You dont even have any source. Even when explicitly asked to provide evidence to your propaganda. All opinions based on selective information. Your claims are void by default.
"China has been invading territories since ancient times and you compared that to little things the whites did? America has only been a few hundred years and you compared that to the amount of bloodshed done by china over thousands of years?"
Really? Just a few hundred years? Guess in your books Americans are the only Whites in this world. Are the Romans not considered White? Did European kingdoms never invade each others territories too? Pfft, just "a few hundred years". Who are you kidding? With that statement, you just provided evidence your brain isnt able to function logically and link ethnicities with one another.
Since you like repeating yourself and copy pasting, allow me to respond in the same manner:
All this coming from someone who cant comprehend English properly and needed me to explicit call you out to "read carefully"; cant even use his brain to think think logically (eg China backs NK, therefore it must supply it nukes); says the Paracel islands are Vietnamese out of nowhere without any sort of evidence; and cant even provide any credible source in his claims and uses the excuse of "I Iet people do the search to clarify it so they will have their own answers"; oh and now thinks Americans are the only Whites in this world.
Your "facts" have been answered.
The next fact I give you trumps all the "facts" you have given me.
The Whites have committed the worst crime in human history by invading, raping, murdering, stealing and enslaving the all the countries theyve touched while reaping all the benefits like kings. Thats 30x the landmass of their own countries. Whats little Tibet compared to the invasion of the rest of the world? Its ridiculous if your brain cant even compare level of atrocities committed.
The Japs are right behind them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@geoffreyk9164 "This post is flagged as false"
You can stop your robotic nonsense now. What in my last comment is "false"?
Moreover, since you claim you are "authorised", then youre a "professional" in your line of work, meaning you had a duty to be "correct". In Youtubes platform, you cant flag anyone for something thats "false". Only "Unwanted commercial content or spam, Pornography or sexually explicit material, Child abuse, Hate speech or graphic violence, or Harassment or bullying".
NOWHERE you can report for an alleged "false" post. The fact that youve stated that you can "flag" my comment as "false" is false in itself. You lied. Ill say it again, you can fool others but you cant fool me.
"There is only one authorized fact checker assigned per video and in this instance it is me"
More copy paste robotic nonsense. There is no vetted nor verified source that can verify your claims. Hence, your claim is false. How do you like that?
"Any “flags” contributed by @Yerris are illegitimate and should be ignored"
Again, you have NO authority to determine that. You and your imaginary authority. You need to get a life.
"There is only one authorized fact checker and only one authorized fact check organization, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC)"
Lies. The Annenberg Public Policy Center in itself is not a "fact check ORGANIZATION" in itself. They do however, have a project dedicated to fact checking. But even so, the task is to "monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by MAJOR U.S. POLITICAL PLAYERS in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases", not comments of common people on the internet. Like I said, you can fool others but you cant fool me.
Moreover, there are MANY authorised fact checking organsations out there. And APPC is NOT one of them.
"Regarding your insistence that I am not understanding you, you are mistaken. As I clearly said, I understand that the report did not draw the conclusion of the July/August estimate. This is your estimate. My point is that there are no verified facts to support this claim. Simply stated, you have misunderstood the report"
More Lies. You did not "simply state" that I "misunderstood the report". You said I "misstated" the findings of the report, when I NEVER stated those estimates were from THAT report. And neither did I "misunderstood" the report. Can one not incorporate findings elsewhere to make a statement?
It is YOU that misread. You need to work on your English before pretending to correct others.
Also, its not "MY" estimate, that is SCIENCES estimate. I merely stated an estimate based off calculations on backtracking transmissiblity of the virus by its R0. R0 is already known, its a matter of mathematics in determining the numbers, and mathematics is NOT "false" nor "misleading". Me stating legitimate estimates outside of the report is also NOT "false" nor "misleading". Bringing in science is into a scientific topic is NOT "misleading".
Your comment itself is misleading.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bianshij8280 I provided no facts?
Fact #1: I said that China allows Google, facebook, twitter etc to operate within China as long as they follow Chinas laws and regulations.
You then accuse me of playing the "victim card" when Im not even associated with thim. I merely provided facts that they can infact do business in China as long as they abide by the law.
Fact #2 Theres absolutely no evidence at all in this world that Huawei has spied on anyone.
Fact #3 Only evidence of US spying on its allies and the world.
Fact #4 Company ABC is to obey laws of country XYZ INSIDE country XYZ. Company ABC has no obligations to obey country XYZ laws OUTSIDE of country XYZ.
Fact # 5 Theyre [Huawei] a wholly employee owned company mind you
Fact # 6 You can use Google, Facebook, Twitter in China. With a VPN. LEGALLY as well.
Who insulted who first?
You insulted me by saying Im playing the victim card when I was merely explaining ANOTHER countrys situation.
Now you insulted me by saying Im lying and assume I think other people know nothing about China. There is no Chinese law that prohibits the use of VPN for individual use. If you would like to prove me wrong then be my guest, find me that Chinese law.
You accused me of playing the "victim card" and "lying" but you cant accept an objective criticism that your comments were biased and narrow minded? And considered that an attack? Has anyone ever told you youre a hypocrite?
I believe the quote you have given me perfectly describes you: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in other people's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
And EVEN if I "attacked" you first, 2 wrongs dont make a right. But I didnt. You started attacking me first.
"you are benefiting from a foreign system which give you the freedom you can never get from your own country, and you are making use of this freedom trying to attack this system, so we know what you are and why you are here, you are the snake that bites it's own host, you are totally worthless and harmful to our society."
Now you assert that I am Chinese? How dare you.
So you know what I am and why I am here? Tell me about it. Who am I and why I am where?
I am the snake that bites its own host? I am living and breathing in my own country. Tell me about this "host" of mine? You seem to know where I live more than I do myself.
"you are totally worthless and harmful to our society"
The words you speak truly do reflect who you really are. Allow me to impart your words of wisedom right back at you: "I clearly know what kind of person you are and why you are here, because your behavior just remind everyone the government you represented. you should feel shameful on youself"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BeachMongoose "as in, all scientists that produce results that support the global warming hype. Finish the point I was making, don't get it twisted with inconclusions"
Inconclusions ARE part of the results. It means they concluded that there is not enough information to give a definitive answer.
"Of course, The Pause didn't happen now. It doesn't fit the political narrative, huh? Nothing to see here. I'm sure it's been scrubbed just as well. Unbelievable..."
Facts dont care about opinions. Science is not "political". Nor does it have any "narrative". Its all about data.
And its only a matter of time when we have more data that we can get a clearer picture to formulate a more precise conclusion. 18 years on a grand scale of things is nothing when we are observing a period for hundreds of years. And even in those 18 years if you bothered looking into the data, it was a slow down, not a "pause". It wasnt averaging 0°C degree growth, it was averaging over a 0.2°C degree growth. Growth is still a growth. And although that doesnt sound like much, 1.5°C is the danger zone. Those 18 years of "pause" you speak of encroached over 10% of the danger zone scientists say. You still call that a "pause"? This aint about no "political narrative". Its hard science.
"I mentioned man-made because it's part of the agenda. Politicize a natural occurring event, climate that changes everyday"
You ONLY mentioned "man-made" in your recent comments. Your earlier comments only spoke about global warming in general.
And there is sufficient evidence that greenhouse gases does in fact increase temperature in the atmosphere. It might not be the "cause" of global warming, but it is indeed a factor that accelerates this global warming process. So not sure why youre so against the science of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"when present day China under 'President' Xi claims something different from Chairman Mao, it matters IN China because Mao isn't the leader anymore, Xi is"
We are talking about MAPS here. Thats what I specifically said, context doesnt matter when it comes to MAPS, because maps are claims of the COUNTRY, not a person.
"Once again you're very confused. Look up: "Territorial changes of the People's Republic of China" In about 95% of instances they GAINED territory from the neighboring country. Not lost, gained. If you don't understand that word, gained means their national borders expanded and we can even list the exact kilometers gained"
Lol I find it funny how you call me confused when its YOU thats confused. When there is disputed territory for example, both China and Country X claims say 100% of Territory Y. And when agreement is reached, China say gets 70% of Territory Y, and Country X gets 30% of Territory Y. From Chinas POV, China did not "gain" any territory, but rather LOST territory from their INITIAL claims of what they inherited from their previous government. Replicate this scenario for all other border disputes. So my point still stands. Every single dispute settlement means lost territory from what they INITIALLY INHERITED.
Oh and wikipedia is NOT a credible source of information. Literally anyone can edit, thus can alter the language to be bias in their favour, and omitting information thats not in their favour.
"False. They literally were one of the last, not first... Philippines had claimed those islands on maps 300 years before the PRC existed"
Wrong. Time and time again people keep make that wrong assertion just because a SHOAL (not islandS) was in the Verlarde map, doesnt mean it "belonged" the the Spanish/PH. Just like Borneo was on that very same map, but was Borneo ever part of Spain/PH? No!
Maps are maps, they include everything in it, including neighbouring countries and anything in between. Im 100% certain that PH did NOT claim ANY islands in the SCS as their sovereign territory, because when the Spain transferred sovereign of PH to the US, the treaty DID NOT include ANYTHING in the SCS. Likewise, when the US transferred sovereignty over to the PH, again, the treaty DID NOT include ANYTHING in the SCS to the PH. Its set in stone that PH DOES NOT have sovereignty over ANYTHING in the SCS, whether itd be a rock, shoal, reef, island etc. Thats facts! They only started making sovereign claims in the 1970s after oil was found. Thats over 3 decades after Chinas (PRC) claims.
"Vietnam (Dai Nam) historically controlled many of these islands since the 1600s"
Dai Nam? You should only talk about things you know about. Theres no such thing as "Dai Nam". Theres only Dai Viet.
So you mean on a grand scale of Vietnams 2000 years history, where over 1000 years they were part of China, that they managed to control a couple islands for a few years?
Wow. Thats such a big point youre making! Why not mention that when they were under Chinas rule for those thousand years, the islands were under Chinas rule? Because youre biased. Thats why.
1
-
"Then British were the first to "legally" claim them, followed by France, followed by Japan, followed by Japan actually taking them. Then Japan surrendered those "French" islands to the ROC (Taiwan), which was disputed by France"
This "legally" claimed business is a Western concept. It does not apply to non-Western countries at that time when there was no global standard for making sovereign claims. So even if they were the first to "legally" claim it, doesnt mean they were actually the first to claim it.
And France didnt claim ANY of the islands till Japan invaded China, when China was at their weakest and took advantage of that. And the French was in Asia for almost a century then. That already tells you they recognise it as Chinas and was waiting for an opportunity. And right after France invaded the islands, Japan invaded those islands not long after declaring war with China, again, because they recognise it was Chinas.
"Both Vietnam and the PRC claimed those islands at the same time (8 September 1951) with the formal peace treaty with Japan"
Wrong. Vietnam was split. Only South Vietnam had those claims as they inherited their claims from the French (but it was not the Frenchs anyways as Japan already took it). But why you speaking about a losing team? How come you didnt mention North Vietnams position? You know, the Vietnam that won the Vietnam war?
In 1956, North Vietnam formally recognised the Paracel and Spratly islands were Chinese, and in 1958 they wrote a letter to China stating they acknowledge and respect Chinas claims over the islands in the SCS. That sealed the deal already.
So we had Japan that knew it was Chinas (thats why they invaded). French that knew it was Chinas (thats also why they waited for an opportunity to invade when China was occupied with Japan). And the winning Communist Vietnam formally recognised Chinas claim over the Paracel and Spratlys). Thats 3 major players that recognise the islands were Chinas.
"Then the Philippines (formally), Malaysia, and others claimed specific areas later. Many countries have much more and longer precedent than China. China was one of the last to claim them"
Wrong. China was actually the first to even document the existence of them. No other civilisation on this planet documented things (esp history) more than the Chinese. Theyre all in another language, not English, thats why you dont know about them.
Ever since the Jin Dynasty (265-420) it was recorded that they exercised jurisdiction over the islands by sending patrol boats. Same goes for various Dynasties afterwards, but we talking about "earliest" here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daelosus "when present day China under 'President' Xi claims something different from Chairman Mao, it matters IN China because Mao isn't the leader anymore, Xi is"
We are talking about MAPS here. Thats what I specifically said, context doesnt matter when it comes to MAPS, because maps are claims of the COUNTRY, not a person.
"Once again you're very confused. Look up: "Territorial changes of the People's Republic of China" In about 95% of instances they GAINED territory from the neighboring country. Not lost, gained. If you don't understand that word, gained means their national borders expanded and we can even list the exact kilometers gained"
Lol I find it funny how you call me confused when its YOU thats confused. When there is disputed territory for example, both China and Country X claims say 100% of Territory Y. And when agreement is reached, China say gets 70% of Territory Y, and Country X gets 30% of Territory Y. From Chinas POV, China did not "gain" any territory, but rather LOST territory from their INITIAL claims of what they inherited from their previous government. Replicate this scenario for all other border disputes. So my point still stands. Every single dispute settlement means lost territory from what they INITIALLY INHERITED.
Oh and wikipedia is NOT a credible source of information. Literally anyone can edit, thus can alter the language to be bias in their favour, and omitting information thats not in their favour.
"False. They literally were one of the last, not first... Philippines had claimed those islands on maps 300 years before the PRC existed"
Wrong. Time and time again people keep make that wrong assertion just because a SHOAL (not islandS) was in the Verlarde map, doesnt mean it "belonged" the the Spanish/PH. Just like Borneo was on that very same map, but was Borneo ever part of Spain/PH? No!
Maps are maps, they include everything in it, including neighbouring countries and anything in between. Im 100% certain that PH did NOT claim ANY islands in the SCS as their sovereign territory, because when the Spain transferred sovereign of PH to the US, the treaty DID NOT include ANYTHING in the SCS. Likewise, when the US transferred sovereignty over to the PH, again, the treaty DID NOT include ANYTHING in the SCS to the PH. Its set in stone that PH DOES NOT have sovereignty over ANYTHING in the SCS, whether itd be a rock, shoal, reef, island etc. Thats facts! They only started making sovereign claims in the 1970s after oil was found. Thats over 3 decades after Chinas (PRC) claims.
"Vietnam (Dai Nam) historically controlled many of these islands since the 1600s"
Dai Nam? You should only talk about things you know about. Theres no such thing as "Dai Nam". Theres only Dai Viet.
So you mean on a grand scale of Vietnams 2000 years history, where over 1000 years they were part of China, that they managed to control a couple islands for a few years?
Wow. Thats such a big point youre making! Why not mention that when they were under Chinas rule for those thousand years, the islands were under Chinas rule? Because youre biased. Thats why.
1
-
1
-
@daelosus "Repeating that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous and every country in the world will disagree with you on that"
If you find myself repeating something, thats because Im addressing something that YOU repeated yourself. Ill give the same response to the same false assertions youve made.
And every country? You do realise that the world is not just the West and its allies right? Even the Wests allies might not even agree with you on that. You need to recheck your definition on what "every" means, especially when its just a fraction of the world.
"Including China… By that precedent, no present-day countries should exist"
Because I said maps are claims of the country? And not a person? Youre not making any sense.
"Additionally, when I say every country, I mean..."
Well youre wrong. But you are entitled to your opinions.
"Consequently, it is only present claims that matter, not some infinite variation of past claims by past leaders"
Wrong. Countries are bounded by their constitution, not their "leaders", even their "leaders" must follow it. And it doesnt matter what the "people" alive "think". If the the people alive truly believe in something thats different to their constitution, then they should change it! But before then, the current constitution still stands. And thats the basis of every country on this planet, not a "leader".
"Same analogy is when the FORMER President Medvedev claims Russia will build an empire from ‘Lisbon to Vladivostok.’ Though really, even if Putin claimed it, it would still be a joke"
Its a joke that you dont get it. Like I said, a persons word is not necessarily the countrys words. Only when Russia as a country make those claims, and acts on those claims (like draw a map), then its the countrys claim. Words mean nothing if theres no action behind it.
"The next issue you’re still confusing is what territory means. Territory means it is currently under the control of a country"
No, YOURE confused. There are many piece of territories in this world that are not under the control of their respective countries. Like the Amazon rainforest of South America, Sentinel Island of India, etc.
"So in almost every case China used its claims to EXPAND its actual borders(territory), by force or treaty. They gained territory, not lost; very common tactic for expansionist countries"
Wrong. Qing China actually had control over those territories. Then when they collapse, a treaty was signed to transfer all their sovereign to ROC. Anyone thats "actually" controlling those places that ROC inherited but doesnt have control over is doing so illegally as theres no treaty signed. There was literally ZERO expansion, as the territory were legally inherited from their predecessor.
"Vietnam’s government (present-day) references maps of Dai Nam in their official justification, comparing how the Chinese maps were not showing the same islands that they claim today"
Ahh yes, let a third party decide how anothers territory is not theirs. Sounds legit. Especially when accuracy of maps werent exactly the best prior to the 20th century..
"What were China’s borders during the Jin Dynasty. Wait China didn’t exist and there were like 7 different kingdoms/countries overlapping China’s present-day borders. Uh oh! And you claim I’m biased… Try some introspection"
Why cant they be ALL part of China? These are facts. Theyre a Chinese kingdom. Its not a bias.
"So yes, I’m biased towards equality and overlapping EEZs meaning all countries in that region can use that ocean which is how it has always worked up to this day (hint: no one actually cares about the desert islands)"
Wrong. All countries in the region can sail the sea (not ocean for the 2nd time). They only cant venture within 12NM from any islands as thats considered territorial waters. Also, its actually the islands that everyone cares about, so youre wrong there as well. Islands help solidify their claims over resources in the area, and acts as a outlying military post.
"China is the one country trying to change that; you’re the one who is based. Try not being biased for a change"
Wrong. China was the first modern country in the region to lay claims to the islands in the 1940s. Thats not a bias, thats a fact. Its Vietnam, PH and the likes trying to change things by claiming the islands as theirs in the 1970s, 3 decades after China. PH as mentioned earlier, their treaty has no sovereignty over the islands whatsoever. North Vietnam recognised the islands as part of China in the 1950s, then backtracked on their recognition after winning the war in the 1970s.
And youre telling me that China is the one trying to change that when history tells us otherwise? THATS a bias right there. An unreasonable one at that.
"There’s not much I want more than for China to become a thriving democratic country. That is to say, I’m biased towards freedom and human wellbeing"
Youve been brainwashed by this "democratic" nonsense. Its an illusion. Its just an elaborate sham to vote for who screws you up instead. Havent you seen the Princeton University study on the question "does the government represent the people" aka democracy? It shows that in "democratic" countries, corruption is legalised, to the point that the government does not actually represent the people. This YT video does a good job explaining it: ( /watch?v=srfeHpQNEAI )
And "freedom" is subjective. Whats considered "freedom" to you might not be "freedom" for another. Like some might say universal health care is "freedom", and safety for women to walk down the street at 2am without needing to look over ones shoulder is "freedom". A type of "freedom" the US doesnt have.
Whats important is accountability, justice, transparency, advancement, and to be able to have your voice heard for changes. Doesnt matter what system of governance as long the above can be attained.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patmos09 "Genetic arguments are problematic as over such long periods they inevitably flow and shift. What is important is the residual CULTURE of such invasions"
Thats not my point. For the most part of your response, you are talking about something else. My point is that White people are the only race to invade literally every single continent in this world.
Then you quoted me out of context without bringing up the invasion of the WHOLE world part.
Whites still continue to hold power on land that theyre not native to.
Whereas for North Africa, the people that are governed by their OWN people. Big difference there.
As for culture, although culture can be instilled, it can also be chosen. It just takes time. The fact that North Africa is still majority Muslim, it means its the will of the people there.
"The vast majority of colonized British countries maintained non-angalo populations"
Theres 2 types of British colonies. 1 for exploiting resources, the other for settling their own kind. US/CA/AUS/CA/NZ is part of the 2nd one. You say a lot of things that dont counter anything I have to say. Not sure why youre bring these points up...Youre opening new topics...lets stay on topic shall we?
"Australia is made up on about half the population being post-federation immigrants, not British convicts or settler descendants. Does that make Australia a non colonial country?"
Theyre still White. The earlier Whites paved way for newer Whites to spread their tentacles. My point still stands.
"What i ask is that you do the same when you talk about colonialism. The descendants of colonialism are just trying to live their loves, just like everyone else"
If I stole your property, transferred ownership to my descendants, then died. Lets say this all happened within a year. Whos land/property is it? Is it yours or is it my descendants?
You argument is that my descendants should live their lives in YOUR stolen property...
"despite its many failings and atrocities, the west has brought about the biggest emancipation of women and minorities, religious, social and political freedoms, and the highest education, health and life expectancy in human history"
The "West" did not bring about such a thing. STABILITY, RESOURCES and POWER did. ANY country that had power, rich in resources and had stability would have brought about most of the points you raised. Just give them what the "West" had for 200 years. I bet you they can achieve what you have listed above.
Western culture is not "new". For the most part, women was suppressed, minorities were cleansed, and religion was absolute. Its only when they had so much power, resources and stability that society evolved and people started to enjoy the high standards of life they enjoy today.
"Ask the people of Hong Kong how they feel about British colonialism, the answer may surprise you"
A better question would be, ask the people of Hong Kong THAT WERE STILL ALIVE that question. I believe THAT answer will surprise you.
1
-
@patmos09 "Race is a construct, what about this is so hard to understand? It's a fluid, shifting pattern of genetic traits manifesting in distinct, usually fairly incidental aesthetic differences"
Again, youre missing the point. No matter how you want to pivot this conversation, it still doesnt change the fact that Whites invaded and pillaged the world. Ill throw your words right back at you, "what about this is so hard to understand"?
By avoiding this point you are literally justifying their actions...
"I absolutely reject your assertion that the enlightenment and its residual effects are solely the result of resources and power, demonstrated easily by the fact that MY OWN ANCESTORS (Greeks and Egyptians) had civilizations spanning thousands of years and each ruled their respective known worlds of the time"
Greek and Egyptian empires although existed, they did not have stability. There was constant wars raging on. Territories were constantly changing. When your own countrys resources are spent on military, there is no room for society to evolve in same manner like the British did. They had external resources flooding in like no tomorrow.
And when were talking about resources, power and stability, we talk about the STATE, ie, the country, not "civilisation". And that again is another topic.
"An ideology...was critical in motivating the great, intrinsically philanthropic and sympathetic identity of the west"
Youre forgetting about something called stability. Stability and resources are the critical factors here. It allowed education for the mass, which then enabled the country to utilise their minds to a level where "ideologies" can even be thought of, instead of just thinking about how to survive.
"I will not sit here and have you suggest that the west is anything other than a marvel"
Invading the world and enslaving natives to extract resources for your own development is indeed a "marvel".
"100,000 years of human civilization and only in the last 2-300 have we had something approaching this miracle"
Indeed a miracle. 100,000 years of human civilisation and only in the last 2-300 have we had people invade the entire world for their own benefit and development. Only when they develop themselves can they "liberate" others with their own culture right?
"I honestly find it hilarious and insane that you trumpet so loudly that the British empire expunged dissent to the point where modern self determinism of British colonies is somehow invalid (Hong Kong)"
Youre going off topic again. I never spoke about self determination...But if you must, HK is part of China. What they do to their OWN people in their OWN territory is none of our business.
"but trumpet that North African Muslim determinism is wholly legitimate and not a product of the same inevitable process of imperialism"
I trumpet that North African Muslim determinism is wholly legitimate?
Dont put words in my mouth. I said the fact that it still exists after some time means its the will of the people there. I also said culture can also be chosen, it just takes time.
'How about you apply your silly "STILL ALIVE" question to them, because i assure you the varios Islamic conquests in the region were just as violent'
NO WHERE did I justify such actions. You seem to have trouble reading.
"The reality is that the reason we talk so much about western colonialism and its crimes is because the modern WEST is the most open, self critical and self reflective civilization in history"
Thats partially the reason. Another part being that they have colonised the MOST countries in this world, especially in "modern" times. Another reason being that most of the records are in English, so naturally as English speakers we learn about English speaking countries and their history more.
"It's easy to shit on western colonialism because the west is the first civilization in history to properly acknowledge and reflect on its failings"
No. They get shit on the most because they colonised the most. Plain and simple.
"If you believe every historical atrocity deserved contemporary reparations then we will need to be paying each other back and forth till the end of time"
If the said groups want reparations and can be calculated, then yes it should given to them. A net reparations is suffice, no need to go "back and forth till the end of time".
"Do half- Native Americans owe full-native Americans repayment?"
Now we are talking. Thats up for negotiations between the said groups. Not up to me to decide. But a step forward is a step forward. And Im all for that.
'When we say "let them live thier life, we are talking about being productive with the populations we have now- trying to use historical atrocity as social engineering is insane and unproductive'
Insane? You know whats insane? Me stealing your property, then handing it to my descendants after I die without reparations to the original owners. THATS insane.
Or is stealing and reparations "unproductive" to you?
"I should add that cultural genocide is every bit as terrible as actual genocide"
Theres obviously a difference, and that one is obviously worse than the other.
If a gun was held at someones head and was asked if theyd rather die or lose their culture, what do you think their answer would be?
You keep bringing up these flawed opinions up out of no where...Its got nothing to do with the points Ive raised.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@riiiby3050 "Well, in the very essence of the EEZ, shows that china does not have legal jurisdiction in the area as it is not within the 200 nautical miles of China"
China claims sovereignty over the islands. That means theyre 0NM from China. If my maths is correct, 0 is within 200.
Moreover, sovereignty trumps a mere "economic zone" any day.
"Thus, all of the radio challenges stating that they own the place shows that they are in complete disregard in the convention. Seen in part V article 60..."
Be specific, what radio challenges stating they own what place? Moreover, owning something does not mean they're interfering with "recognised sea lane". Ships dont navigate so close to islands/reefs/shoals. They can so easily defend that, this is basically a mute point.
"Construction of military outposts, use of militia vessels, and rejection of entry for humanitarian aid (Philippine RoRe) are these your “normal,” “lawful,” “reasonable,” and “justifiable” mentioned when the islands were being developed where multiple states were clearly against?"
What "humanitarian aid"? PH deliberately placed themselves in that situation and refused to leave that place. I bet you anything if they wished to leave that place, China would be more than happy to help them leave. But no. It was a deliberate attempt to victimise themselves. Another mute point.
In fact, the action of deliberately crashing the ship onto Chinas sovereign territory in itself would violate Article 19 2(a), (d), and (g).
And yes, defending your sovereignty territory is normal, lawful, reasonable and justifiable. They asked them to leave, they refused to leave. I would argue its PHs actions are the ones thats not “normal,” “lawful,” “reasonable,” and “justifiable”. PH does not have sovereignty over the territory after all. You think deliberately crashing a ship on another countrys sovereign territory (that China claimed 3 decades before them) is “normal,” “lawful,” “reasonable,” and “justifiable”?
"To top on that the very construction of the artificial islands are against it as they have no right to the features as they are more than 400 NM away from the said features"
What 400NM? Its 0NM as mentioned earlier. China is the first modern country in the region to make sovereign claims over the islands/reefs/shoals, so its theirs. They have every right to. Its others that are infringing upon Chinas sovereign territory.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Harthorn 'Well, this isn't a 2 party contest, it is 3 party. So having highest vote count in 3 party contest isn't "majority", because of using 2 party contest" definition of "majority"...The definition of majority is that the greatest amount of people voting one entity. Whether split into 2, 3, 4, 5 etc, the greatest amount of votes, is "majority"'
Wrong. This has nothing to do with the number of parties but the phrasing of the sentence. OP said "Lai is elected by majority of Taiwanese". That is an incorrect statement as the majority of Taiwan did NOT vote for Lai.
And when the word "majority" is used without any prior wording, it means over half of the total.
The specific example you gave with your specific wordings refers to plurality, or "relative majority". The word "relative" MUST be used, otherwise "majority" means over 50%. Thats English for you. Dont argue with me about it. Argue with whoever invented the language.
"So, if there is a affirmation, there is always an inverse*, in order for a "term" / "definition" to make sense right? So if DDP didn't win by majority, then who is majority? And who is minority?...Are you able to answer these questions?"
Great question. Of course I can. The majority (60%) of Taiwan did NOT vote for DPP. That is the correct phrasing of the sentence I was originally refuting. And because there are no votes that got over 50%, then theyre are no majority votes. Simple as that.
"As they are all separate entities. Do you intend to label the other 2 parties as a single entity to affirm your statement, even when the 2 parties are not a single entity, to prove your point? That becomes opinion, not fact, as if KMT and White Party joined hands as one Party, sure, then that would be true. But, they didn't, and couldn't"
Wrong again, I noticed youve been shifting goal posts this whole time. Lets look back at what I was originally refuting. OP said "Lai is elected by majority of Taiwanese". EVEN IF (with a huge emphasis on EVEN IF), even if YOU wanted to talk about plurality (or RELATIVE majority in a voting system), the OP was NOT.
The specific wording he used is "majority of Taiwanese", that is incorrect. The majority of Taiwanese (60%) did NOT vote for Lai. Simple as that. We are talking about Taiwanese here, not parties. So you can forget about playing mental gymnastics with me. Thats not what the OP was talking about. So Ill say your words right back at you 'nice schematic word games. Might make some low IQ confused. But, to me, you are the thick headed one trying to "sneak replace concepts and definitions to assert a personal opinion you hold. Yea, no worries, I see this quite often, human nature'.
Sometimes you have to look in the mirror before pointing fingers at others. Youre now proven to be a hypocrite.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HistoryScope Where was the "rich and educated" part stated?
Moreover a few more points Id like to add:
5:43 "Japans education in TW mainly had to do with science. So when the Japanese left, there was nobody left who knew anything about politics"? What does having a science education have anything to do with politics?
6:07 So youre telling me they shipped fully installed machinery back to Japan after WW2? And Im pretty sure after WW2 TW was richer than before WW2 as the ruling Nationalist government of China then took all then wealth/gold/assets of the whole China to the tiny island. And without Japanese doctors they couldnt run vital medical services? Whats that suppose to mean? After Japan left there was a huge influx of doctors from China. Till this day, TW still heavily practices traditional Chinese medicine.
6:31 They didnt "lose" the civil war. The civil war never really ended. The situation is officially a ceasefire. And "TW becoming the Republic of China" is incorrect. The island was already part of ROC in 1945. TW is part of ROC, not is or "became" ROC.
6:59 No. They, ROChina, not TW (lets not be politically ignorant on a political topic), was already "allied" with the US. They were allied during WW2 to fight against Japan.
7:09 TW at this stage had a lot of money already. They took whatever they could take from the whole mainland China to the tiny island of TW. The whole national treasury of China was in their hands, as they were the official government of China then so they had access to everything. Thats why all of Chinas most important relic and treasures are in TWs museums.
7:20 Half correct. As this point is a about military strength, they had better technology because they literally brought the whole country of Chinas military tech from mainland China to TW. To the extent that they literally left the communist with literally no navy to even cross the sea.
12:53 Again, they didnt "lose" the civil war". Its still officially ongoing. No peace treaty nor armistice was ever signed. And the 1.5mil people were primarily militants and those already with wealth thats why they fled the communist as the communist were taking away their pot of gold.
22:04 / 23:22 / 29:00 / 36:57 TW isnt an "independent country". Theyre dependent on ROC, and ROC claims to be the country called China, not "TW". TW is just a part of ROC. Its in their constitution. You even mentioned a civil war. Civil war means war within the *same country*. So how did they become "another country"? The whole world recognises TW as part of China. Even the ROC government even recognises that themselves. Again, its in their very own constitution. If they themselves dont even consider TW a "country", who are you or anyone to say that they are?
24:21 No. For most of TW, they were under dictatorship. Period. They didnt even had elections so how are their "elections" rigged?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeanmiyu6904 "That's a typical Chinese propaganda. You shamelessly spread it without touching the key points"
Many people AROUND THE WORLD say so, but somehow to you you decide to cherry pick and say its cHiNeSe pRoPaGaNdA. Your words are literally anti-China propaganda.
And what "key points" am I meant to touch on? I already said Im no scientist. I literally just said they only speak about tritium while ignoring the other isotopes. And that Western media has been completely silent on this issue.
"You, Chinese can't drink tap water without boiling or putting some filter...Barking loudly without checking the facts...Chinese's childish acts never changes since the old days"
Who the fk said Im Chinese? Dont assume. And dont get personal with me by speaking in such a condescending manner. Quote me were I supposedly "barked loudly". Come on, do it! If you cant do it then YOURE the one "barking loudly".
"Remind you, JPN is only a country in Asia in suppying drinking water through taps upon clarification device"
Irrelevant. Also, "clarification" means to make something more understanding. And a "device" is typically small. You are speaking about a massive water treatment system.
Moreover, Japan is one of the most mountainous country by % area that has rain. That means the country can capture a lot of rainwater for its population. Japans water doesnt have to be heavily treated compared to the rest of the world.
"The treated water excluding contaminants is now discharging under the quantity control per day and it continues over 30 yeard, not at once or ASAP"
That only means one thing, its obviously NOT safe thats why they have to discharge it over such a longer time period.
But that doesnt change anything. The worlds ocean will still be contaminated by the same radioactive waste waster after 30 years. Youre just delaying the inevitable.
"You can never tell the causal relationship between Sonoda's death and what he drank the treated water over 10 years ago."
Oh? Then Japan can "prove" to the world again by having their ministers drink the water and monitor their health.
His death was obviously because of the radioactive water. Stop trying to defend this nonsense.
All in all, you can talk about the contaminated water being "purified" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this situation is unprecedented. That has been no comprehensive study on nuclear waste water on the biological or marine environment whatsoever. Literally none. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
Theres only studies that it DOES cause problems.
When there is ZERO evidence to ensure that theres NO problem, then ANY country or organisation saying its "safe" is questionable. Its doubtful, unreliable and unconfirmed. Take it with a grain of salt, not as the ultimate truth.
And Ill say it again, if its so-called "safe" then you should dump in your own country. Use it as farm water or whatever. Bet you wont even dare.
1
-
"That's a typical Chinese propaganda. You shamelessly spread it without touching the key points"
Many people AROUND THE WORLD say so, but somehow to you you decide to cherry pick and say its cHiNeSe pRoPaGaNdA. Your words are literally anti-China propaganda.
And what "key points" am I meant to touch on? I already said Im no scientist. I literally just said they only speak about tritium while ignoring the other isotopes. And that Western media has been completely silent on this issue.
"You, Chinese can't drink tap water without boiling or putting some filter...Barking loudly without checking the facts...Chinese's childish acts never changes since the old days"
Who the fk said Im Chinese? Dont assume. And dont get personal with me by speaking in such a condescending manner. Quote me were I supposedly "barked loudly". Come on, do it! If you cant do it then YOURE the one "barking loudly".
"Remind you, JPN is only a country in Asia in suppying drinking water through taps upon clarification device"
Irrelevant. Also, "clarification" means to make something more understanding. And a "device" is typically small. You are speaking about a massive water treatment system.
Moreover, Japan is one of the most mountainous country by % area that has rain. That means the country can capture a lot of rainwater for its population. Japans water doesnt have to be heavily treated compared to the rest of the world.
"The treated water excluding contaminants is now discharging under the quantity control per day and it continues over 30 yeard, not at once or ASAP"
That only means one thing, its obviously NOT safe thats why they have to discharge it over such a longer time period.
But that doesnt change anything. The worlds ocean will still be contaminated by the same radioactive waste waster after 30 years. Youre just delaying the inevitable.
"You can never tell the causal relationship between Sonoda's death and what he drank the treated water over 10 years ago."
Oh? Then Japan can "prove" to the world again by having their ministers drink the water and monitor their health.
His death was obviously because of the radioactive water. Stop trying to defend this nonsense.
All in all, you can talk about the contaminated water being "purified" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this situation is unprecedented. That has been no comprehensive study on nuclear waste water on the biological or marine environment whatsoever. Literally none. Zip. Zilch. Zero.
Theres only studies that it DOES cause problems.
When there is ZERO evidence to ensure that theres NO problem, then ANY country or organisation saying its "safe" is questionable. Its doubtful, unreliable and unconfirmed. Take it with a grain of salt, not as the ultimate truth.
And Ill say it again, if its so-called "safe" then you should dump in your own country. Use it as farm water or whatever. Bet you wont even dare.
1
-
@abcd124 I tried searching for information on China dumping their nuclear waste water into the ocean, I found nothing on that. If you can link me a credible source that can provide that information that would be great thanks.
And as I said, the report only focuses on tritium, but conveniently ignores carbon-14, potassium-40, strontium-90, iodine-129, cesium etc. Because this situation is unprecedented, theres literally no comprehensive study on these radioactive isotopes that its "safe". Only studies that it DOES cause problems.
When there is ZERO evidence to ensure that theres NO problem, then ANY country or organisation saying its "safe" is questionable. Its doubtful, unreliable and unconfirmed. Take it with a grain of salt, not as the ultimate truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zilun 'Republic of China has "Middle Kingdom"? Was it in names of Qing, Manchu, Han, Tang, Song, Qin, Cao Wei, Shu Han, Eastern Wu, whatever?'
Does ROC not have "middle" and "kingdom/country" in its name?
Also, since youre going to argue that its not in the aforementioned dynasties, let me ask you this. What is "middle kingdom" and when was it first used?
"LOL. Are you sure you aren't going to jail for saying China's President is Tsai Ing-Wen?"
Why would I even go to jail? You honestly think Im from China? I already told you. Im not. Accept that fact and get over it.
"Chinese don't have civil power to elect a president"
Dont use the word "Chinese". Its confusing when youre talking about 2 Chinese states. PRC does have elections, theyre elected by the representatives for the country.
"Chinese live under the leadership of President of China Tsai Ing-Wen elected by people of Taiwan. Ya? Since ROC is China?"
ROC claims to be the country called China. PRC also claims to be the country called China. Both claim to be the same country called China. Get it?
1
-
1
-
@zilun "That statement claimed, we, the people of Taiwan elected Tsai Ing-Wen to be President of China for Chinese because they can't elect their own. True or false? Obviously not true"
No. The statement "we, the people of Taiwan elected Tsai Ing-Wen to be President of China for Chinese" is true for ROC. Whats not true is "because they can't elect their own". Elections do happen in PRC. Just their own version. Most countries on this planet have different voting systems. And none of them is perfect.
"But it would be true if you insist ROC is China"
ROC claims to be China. Its not whether "I" insist or not, its what ROC insists. Its in ROCs constitution.
"The world calls her President of Taiwan"
The world is ignorant. There is no country on this planet called "Taiwan". The day that Taiwan still flys the Nationalist Chinese flag, the day it is still part of China.
"Taiwan is ROC and ROC is Taiwan."
Wrong. Taiwan is PART OF ROC. Read ROCs constitution, it clearly refers to Taiwan as a province of China.
'By PRC's own "logic", mainland China belongs to Mongol, Greece get to claim whatever Alexander the Great conquered...'
ROC lost the civil war. And by international law, PRC is considered a "successor state", whereby it can claim everything its predecessor state once had.
"PRC has claim only on whatever it successfully robbed. If PRC wants Taiwan, come and rob it"
Be careful of what you wished for. If ROC made that statement, PRC would finish Taiwan off right away...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The facts are written in each governments constitution. PRC and ROC BOTH claim to be China. And they BOTH maintain the agreement that Taiwan and the Mainland are part of the same "One China". Thats FACT for you.
"If you think North Korea and South Korea are two separate countries, then you should think Taiwan and China are two separate countries"
Thats because North Korea and South Korea both claim to be different countrys. And legally, you need international recognition to be recognised as a country. Taiwan isnt recognised as a country, its not flying their own flag, dont have their own military, their own currency and own government. Everything theyre using is from Republic of China. ROChinas flag, military, current and government, not "Taiwans".
What is ROC? ROC is a Chinese state founded in China by Chinese people. Taiwan was incorporated into ROC after WW2, and in ROCs constitution it refers to Taiwan as a province of China. I'll say it again, Both ROC and PRC maintain the agreement that Taiwan and the Mainland are part of the same "One China". Thats FACT for you.
1
-
1
-
John Smith 'International recognition? That's a new one from you. I will disagree with you on the need to have specific group of other countries to recognize something for it to be a "country".'
"Facts don't care about your feelings". You can disagree all you want, but the FACT of the matter is, to be considered a country, you need international recognition. If you want to argue, argue with the world governments. I dont make the rules.
"For me and many others, what things practically are is what is important"
Opinions. So much for speaking facts.
"I...will call both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China two separate countries until major events occur that will make them into one flag, government, etc"
ROC and PRC are still in civil war. As far as I know, war between 2 different countries isnt called "civil war".
I'll say it again. Both ROC and PRC maintain the agreement that Taiwan and the Mainland are part of the same "One China". Thats FACT for you. Respect it.
"Yes, I do consider Hong Kong and Macau separate countries, at least until the day they are fully integrated with Mainland China"
"I". "Consider". More opinions.
"I don't think we will have much of an audience anymore".
I dont comment for "audiences". I post to correct people making wrong comments.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@宋庆-i4m "Because I was trying to point out the fact that you actually don't need recognition to be a country"
Actually you do. If no one recognises a state to be a country, then its not a country. Thats just wishful thinking. That is why I said, once those 14 countries cease to recognise ROC as the legitimate government as the country called "China", ROC will cease to exist.
"the only reason why the ROC does not have recognition is the PRC out bribes sorry I mean gives foreign aid to other countries and they force other countries to choose one or the other"
No the only reason is because PRC said if you want to trade with China, then you must choose one or the other. Got nothing to do with foreign aid.
"even if not a single country does not recognize the ROC. The ROC will still exist as long as they are occupying land (Taiwan and the islands off the China mainland) and they have a functional government"
What that means is when that number reaches 0, ROC no longer has legitimacy over the country they claim to be, China. By then, PRC will invade Taiwan for controlling Chinas land illegitimately.
"Just because all your friends in the world say you are dead doesn't mean you are dead"
My block of land is a country, its got my own 2 man military, flag, education system, passport, etc. Just because other countries dont recognise my country doesnt mean its not. Right?
"Look before we get way too off topic here my point is this ROC or Taiwan is already independent from China whether you like it or not"
Independent from PRC, not China. ROC claims to be the legitimate government of China remember? Its fact written very clearly in their constitution whether you like it or not.
"The PRC is the sole legitimate government of China"
Those are PRCs words, nor ROCs words. ROC does NOT recognise PRC as the sole legitimate government of China.
'Would the PRC be cool if Hainan broke off and called themselves "the Communist State of China"'
Thats exactly why ROC is not cool with PRC governing China.
"just because the name of your country does not reflect the territory you control does not mean that territory is not independent"
If youve been reading what I said, then you would understand that I said ROC is independent, "Taiwan" is not...Taiwan is only a mere province of ROC. ROC claims the whole freaking China!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ImGonnaOilYouUp Deflection? Not at all. In order to accuse one of anything, you need evidence, otherwise its all hearsay. So are you speaking nonsense here or you actually have evidence to your claims?
And what pure misinformation? When any unauthorised aircraft or ship is about to enter into another countrys territory theres always a warning that theyre about to enter into their territory and XYZ will happen. If theyre competent enough to detect it that is.
Detected by Canada? It flew past ALASKA before anything. Last time I checked Alaska is part of the US no? Why dont you know this? Incompetence?
Also, heres something from your NORAD commander on the recent events:
'“As NORAD commander, it’s my responsibility to detect threats to North America,” Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, the head of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), told reporters. “I will tell you that we did not detect those threats. And that’s a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out.”
Pentagon officials said Feb. 4 surveillance balloons had entered U.S. airspace at least four times in recent years, during both President Joe Biden’s and President Donald Trump’s administrations. The intelligence community eventually made “us aware of those balloons that were previously approaching North America or transited North America,” according to VanHerck, but NORAD did not know about those cases in real-time, showing a deficiency in protecting American skies.'
So, incompetence yeh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thepunisher2988 "First of all, countries can still request an extradition of a fugitive from a country they lack an extradition treaty with"
First of all, thats irrelevant, because you used the word "request". Anyone can request anything, even I can. But the chances of rejection is sky high. So this point of yours is mute.
"Secondly, a country can and will deport a foreign national if it is in the national interest to do so"
Sure, as long as theyre deemed a threat etc. In this case they will be deported back to their home country. But heres the conflict, what if deporting back would be illegal under their very own laws? Then the law prevails. Which is what the case is here.
"Australia has in fact deported North Koreans in the past despite the possibility of them facing executions"
Please provide a source to that. I cannot find any information where a North Korean is deported, and not "talking" about being deported.
"The judicial system is run by the state itself, and that means the state can break the law as needed with impunity"
Maybe in your country, but not in non-corrupt countries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tokai134 "There is no requirement that a soverign state must be universally recognized to be deemed a country"
Yes there is. Every single country in this world has their own "definition" or "requirement" for what a "country" is. One country may considered XYZ a country, but another does not. Thats why the world standardised that very definition in the UN. So now, for countries to be a "country", they must tick all the boxes on what the UN considers a "country". And these checkboxes are agreed upon by the world.
"ROC has its own jurisdiction, its own currency, its own military, its own law, its own constitution"
Yes, but that still does not tick all the checkboxes for them to be a "country". There are also many people in the US that consider their block of land their own "country". They also have their own jurisdiction, currency, military, law, constitution etc. Theyre obviously not recognised. But are they a "country"?
"Again, the fact that you claim that Palestine is not a country clearly indicates that you don't know what you are talking about"
Theyre not. And my country does not recognise nor consider them a country. And neither does the UN. I know exactly what Im talking about. Remember what I said? Every single country on this planet in this world has their own definition/criteria on what is considered a "country". Just because your country does, does mean it is. It all comes down to the UN.
"Also, on a side note, it would appear that you don't know what the English word "suggest" means"
Oh I know exactly what it means alright. I didnt make a suggestion. I made a statement. A very clear one at that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fedyx1544 "so why on earth would you say that PRC is China de iure, if not to claim that RoC is China de facto? To claim that PRC somehow isn't China de facto? Because I can tell you right away, that is simply wrong"
It was to respond to the guy above. My statement PRC is de jure China itself has got nothing to do with ROC.
Remember, in real world conversations, when we say something is de facto something, its to delineate that its not de jure something. Otherwise literally every single thing on this planet is de facto something. Thatll defeat the purpose of even using the word de facto something in the first place if everything in this world is de facto something. If you dont agree, then we will have to agree to disagree at this point. Theres no need to go around in circles.
"RoC is China only in law and not in practice, exactly for the reasons I mentioned; hence, it perfectly satisfies the condition to be called China de iure. It's not complicated: de iure China, de facto Taiwan. Absolutely no contradiction in any way, shape or form"
Full of contradictions. ROC is China according to whom? Itself? Who recognises ROC as China in this world? If no one recognises them as China, how are they de jure China? No recognition means not legal in this world. Not legal means not de jure. Therefore, ROC is not de jure China.
And what do you even mean by "de facto Taiwan"? Taiwan is the name of the island. ROC is de facto the island? TW is PART OF ROC, not IS ROC. Thats the distinction here. There are many islands ROC controls, not just the island of TW. So ROC cannot be de facto Taiwan here as well as youre equivalating the 2 one and the same.
1
-
@fedyx1544 'What I mean by de iure China is "which country/territory is officially recognized as China/Part of China regardless of what reality is" and the RoC fits that definition to a T'
Regardless of reality? By that definition, my made-up country, Republic of Yerland, is China, as Republic of Yerland claims China as part of its territory. By your definition, is Republic of Yerland also de jure China?
"That's what I mean about the RoC. De iure, they are internationally recognized as having a connection to the mainland or even being a rebellious part of the mainland"
Having a "connection" does not have anything to being de jure or not. If its not internationally recognised, its not internationally legal. If its not legal, its not de jure.
And ROC is not internationally recognised as anything. Theyre internationally non-existent. Countries only work with the island from a business point of view, not a politically point of view - they dont recognise them after all.
"However, de facto they are their own country, the country of Taiwan, which for historical reasons also includes the islands of Matsu, Kinmen and many others"
Incorrect wordings. De facto (in reality) there is no "country" called "Taiwan". People from the island of Matsu, Kinmen etc would wholeheartedly reject that their "country" is called "Taiwan".
Moreover, a "country" is determined by the official government that governs it. If the government of "Taiwan" never claimed to be a "country" called "Taiwan", then theyre not a country called "Taiwan".
KMT which holds 40-50% of the National Assembly seats would never agree to be called such a thing. And they need 75% of the National Assembly to make changes to their "countrys" constitution/name. Thats the "reality".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mongolian_Lhagvasuren "You gave me a bad example about how Outlawing English in American states"
Like I said. Youre confused. I did NOT even remotely suggest that. Theres a difference between "outlawing" and "not using". Outlawing means making the language completely ILLEGAL to even use in everyday life. Moreover, I said "I DONT see other countries like the US, allowing a whole state to not use English to teach their schools", meaning they DONT do it. Stop putting words in my mouth.
"No state In the US is Historically a core part of Spain..."
Irrelevant. Also, I did NOT bring up Spanish speakers into this conversation. YOU did. So I dont know why you keep speaking about Spanish people. Why dont you bring up Hawaiians? They have a greater population percentage in the US than Mongolians in China. AND theyre native to the region.
"The Mongolians have always lived in Inner Mongolia, in their own land...The Spanish speakers don't have their Language outlawed and tried to be destroyed by an Oppressive regime
The Mongolians do"
Also irrelevant. Laws are not tailored for you just because youre native to there. Just look at all the Native Americans (and Hawaiians), Native Australians, Native New Zealanders etc, NONE of the countries of USA, AUS, NZ allow their schools to teach in the language of the NATIVE people there. Which is my point: "I dont see other countries like the US, allowing a whole state to not use English to teach their schools".
"You don't live in Inner Mongolia, you just suck in what the CCP tells you without even thinking 'oh this could be fake'"
Opinions. What did I say that was a fake?
"The CCP could tell you Kazakhstan is a rightful part of China and you wouldn't take it with a grain of salt"
More opinions.
"What's next? Do you think the CCP during WW2 did the most to beat Japan?"
More baseless opinions. Obviously the countrys military with the whole countrys funding backing it would do more compared to mere peasants.
"Get a VPN and search it without the Firewall"
Baseless assumption that I even need a VPN. And this is YT. Go figure.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dominusdone5023 "you did not disprove anything why is biden saying he would defend China from China?"
Can you not read? I said: "its called the Chinese Civil War for a reason. Civil war meaning war within the SAME country...They recognise that Taiwan is part of China, but have yet to reunify due to civil war. They also dont support the means of reunification by force, thats why theyre supplying arms to Taiwan to defend themselves from any use of force".
"you did not refute any point. Instead you thought you did but you didnt"
I did.
You said, "who says" as if youre making some grand point.
And I refuted by saying the president(s) of America says.
Point refuted. Your "point" is now a mute point.
"if someone says something but then does the act opposite then no, they don’t mens what they said"
Again, its not "opposite". And you seem to have trouble reading. Ill repeat it again: "They call it "strategic ambiguity" to avoid legal/diplomatic repercussions and as a bargaining chip in negotiations. But make no mistake, its crystal clear that they recognise that Taiwan is part of China. Its set in stone. Its the bedrock of US-China relations"
Also, the US often says one thing and act the "opposite". Says they will "defend" country X when in fact theyre invading and terrorising them. Says they protect "humans rights" yet violates the very "human rights" they said theyre "protecting". The list goes on. The US is not a saint. Everything they do is in their own interest. Thats why theyre supplying arms to Taiwan. Destabilising regions is what the US does best. Dont you know what the CIA does? Its all part of the plan.
All in all, they dont recognise Taiwan (TW) as a "country". In fact, the government of TW, Republic of CHINA (ROC), was a founding state in the UN. They once represented the country called CHINA in the UN. But since the 1970s, the world shifted recognition of "China", from ROC to PRC. The US recognises this as well. So dont tell me just because they "havent declared it publicly" they dont recognise ROCs not a country because the fact of the matter is, they once DID recognise ROC as a country, but made a public declaration to recognise PRC as the government of China instead, and a public declaration that Taiwan is part of that China. So off with your 'hAvEnT dEcLaReD iT pUbLicLy" nonsense. It IS declared publicly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lemonman1422 ""Inner" Mongolians (who lives in the cities) assimilating into Han Chinese community (because most of the PRC dominated by Han Chinese) and losing their culture becoming more look like Han Chinese (because Inner Mongolians having marriages with Han Chinese too)"
First of all, its the Mongolians CHOICE for choosing to live in the cities. Their culture is nomadic, they live by tents in the plains. If they CHOOSE to live in the city which is built by the Hans, then let them be. Its their CHOICE.
Also, intermarriage is not forced, nor is it one sided. You say that Mongolians look more like Han, but why dont you say Hans there look more Mongolians? Moreover, US/AUS/CA are now not mostly British descendent anymore. British descendent in the US are intermarrying with Germans, Latinos, French, Spanish, etc etc. Do you also feel sad that they no longer look "British"? You are so baised.
"Han Chinese people forcefully changed Manchu people's culture and religion to their culture in and after WW2. Get it ?"
No I dont "get it". Manchurians chose to assimilate. Not forced to. If anything it was the Manchurian Qing Empire that forced everyone in China to shave their front of their head and leave the back long. If they dont, they get beheaded. THAT is called forced. Tell me exactly how Hans forced Manchurians to follow their culture again?
"But "Inner" Mongolians they change their culture to a completely different culture (Han Chinese culture)"
Again, their choice. They are free to practise their culture all they want. If the younger generation lose interest in traditional practices then who are you to say its "not acceptable"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@op-force9937 "I'm not justifying Sir, it's a fact"
First of all, fact or not, the way you answered "Because they are communist, and don't believe in God" in regards to why epidemics "only" happen in China is by definition "justifying".
Its like you know 100% for a fact thats why epidemics "only" happen in China, when that is outright wrong. In FACT, epidemics happen on EVERY SINGLE continent.
"China put Muslims in a big prison"
China puts Muslims in big prisons? USA also puts Blacks in big prisons. Europeans also puts Europeans in big prisons. My question is, how do you know they didnt commit any crime?
Secondly, theyre not specifically targeting "Muslims". Theyre targeting those that have been in contact with extremists, aka terrorists. The Hui population in China are also Muslim, do you see them being put in "prison"?
And theres a difference between prisons and re-education centres. You need to differentiate the difference. Your "news" doesnt show you that. They make it sound like its the same.
"God's justice, he made them pay, now there are 40 million Chinese encercled because of the epedimic of Corona, just like a prison"
And now you are slandering God for making "them" pay? Who is "them"? The innocent people that were infected by the virus? Because certainly those in power are still fine. God does not make innocent people "pay". How dare you. You just sinned for slandering God. If youre a true believer you would repent for that.
And 40 million? Why not 400 million? Youre just making up numbers now. So much for "facts".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@smithjohn7855 "Wrong. If it states specifically what types of waters a country can have, there is no "claiming" here, you can't "claim" water. It is made clear in Part VII, Article 90 and Part X, Article 137 that no one can claim sovereignty OR rights OR resources OR "such appropriation" of the waters"
Wrong. Article 137 is part of Part XI (not Part X), and Part XI is specifically about deposits of minerals within the area. You conveniently left out the first sentence of the article: "No State shall claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area or its resources". Meaning if there a known resources in the sea no country can suddenly claim it as theirs.
When China made their claims, there was no known minerals in the area. Just because they were discovered AFTERWARDS, it doesnt invalidate their claims. You could say this is a legal loophole. A grey area that needs a closure to.
And Article 90 is irrelevant. Having right to sail does not include right to sail within a countries territorial waters.
"therefore it is illegal to conducts actions such as gathering resources, blocking and pushing away foreign ships, sinking foreign fishing boats, or drilling for oil inside another country's EEZ (2014 drilling incident).
There are specific nuances whereby such things you have just said are legally allowed. Gathering resources are allowed under specific nuances, like within their EEZ. Blocking and pushing away foreign ships too. Those ships that China did block, push back and/or sank are within 12NM of their claimed sovereign territory (islands). All countries have every right to use force when foreign vessels are within 12NM of their sovereign territory.
As for the 2014 drilling incident, that area was closer to the Paracel Islands than it is to Vietnam. The drill area is right off the coast of the Paracel Islands which China claims as their sovereign territory, just that Vietnam who once recognised Chinas claim over the islands backtracked their recognition in the 1970s, and have since claimed it as theirs. Thats the core of the dispute.
"So what ground is the claim based on? It doesn't change the fact that the claim is groundless and baseless"
Since when did claims before international laws existences need justification? Isnt the US/CA/AUS/NZs etc claim over their respective territory also "groundless" and "baseless"?
"Wrong. That's not how laws work. This is a treaty that is signed. Once they sign a treaty, prior claims not accordance to the treaty become invalid"
Wrong. It is. Only when theres conflicting articles does it get overrides. But there was nothing conflicting at the time of them signing UNCLOS.
"not to mention something as vague as those random lines on a ROC 1940 map was not a clear and well described claim and even if it was a claim, it was baseless and groundless even in 1940"
Where in UNCLOS does it say that claims must be clear and well described? You made that up yourself.
"If India drew some random lines on a map like that in 1940, doesn't mean India can claim Indian Ocean"
Vietnam also has such claims. When there's one or two countries doing it, its not a problem. But when a lot of countries do it, then laws need to be made to prohibit it. But as of right now, theres no such law.
"n 2014, China drilled for oil inside Vietnam's EEZ, which caused a big standoff / ramming battles between Coast Guard ships of two countries and a lot of protests in Vietnam"
Thats NOT because of the dashed lines. Its because of the oil drills thats off the coast of the Paracel Islands which they also have sovereign claims themselves. The dispute is exploiting resources within the region of their sovereign claims, not because of some dashed lines.
"The dispute of 9-dash-line is a big deal for the Filipino, Indonesian and Vietnamese, there're a lot of tensions around it, just because you are not aware of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Go read Filipino, Indonesian and Vietnamese sources before making a bad faith false statement."
Wrong. Thats not a false statement. I dont care about news from "people", I only care about news from "governments" as this is a conflict between governments. And none of the governments made a big deal out of it, only mention that they disagree at most. The core of most conflicts are due to overlapping sovereign claims over the islands/reefs/shoals etc. Go read more news on what the governments say in regards to the conflicts before telling me to go read it.
"You said it, completely copied China's narrative, but hey it is just a coincidence"
Chinas narrative? Chinas narrative is about the 9 dash line. I spoke absolutely NOTHING about the 9 dash line until YOU brought it up. I only spoke about the islands and the laws pertaining to that. Youre gaslighting at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aronaskengren5608 "It lacks the markers of statehood (sovereignty and international recognition)."
First of all, you did not mention "sovereign state" in your first comment. If you did, I wouldnt have brought my examples up. So you werent being clear.
"Taiwan operates independently..."
If you want to have an intellectual conversation on this topic, then lets not be politically ignorant and say "TW" when in actual fact you mean Republic of China (aka China - because they officially claim to be the country called China). Contrary to popular belief, TW and ROC cannot be used interchangeably. Those that do do it are either politically ignorant, or have an agenda to push a certain narrative.
TW is part of ROC, not is ROC. So TW doesnt operate "independently", theyre dependent on the Chinese state of ROC. ROC is independent.
"This is different from Ukraine’s situation, where security guarantees were not backed by a formal law like the TRA"
You literally said one sentence before this that security was not guaranteed. And in the next sentence you said they have security guarantees...Make that make sense...youre contradicting yourself.
"Many people in Taiwan today view themselves as Taiwanese rather than Chinese"
Irrelevant. If Americans no longer identify as Americans, does that make them any less American if the country they live in still claims to be America? Until the congress or whoever makes the official change on the countrys name, the people are still American/Chinese.
"Just because it is taught in schools does not mean Taiwan views itself as part of China today"
Also irrelevant. Facts are facts, and that doesnt change just because they "feel" they dont see themselves as Chinese.
"Many modern Taiwanese reject the notion of being part of the People's Republic of China, and the curriculum covers that period as a historical event"
Sure, theyre part of ROChina afterall. But that doesnt change the fact that theyre Chinese ethnically and nationality-wise whether they like it or not. Remember, facts dont care about feelings.
"The name "Republic of China" persists for diplomatic and historical reasons, but in practice, Taiwan operates as a separate entity"
In practice, the Chinese Civil War never ended (as no peace treaty nor armistice was ever signed), and so the war can resume anytime.
And in practice, the world recognises TW as part of China, so when theres a war, the international community cant really do anything to China, especially when we are talking about "quarantine zones" into Chinese territory (TW) that the world recognises as Chinas.
"Furthermore, the outdated language does not reflect Taiwan’s current political identity or the will of its people"
One is naive to think that politics is about the "will of the people". Politics is about the "will of the state". Its not the peoples will to be sending billions abroad to support a country no one knows about still a couple years ago. Thats just 1 example.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@IronskullGM "More proof China is willing to go to war with the world over Taiwan and yes"
War with Taiwan is civil war, not war with the world. If the US wants to intervene, its the USs thats willing to go to war with the world, not China.
"those treaties exist. Sorry, you're surrounded and Dictator Xi lies"
Google ROC defensive pact, and see what countries pop up. Only the US. No other country. If you insist you are right, the link me a credible source in your next comment. Otherwise youre just sht talking.
And again, youre just proving yourself to be illiterate, Xi needs his partys approval before going ahead with anything, THAT by definition is not a dictator.
"I'm curious how you plan of defeating the 1st and 2nd largest and most experienced Navies in the world, the US and British.. with what? One aircraft carrier?
I dont plan on defeating anyone. Fool. Why would I even be attacked? You honestly think Im Chinese? Guess youre from India after all.
Also, experienced equates to invincible now? Didnt you learn about Chinas new hypersonic missiles? The even US admits they cant defend against that. Heres 2 readings for you to educate yourself:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/hypersonic-weapons-what-they-are-and-why-us-cant-defend-against-them.html
https://qz.com/1350327/china-tested-a-hypersonic-weapon-the-us-cant-defend-against/
"with what? One aircraft carrier?"
Moreover, you should stick to what you do best, taking orders from your superiors, using brains probably isnt your strong point. Taiwan is within Chinas doorstep. Literally zero aircraft carrier is necessary for China. They can fly back and forth many times to Taiwan without having the need to refuel.
"It's amazing how people say China is not communist. Does that mean the Chinese communist party is lying since they are not really communist?"
They started off as communist. Now theyve evolved. You honestly think you can be communist and capitalist at the same time?
1
-
@IronskullGM "It is the heat signature and speed that defeats hypersonic weapons, they glow like a mini sun on the scope and can not turn to avoid attacks. They fly fast and straight, a very simple target to destroy"
What you have stated is old technology. China (and Russia) perfected the correct materials needed to combat the heat and mastered the art of maneuvering these missiles while travelling at hypersonic speeds. The US admitted they cant defend themselves from such attack. Did you even read the articles I send you? Theyre both American sources.
"No, I am not Inidan"
And I am not Chinese.
"Sorry the Chinese civil war ended decades ago and Taiwan became an independent UN recognized Nation with treaties"
It never officially ended. No treaty was signed. Its officially a prolonged ceasefire.
Republic of China was always in the UN, under the country called China. Even when PRC was in control of China, Republic of China sat in the UN seat as China for another 2 decades. "Taiwan" never became "independent", Taiwan became part of ROC which was the original China.
"So you go to war with Taiwan, you go to war with USA and all its allies... I hope you are ready for a 4 front war against all of the 1st world nations"
Ether youve been brainwashed to think so, or you dont have a brain. USA has a BILATERAL (meaning 2 country) defensive pact with ROC, there is NO obligation for any NATO country or any other country to help the US in a foreign war that the US decided to jump in to.
Theyre also not warmongers like you.
"You will destroy the world for your civil war led by the communists.. So basically communist party does not care if they destroy the world as long as they get what they want. Sounds like a bunch of spoiled children"
'So the US doesnt care if they destroy the Middle East as long as they get what they want (oil). Sounds like a bunch of spoiled children'. Sound familiar?
Also, for the 50th time, the world wont be involved in Chinas civil war. You dont even know if the US will even be "involved" other than providing support.
Also, you said the US has bombing drones orbiting Earth? Thats violation of international space law. Im sure the world would know and be against it if they actually did. Or did you leaked classified information and admitted that the US committed an international crime?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@overworlder My 2 lines about your "dictatorship" is long? Especially when it wasnt even about "pro-dictatorship" at all? What are you on? Your eyes alright there?
Catalonia isnt "de facto" part of Spain, it IS part of Spain, as per recognised by the world.
Taiwan also isnt "de facto" part of China, it IS part of China. Again, as per recognised by the world.
And like I said, Taiwan isnt "independent", its "dependent" of Republic of CHINA, a CHINESE state, that claims to be CHINA. ROC is independent, NOT "Taiwan".
The only reason they arent dejure is because Taiwan is not recognised by the world to be "independent", because they were NEVER "independent". It had been governed by China for longer than USA has been a country, with only a small blip of 50 years governed by Japan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@petepierre6458 "Ye3ah, yeah, try taking that to the UN, you know that place, where over 200 countries sit. I mean, 5 billion can't be wrong now can they?"
Again, youve been brainwashed so hard. The UN DID NOT say ANYTHING about millions of Uighurs getting SLAYED . Look, you cant even source where you even got that info from. You hear the 3 keywords "Uighurs", "million", "UN", and you come to the conclusion that the UN said millions of Uighurs were slain? You mustve been hallucinating just like you thought I was Chinese too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Electro_blob "50% are literally chosen by industrial interests, and not the people. This is written into law"
Oh look. You want to speak about the law but knows nothing about the law. 50% of the seats comprise of functional constituencies, which include education, social welfare, arts, sports, and culture. They act on behalf of their professions and trades. Not all professions are "industrial".
And if you think the numbers are chosen for their interests and "not the people", then Im going to have to ask you to reflect on your own countys governance. How is that any different from big corporations lobbying your government? Stop trying to make it seem like your countrys system is any better when in essence the exact same thing happens, just in different form. At least in Hong Kong, the lobbying is open and transparent, unlike the US.
"People in Hong Kong do not vote for half of their representatives"
Wrong. The people AND professional representatives of Hong Kong vote for their representatives. And all professional representatives of Hong Kong are also people of Hong Kong.
"These 50% were not elected by a popular vote"
Your president was not elected by a popular vote. You are not qualified to talk about the popular vote if your country doesnt even follow by it.
1
-
@Electro_blob 'All professions are industries e.g. "the art industry."'
The terms industry and industrial are slightly different. Industrial specifically refers to the sector of an economy that is involved with manufacturing/machines.
'I am merely asserting, as I have been from the beginning, that the pro-democracy parties in Hong Kong advocate for a more direct democracy..."Pro-democracy" means a completely popular vote, not the vote of corporate lobbyists that make up one percent of the population'
2 things here. For district elections, they already have full democracy. As for election for their Chief executive, under HK basic law, only those in the election committee get to vote for the CE. Thats 1200 votes. And of those 1200, only 300 are from the industrial, commercial and financial sectors.
You have your electoral college in place to elect your president, Hong Kong has their election committee in place to elect their CE. So again, whats there to advocate about "pro-democracy"? Whats "pro-democracy" about? You already admit the US doesnt have a completely popular vote. So why is there no "pro-democracy" party/movement in the US?
Bernie was more popular than Clinton, yet Clinton became the final candidate for the Democrats. And Clinton was more popular than Trump, yet Trump won. So why is there no "pro-democracy" party in the US again? Do you not see what my point is?
Also, these "1%" you speak of contribute more than 1/4 of your countrys economy - even more in HK. Theres a reason why they have significant influence over your government.
"You have already admitted that you are not ruled by a completely popular vote"
Again, I cant "admit" something Im not involved with. Im not from HK nor from China. Just like I cant "admit" that you are not communist. I cant "admit" anything for you. Its not involved with me. If I do say something its called a statement or a claim.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fried Bananas "Do you have a learning disability, chinaman?
1. You said China made a formal claim of the SCS in 1949, France made a claim in 1930. That is only 19 years. Why would you even bring up ancient China? Are you that stupid, stupid?"
Do I have learning disability? Do you have reading disability? Since when did I say "ancient China"? This "ancient China" you speak of just ended in 1911. Is it that "ancient" you? I said Imperial China. Can you read English, stupid?
"FYI, China is NOT even the first people to discover SCS, it was the sea fairers who later settled in the Malay archipelago"
First to "discover" a piece of land doesnt equate to sovereignty.
"Every other claim is a clear sign of disrespect of UNCLOS and a threat to all its neighbors"
No. UNCLOS is about maritime borders rights and EEZ, China is claiming SOVEREIGNTY. Those are 2 very different things.
"On that note, every other claimants should also have only jurisdiction to SCS which is nearest to their mainland territories. That is the fairest agreement"
The world isnt fair. Moreover, since when was proximity to the mainland a factor in determining sovereignty? Many countries around the world have sovereignty over islands literally half way around the world. You think theyll just graciously give those islands to the nearest country?
"It is normal to protect your territories, therefore Philippines have the right to put perimeter defence within their EEZ"
Thats exactly Chinas argument. And EEZ is not a "territory". Get it right. Its an Exclusive Economic Zone that a country can exploit. You must be "a pea brained, dog eater to not even see the difference".
"meanwhile China installed missiles that could reach mainland Vietnam and Philippines"
There are missiles on Chinese Mainland that can reach Vietnam and Philippines. Your point? USA has missiles that can reach every country in this world. Want to criticise the US too? In fact, most advance countries have missiles that can reach half the world. Whats the point of saying a missile can reach Vietnam/Philippines?
"Only an idiotic chinaman would become a signatory of UNCLOS and would deliberately violate it's laws"
State which "law" China has violated. China is claiming sovereignty, whereas Philippines is claiming EEZ. It was ruled that the maritime laws and sovereignty claims were "incompatible". Meaning current laws cannot fix this issue. So state which law again?
"To a chinaman, everything must belong to china for no reason"
Idiot Indianman. I spoke facts. China is the only county in this world that has solid sovereign claims to those islands. The other would be France. But the French are long gone.
"Territory is won through bloodshed. But China didn't go to war for SCS, therefore it's not theirs to keep. So yeah, I agree with you"
I said MOST territory is won by war. The exception to this is if it was unclaimed in the first place, or if the claimant forgoes its sovereignty. Which is what happened.
1
-
1
-
@Fried Bananas "When I said France made a claim, you immediately went on defense mode and said how far do I have to go?"
France is not longer in the picture. So France is no longer a claimant. And I was speaking about the 20th century when Imperial China ended. Yet you spoke about "ancient" China?
"OMG..you do have learning disability"
If you insist I have "disability" learning, then state what I couldnt "learn". Are you meant to be my teacher? You said so many things that are blatantly wrong. Need me to remind you?
And please, use quotation marks if youre going to quote me...
"It's not even China who first set foot on the islands/islets, it was the polynesians stupid"
Did I say China first "set foot" on those islands? We are talking about sovereignty, not "setting foot". And China had presence on those islands more than any other country throughout history.
"USA is on the other side of the world and yet they control many water ways all over the world. What are you going to say now, chinaman?"
Why would that concern me? Stay on topic will you? My point is that China has sovereignty over those island and other countries dont, Chinaman.
"There you go, you can't say China as the first discoverers as you already admitted it. Case closed"
I never claimed nor disclaimed that the Chinese were the first "discoverers". So theres nothing to "admit". Youre just talking to yourself to make yourself feel good. Is this a sign of mental disability? We are talking about sovereignty here. Not sure why you even brought up anything but sovereignty.
"Well, the rest of the claimants use UNCLOS to push through their claims, which is valid, and moreover, china is a signatory. UNCLOS will always supersede any previous agreement, as it is a more recent set of laws. If China weren't amenable to the laws, then why would they be a signatory? Of course you have zero logical comeback to that"
You dont seem to understand what UNCLOS is about. UNCLOS is about maritime rights and borders. It has been concluded that UNCLOS and what China claims is incompatible for any rulings to be made, as UNCLOS does not take into account of sovereignty, they look at continental shelf. Why do think this issue still hasnt been resolved yet?
"Again, stupid, it was under UNCLOS. 200 nautical miles from the mainland is considered an Economic zone of another country. In fact, that is the single piece of argument that made the Philippines win in the international court"
"Win"? "Winning" without China being there to defend themselves lol. What a "win".
And just to be clear, I have no problem with countries exercising their maritime rights in the region. All Im saying is that Philippines and Vietnam dont have sovereignty over the Spratlys. Sovereignty of the Spratly belongs to China.
"So you finally see my point, chinaman. You bully and threaten your neighbors to the point that they would rather live than fight to the hilt"
No Chinaman. No I dont. Vietnam has missiles that can reach China. And Vietnam/Philippines invaded Chinas islands in the 1970s. Who threatened who first? The result is crystal clear. Action speaks louder than words.
"You can't be serious now, chinaman. Spratly and Paracel Islands are still under international hearing when China decided to militarize the region. That in itself is a clear violation"
You still did not state which "law" China has violated.
"Plus, if we follow the 200 mile EEZ, part of the Spratly islands should be under Philippines' jurisdiction. That is a clear sign of trespassing and outright disrespect to the Philippines. It's a daylight robbery"
What an idiot. EEZ has nothing to do with "jurisdiction". Its international waters ffs. How stupid can you get? You can only juridic your own sovereign territory. And you cant "trespass" international waters, idiot.
"Idiot, then explain why chinaman are always captured in other countries for fishing illegally. What are your people doing in the waters in Africa, S. America, SE Asia?
"
You know nothing. My people are no where in those regions. And why are you changing topics? Im talking about sovereignty. Why are you talking about illegal fishing? There are people doing illegal things around the world in every country. Moreover, those are individuals, they dont represent a country.
"'I said MOST territory is won by war. The exception to this is if it was unclaimed in the first place, or if the claimant forgoes its sovereignty. Which is what happened'
"Oh, so you are going to change things to fit your argument, nice try chinaman, but you lost"
Wrong. I never changed anything. I just didnt say it all. Here is a reminder of what I said:
'Before international law existed, most territory is won by war. Its through bloodshed. China is the first country in the region to lay claims to those islands. If other countries want it, then they must fight for it. Its simple as that. Other countries never owned it in the first place'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Goodtoseeyou1 You say "first of all" so confidently, yet so clueless at the same time. Firstly, if they recognised the 12nm territorial water limit, that literally means they recognise that the islands belong to China, and that they will not venture within 12nm of their islands. Thats literally what it means.
And I mentioned nothing about the 9 dashed lines so not sure why you feel the need to bring that up and emphasis it in caps...
In the letter, Vietnam literally said they recognise and agrees to the declaration China made on Sept 4 1958. In Chinas declaration, it specifically mentioned the islands belong to China. Vietnams letter sealed the deal already.
Your second comment is irrelevant. This is a letter from Vietnam to China. Thats got nothing to do with US or TW. Solidarity or not, no one forced them to recognise it. You can show solidarity with you friends against an enemy without giving away a section of your property to them..
Thirdly, they did not "give them up". I never said they "gave them up". For the 2nd time, read properly.
North Vietnam basically said to China, "we agree that these islands are yours, now help us win the war".
Another angle of looking at that is, for arguments sake, lets say the islands were South Vietnam 100% without a doubt in this scenario. When North Vietnam eliminated the government of South Vietnam, all of South Vietnams territory now belong to the government of North Vietnam. Since North Vietnam won and recognised that the islands belong to China, then its obviously Chinas now. He sealed the deal with his letter.
1
-
1
-
"the letter was happened due to the conflict with Taiwan that’s why China had that 12-miles document towards to US for not being allied with Taiwan"
Like I said, the issue with TW and the US has nothing to do with North Vietnam. Its irrelevant. Whether NV or anyone wanted to warm ties with China or any country, theyre not forced to "give any" of their territory away. And the islands never belonged to NV in the first place. It was just RECOGNITION.
"You said no one was forced to recognise TW and I explained it was the act of warming ties"
And for the last time, READ PROPERLY. WHERE did I say "no one was forced to recognise TW"? Quote me!
"Why you said France took over the islands, those belongs to us in the first place"
By "us", Im going to assume youre Vietnamese. If that was true, then why didnt the French take over the islands when they conquered Vietnam? Why did they have to wait till China was weak when they were at war with Japan to take over the islands? Because they recognised it was Chinas and wanted to take advantage of their blindspot/weakness thats why. Similarly, Japan also specifically took over those islands first when they went to war with China. Why? Because they also recognised that the islands belonged to China. When you have major world powers recognising that the islands were Chinas, then thats enough solid evidence.
"Also, if it was from China, why would China signed the agreeement with France that those islands were belonged to Vietnam and that’s why they were belong to Indochina and hence France"
No such thing. State the treaty that China recognised the Spratlys and Paracel belong to the French. Bet you cant.
"It was just until China had conflict with Russia and was afraid Russian’s power and also the existence of US in Taiwan in the South China Sea that China started to claim those are theirs"
No. China claimed those islands from many dynasties ago. Records even show they had jurisdiction over it 1000+ yrs ago. What are you on about?
"You do not have any documents proves North Vietnam give China those islands in exchange for helping in war"
No. But we do have evidence that NV RECOGNISED (not "give") that those islands belong to China. And thats enough solid evidence again.
"The letter only mentioning that North Vietnam (who did not control any islands at the time) agree to the PRC’s 12 nautical-mile territorial water, did not mention the name of any islands"
Really? I told you to read again, did you read again? The first line literally says NV agree to Chinas declaration made on Sept 4 1958. In Chinas declaration, they declared the Spratly and Paracels belonged to them. So NV literally agreed that Paracel and Spratly belongs to China IN THE VERY FIRST LINE of the letter!
"This however did not suggest that North Vietnam ever gave up their claim to both islands"
NV never claimed the islands in the first place. It was SV that claimed it.
"Unless you can edit the letter, so it said that Vietnam respect China’s territorial water and its sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands, then Vietnam definitely have no say on this issue forever"
It literally says that! First line of the letter NV stated they agree to Chinas declaration made on Sept 4 1958, which includes China claiming Paracel and Spratly as theirs. Thats what Ive been saying this whole time! So Vietnam shouldnt have a say on this matter, forever.
"This is what I mean regarding legal binding"
If you want to bring up how France "legally" gave back the islands to Vietnam. Well I can say that there are no records, treaty or legal documents of any sort regarding of France legally acquiring the islands in the first place.
"I also really don’t understand how China can claim the whole South China Sea belongs to them. They signed the UNCLOS law and now going against it, and having disputes with not just one country but the whole regions"
I never spoke about the 9 dashed lines until you brought it up. Its irrelevant. Vietnam also claims half the SCS, why dont you say anything about that hey? And theres no law in UNCLOS that specifies that they cant do so, so they havent violated anything. The specific word used in UNCLOS was "shall". The world "shall" does not mean prohibit. Meaning they "shouldnt", but it doesnt mean they "cant". Grey area in the laws. Lets not talk about grey areas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bctvanw "ROC was forced on Taiwan in the first place"
No. By order of Qing China, Taiwan was developed into what it is. Then Qing China was invaded, that includes Taiwan. So Taiwan was FORCED to join Japan, till they lost WW2, then Taiwan was RETURNED to China. ROC was the ruler of China then so Taiwan is to be under ROC.
"Do you know that there are only 12% Chinese Mainlanders in Taiwan’s total population?"
Did you know that is an irrelevant point? After a few generations. It will 0% Mainland Chinese if ROC decides to close its border to PRC. But that doesnt change the fact that those in Taiwan are ethnically Chinese AND by nationality Chinese.
"Taiwan was under martial law of KMT’s ROC for 38 years since 1949. Taiwanese were not protected by so called constitution of ROC"
What do you mean Taiwanese were not "protected" by the constitution. Martial law aka the security of the state, comes before the freedom to vote for any country.
"KMT is losing supports each term in both central or local governments"
Like I said, they are political cycles. A political party could be in charge for 8/12/16 years before switching back to the opposition.
"The government of Taiwan is elected by Taiwanese people, More than 95% of people have nothing to do with so called Chinese civil war"
Irrelevant comment. Just because those people have nothing to do with the civil war doesnt mean it didnt happen nor does it mean ROC doesnt claim to be the country called China. And btw, this civil war never ended. There was no peace treaty. Its technically a prolonged ceasefire. This war could resume at any moment. Then 100% of the people would have "something" to do with the war - if that even means anything...
"In less than a decade, non of the KMT Mainlanders will exist. Even the chairman’s of KMT for the past two terms are Taiwan born Taiwanese rather than second generation Chinese Mainlanders"
Another irrelevant comment. Doesnt matter if 100% of the original people died. As long as the party still exists, the core value of the party, that is that ROC is the "real China" will still exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheHeavyassaulter "the Un or the scam gov don't represent the people you massive tool"
Oh and my government doesnt represent me, nor my family, or my local community etc etc. Does that mean theyre a scam?
Republic of CHINA was founded as a CHINESE state, and was the legal government of CHINA then whether you like it or not. After WW2, Taiwan was returned to China. Again, whether you, they, or whoever likes it or not, those are the facts. Deal with it.
And till this day, Taiwan is STILL governed by that CHINESE government, and proudly flying the Nationalist CHINESE flag.
Till this day, they STILL have not revoked their claims over the mainland.
"Ask any Taiwanese if they associate with China and you will get your answer."
Since when did facts care about opinions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@noonebeer "They did comply and it’s easy to determine what they needed to comply with: the CCP wants to censor nearly everything at a moment’s notice"
Fool. Comply my ass. Still till this day there are many anti-China context on those platforms. And censorship is just ONE of the MANY regulations China has. Another regulation that they need to comply with is to have ALL local Chinese data stored LOCALLY. Something these companies are not willing to do.
Since its "so EASY to determine what they needed to comply with", how come you dont know this?
I suggest you not talk so confidently about something you obviously dont know enough about. Youre only making a fool out of yourself.
"You’re right about YouTube censoring us, but how is it any worse than China?"
Dont put words in my mouth. I never said that its "worse than China". YOURE the one that said that "It’s 1000x times harder to violate" Youtubes ToS, Im just calling you out for your nonsense.
"Whereas if a Chinese citizen even dares to subtly compare Xi to Winnie the Pooh, sooner or later the police will be at their house"
Remember, every country has their laws an own laws and regulations. Violate these laws and youll be arrested. For example, in the US, if you drink in public youll get arrested. Thats not the case for MANY countries. Just like how you see some countrys laws are ridiculous, others see some US laws as ridiculous too.
"As for why you work for the CCP, normal Chinese citizens aren’t allowed to even access anything outside of China and you seem to be most active when it’s still prime time in China"
Youre a fool. Is China the only country in the Asia Pacific region? I cant be from Pakistan, Singapore, or Australia etc?
Based on your logic, you must also work for the CIA, because youre most active when its still prime time in the US.
You honestly dont seem very bright with your logic not gonna lie...
"Only fools would be pro China if they’re not mainlanders themselves"
You are entitled to your opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'you just admitted you are wrong. You said “even if some somehow find a way, overall numbers…” see, congratulations, even you have admitted you can’t stop kids'
Wrong? I literally proved myself right. I literally said: it doesnt eliminate it 100%, but the figures significantly drop over the years depending how strict the policy/enforcement is". I never said 100% of the kids, so by definition I cant be wrong. If it can control 95% of the kids, thats still controlling 95% of the kids. Is that not stopping the overwhelming majority of kids?
"But what do you mean strict governance?"
You dont know? This is standard policy in all countries with school uniforms. First off, detention. If kid continues to breaking the rules, then an optional step #2 is kid is barred entry into school and have parents notified to have them picked up and changed before they can enter school. If kid still does not comply, then suspension along with parent notification/meeting. After a couple more strikes then kid gets expelled. This literally works for 99.99%+ of the kids. If you want to talk about the 0.1% exceptions, then Ill tell you exceptions do not disprove the rule. We change from 0% to 99.99%. That by all metrics means "controlling the kids".
"Two teenagers get off the bus together with a few hours of time before their parents come home...how do uniforms stop kids from doing what they want after school? Again, both teenagers come home before their parents do. Who will stop them?"
Irrelevant. There is no governance after school from the school. The school is not responsible for what a child does after school. Thats extremely irresponsible for you to even think that its their responsibility. They could get changed and roam around wearing whatever they want for all that we care. Its still not the schools responsibility outside of school grounds. You expect the school to govern what they wear at home too? School only governs what happens within the school, not outside the school. Try again.
1
-
@mudshovel289 'you just admitted you are wrong. You said “even if some somehow find a way, overall numbers…” see, congratulations, even you have admitted you can’t stop kids'
Wrong? I literally proved myself right. I literally said: it doesnt eliminate it 100%, but the figures significantly drop over the years depending how strict the policy/enforcement is". I never said 100% of the kids, so by definition I cant be wrong. If it can control 95% of the kids, thats still controlling 95% of the kids. Is that not stopping the overwhelming majority of kids?
"But what do you mean strict governance?"
You dont know? This is standard policy in all countries with school uniforms. First off, detention. If kid continues to breaking the rules, then an optional step #2 is kid is barred entry into school and have parents notified to have them picked up and changed before they can enter school. If kid still does not comply, then suspension along with parent notification/meeting. After a couple more strikes then kid gets expelled. This literally works for 99.99%+ of the kids. If you want to talk about the 0.1% exceptions, then Ill tell you exceptions do not disprove the rule. We change from 0% to 99.99%. That by all metrics means "controlling the kids".
"Two teenagers get off the bus together with a few hours of time before their parents come home...how do uniforms stop kids from doing what they want after school? Again, both teenagers come home before their parents do. Who will stop them?"
Irrelevant. There is no governance after school from the school. The school is not responsible for what a child does after school. Thats extremely irresponsible for you to even think that its their responsibility. They could get changed and roam around wearing whatever they want for all that we care. Its still not the schools responsibility outside of school grounds. You expect the school to govern what they wear at home too? School only governs what happens within the school, not outside the school. Try again.
1
-
'you just admitted you are wrong. You said “even if some somehow find a way, overall numbers…” see, congratulations, even you have admitted you can’t stop kids'
Wrong? I literally proved myself right. I literally said: it doesnt eliminate it 100%, but the figures significantly drop over the years depending how strict the policy/enforcement is". I never said 100% of the kids, so by definition I cant be wrong. If it can control 95% of the kids, thats still controlling 95% of the kids. Is that not stopping the overwhelming majority of kids?
"But what do you mean strict governance?"
You dont know? This is standard policy in all countries with school uniforms. First off, detention. If kid continues to breaking the rules, then an optional step #2 is kid is barred entry into school and have parents notified to have them picked up and changed before they can enter school. If kid still does not comply, then suspension along with parent notification/meeting. After a couple more strikes then kid gets expelled. This literally works for 99.99%+ of the kids. If you want to talk about the 0.1% exceptions, then Ill tell you exceptions do not disprove the rule. We change from 0% to 99.99%. That by all metrics means "controlling the kids".
"Two teenagers get off the bus together with a few hours of time before their parents come home...how do uniforms stop kids from doing what they want after school? Again, both teenagers come home before their parents do. Who will stop them?"
Irrelevant. There is no governance after school from the school. The school is not responsible for what a child does after school. Thats extremely irresponsible for you to even think that its their responsibility. They could get changed and roam around wearing whatever they want for all that we care. Its still not the schools responsibility outside of school grounds. You expect the school to govern what they wear at home too? School only governs what happens within the school, not outside the school. Try again.
1
-
'you just admitted you are wrong. You said “even if some somehow find a way, overall numbers…” see, congratulations, even you have admitted you can’t stop kids'
Wrong? I literally proved myself right. I literally said: it doesnt eliminate it 100%, but the figures significantly drop over the years depending how strict the policy/enforcement is". I never said 100% of the kids, so by definition I cant be wrong. If it can control 95% of the kids, thats still controlling 95% of the kids. Is that not stopping the overwhelming majority of kids?
"But what do you mean strict governance?"
You dont know? This is standard policy in all countries with school uniforms. First off, detention. If kid continues to breaking the rules, then an optional step #2 is kid is barred entry into school and have parents notified to have them picked up and changed before they can enter school. If kid still does not comply, then suspension along with parent notification/meeting. After a couple more strikes then kid gets expelled. This literally works for 99.99%+ of the kids. If you want to talk about the 0.1% exceptions, then Ill tell you exceptions do not disprove the rule. We change from 0% to 99.99%. That by all metrics means "controlling the kids".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@arjen20 Who said theyre all under sea? Most of these islands/reefs are ABOVE sea level at HIGH TIDE! You can see the before and after pictures.
And if you bothered reading the 2016 SCS tribunal, the tribunal concluded that Johnson reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef are all legally considered "rocks".
Excerpt from the Tribunal:
554. In the Tribunal’s view, Scarborough Shoal is a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3)
557. In the Tribunal’s view, Johnson Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
560. In the Tribunal’s view, Cuarteron Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
563. In the Tribunal’s view, Fiery Cross Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
566. In the Tribunal’s view, Gaven Reef (North) is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
569. In the Tribunal’s view, McKennan Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
Whos the one thats "malinformed, or deliberately spreading misinformation. A propagator of false information in the internet" now?
YOU!
1
-
@arjen20 Who said theyre all under sea? Most of these islands/reefs are ABOVE sea level at HIGH TIDE! You can see the before and after pictures.
And if you bothered reading the 2016 SCS tribunal, the tribunal concluded that Johnson reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, Gaven Reef and McKennan Reef are all legally considered "rocks".
Excerpt from the Tribunal:
554. In the Tribunal’s view, Scarborough Shoal is a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3)
557. In the Tribunal’s view, Johnson Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
560. In the Tribunal’s view, Cuarteron Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
563. In the Tribunal’s view, Fiery Cross Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
566. In the Tribunal’s view, Gaven Reef (North) is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
569. In the Tribunal’s view, McKennan Reef is also a “rock” for purposes of Article 121(3).
Whos the one thats "malinformed, or deliberately spreading misinformation. A propagator of false information in the internet" now?
YOU!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Stoogis "denial of the damage of chairman maos Great Leap Forward"
What denial are you talking about? Its taught in school that that the GLF was poor policy that resulted in many deaths. Where you getting your news from?
"denial of the violent occupation of Tibet at around the same time"
Tibet has been part of China for longer than USA has been a country. Just look at Qing Dynasty map and when Tibet was incorporated into China. China only temporarily lost control over its borders due to foreign invasions and civil conflict. If anything, it was Tibet that was illegally trying to separate from China by using force. How does that work for any country when a state illegally wants to separate while using violence? Theyll obviously be met with force...
"breaking international agreements 27 years into a 50 year agreement"
The joint declaration is not legally binding. But even so, it was not China that broke the "agreement". It was Hong Kong that violated Article 23 their own Basic Law (aka their mini constitution) first.
Article 23:
"Hong Kong shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
The above prohibitions were clearly violated in the riots. Yet nothing was done about it. HK broke the agreement, not China.
"denial of student protest massacre in 1989"
Ahh this one I had a great time looking into. The biggest propaganda of them all, repeated year after year. So many foreign journalist and foreign media at that time. Yet not ONE shred of evidence of "tank crushing students" we all hear about. Yes, people died. Question is, who started it? Was it the military pointing guns to kill innocents indiscriminately? Or did those died attacked and obstructed military from their duties during martial law? Because let me tell you this, it was not a one-sided "massacre". Evidence shows lynching of military personnel, hanging them and burning them alive...
"new one that comes to mind denial of the deaths in the recent floods - particularly the ones caused by human error / greed / incompetence"
What does natural disaster have anything to do with being hypocritical? And when did China ever accuse any other country of deaths from natural disaster "caused by human error / greed / incompetence"?
So yes, a lot of misinformation and disinformation out there. Especially on China. What you hear about a lot through the media might not what it seems to be.
And before anyone reading is second guessing, this is a topic of interest for me. So naturally I looked into these situation in greater depth. Especially the well-known or outrageous ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thelongstory6395 "If China can extradite for a crime in China, then that essentially ends 1 country, 2 systems, since rule of law from China would reach to Hong Kong. And if you have Chinese rule of law, then essentially you have no freedom of speech, for a start."
First of all, the extradition bill applies to ALL countries around the world, not just China. And HK independent courts have the FINAL say on ALL extradition request. Its not as you say that China has the final say because of no 1 country 2 system...thats all in your head.
Another thing is, for ANY extradition request to progress through, the suspect must have committed a crime that is equivalent to at least 7 years imprisonment in HK under HK laws. "Freedom of speech" is not a crime in HK, therefore, even if China wanted a fugitive to be extradited from HK, HK independent judicial courts will not and cannot allow, as freedom of speech is not a crime in HK. Thus, everything you said are all made up fear mongering propaganda.
"The anti-mask legislation is Lam definitely over-reaching. The problem with mask bans is that there will be non-violent along with the violent. And the non-violent ones also want (and deserve) a right to anonymity. You can try and curb violence with this act, sure, but it's in no way a proper response to the reason of the protest. It's trying to deal aggressively with a symptom and not the cause"
Firstly, there is not such thing as "right to anonymity" in the public. You just made that up that right yourself. State me that right in HK law or in UNs basic human rights.
Secondly, theres nothing wrong with dealing with the symptom along with the cause. Most of the developed world has anti-mask bans in place. So this is definitely not "over-reaching".
"Now people who actually wears masks in good faith or for innocent reasons have to worry about being bothered by this law that was passed in bad faith"
You do realise this law only applies to riots, illegal assemblies, and large uncontrollable gatherings right?
"And now middle schoolers are being asked to snitch on each other? You're literally asking what freedom is being taken away? Freedom of expression, for a start. Right to privacy, for a start"
Who said anything about kids being asked to snitch on each other?
Freedom of expression HK has. But right to privacy? There is no such thing as privacy in the public.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brettmitchell6543 "Political affiliation is different to affinity and loyalty to a nation"
Thats what I meant. Tell me, why on earth would a person be "loyal" to a country they have no affiliation with?
Theyre loyal to their people, their ethnicity, not towards a "political affiliation/entity" or "loyalty to a nation" as you call it.
"Chinese will be loyal to China"
Wrong. As I said, theyre loyal to their people/ethnicity, as are other minorities. Minorities of any country tend to always bound together. Why? Because theyre fking constantly discriminated against!
"AngloCeltics will be loyal to their AngloCeltic and other AngloCeltic countries. History proves this"
Ah yes, wait till theyre a minority of a country and discriminated against then say that again.
"When we are war with China (once again) do you really expect Chinese in Australia to be loyal to AngloCeltic Australia?
When when you at war with China, are ethnic Chinese Australians in your country discriminated against? Even though they are Australian citizens?
When you can confidently say absolutely nothing will happen to them, then they wont need to have "loyalty" towards anything other than their current nation.
But can you really say nothing will happen to them? History has proven thats not the case. Discrimination against minorities is rampant in Australia. Face it, Australia has a racism problem. And its not just against the Chinese.
"The Trojan Horse is a perfect analogy. Letting the enemy through the gates is catastrophic"
In what case has letting minorities into a country "catastrophic"? If anything they boost the countries GDP higher than ever.
And doing shitty jobs you dont want and produce things at a cheaper rate so you can enjoy a higher quality of life is "catastrophic" to you?
Moreover, the "enemy" you speak of is all in your head.
Many Chinese that flee their country because they hate the government there. Hows that for "loyalty"?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wrongchannel2780 "In my place, bringing out parents out of the blue is an attack and can be considered as an insult. Watch your mouth"
I dont need to "watch my mouth". I didnt say nor do anything offensive, even by Chinese standards - which is what Im assuming you are since you typed Chinese (correct me if Im wrong).
I can bring out your parents if I want to bring them out. Who said bringing out parents MUST be an attack? I can ask you "does your parents like rice?". I just brought out your parents out of the blue again. Was that question an "attack"?
Here you are assuming what I said/did was an attack yet YOU are the one here with the attacks. Hypocrite. You are exposing exactly what youre accusing me of: "emotional", "angry", and "attacking". Ill add in overly sensitive as well.
'And sure, my comparison might be reversed" - it's not might be, IT IS REVERSED'
Learn some English. Its called figure of speech. When someone asks to to wait 1 sec do you literally wait 1 sec? Stop nit picking semantics. Youre missing the point.
"as a wrote this while I was in bed" - excuses'
More nit picking. Again, youre missing the point.
"It's you who are missing the point here. I feel sad for the bird because I see the fish was taken out from the bird's beak. And I was stating my thought, I hope the fisherman will give the bird some kind of compensation, like food"
Im not missing any point if you didnt clarify your point. You never explained that you were sad BECAUSE XYZ...nor did you state what compensation in your original comment.
Also, how am I supposedly "missing the point" if Im directly addressing your (unclear) point?
Is love, care, protection, shelter and raising them not enough of a "compensation" you think? They obviously have enough food by the looks of it. And if the birds dont have food how do they live up to till now? If theres no food why dont they fly away?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vanessawieland6712 "2) Hong Kong protestors that beat up the police? How about the numerous of people pepper spayed, cornered, stepped on and beaten with batons by the police?"
Police dont do that without warning. Im pretty sure they communicated "disperse or else".
"In the most heated moments, there might have been protestors who tried to fight with the police but we would try to pull them away from the police to prevent it"
All it takes is 1 hit and that protester becomes a criminal. You just pulled away a criminal from arrest and harboured them. You have also committed a crime.
"Another reason for us to do so is when we are creating barricades which is to also prevent others from seeing our faces"
Since when was dismantling public property, blocking roads and disrupting the public considered "peaceful protests"? Is that even legal? Did you even see what you guys did in the beginning of the video? Im pretty sure that is an offence.
"5) We are mostly peaceful, but when the police are intentionally pushing and cornering us, of course we have to stand our ground. What do you think we should do? Stay put and allow the police to beat us up?"
Stand your ground? No. You listen to the authority. If you dont comply, you get arrested. If you resist, youll face the consequences. Are you not law abiding citizens?
"The police cornered us all towards the mtr, there was nowhere else to go. They were running towards us in full gear. When we got inside the mall, there was actually a sense of calm for a second but all of a sudden the police rushed into the mall trying to push through and prevent us from leaving. What do you think we will do?"
No where else to go so stay put. You dont attack police no matter what. Thats a criminal offence. Listen to the police instruction, abide by the law, and you will be fine. Anything other than that, you will not be fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mf1984 "they didn't know what exactly they were dealing with. They did not know the fatality rate, who was most likely to catch it who the most vulnerable people were. All they knew was a few people had a virus, it's not a lot to go on...massive decision without the appropriate info"
Im quite an objective person myself and see things in an unbiased point of view, and I what Im seeing here is the very definition of extreme bias.
What you said here can also be applied to China. They didnt know what they were dealing with, etc. China first knew about it in Dec, not just China, but the world all knew about it in Dec.
The world knew about it and was watching the virus in China spread, and WHO then rejected Chinas plea for help because it was a "China problem" then not an "international problem".
By late Jan, the whole world knew what the symptoms were and that it was human to human transmissible.
So they didnt "hide" anything. If anything, the rest of the world had at least a 2 month advantage in terms of time and crucial information to prepare and do something about it. Yet even 2 months later in March, most governments arent even taking this seriously. On paper, theyre like yes close border to China, but by then literally every single major country has been infected. We needed to close our borders to ALL countries that were infected and if there were people coming in they had to be under STRICT quarantine, not just "trust" them to self isolate for 2 weeks.
Heres a video on the coronavirus timeline and you judge for yourself whether China "hid" anything or not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO5EXjFKE7U
1
-
1
-
Mf1984 I think you misinterpreted what I said.
Previously you said:
"they [the world] didn't know what exactly they were dealing with. They did not know the fatality rate, who was most likely to catch it who the most vulnerable people were"
And then for the sake of fairness I responded with:
"What you said here can also be applied to China. They didnt know what they were dealing with, etc. China first knew about it in Dec, not just China, but the world all knew about it in Dec" and a whole heap of other info about what happened.
Then you responded with:
"but that's not what happened is it, China knew exactly what they were dealing with and even went as far as to make the doctors that tried warning the world dissappear!"
And I responded with:
"How do you know thats not what happened? You seem to have info that no one else has. Please, do share".
This message was in regards to how did you saying the world "didn't know what exactly they were dealing with. They did not know the fatality rate, who was most likely to catch it who the most vulnerable people were". And Im saying thats also the same for China. They also didnt know what they were dealing with, fatality rate, etc.
As for your info on people "disappearing". They might have been arrested for investigation. But that does not conclude that China knew about the virus beforehand and was "hiding" information. The world knew about it in DEC. It wasnt confirmed to be human to human transmissible till late JAN. Research was still in progress.
"can't conclude anything? , 21 million is unheard of in China never happened before. But has happened now at a time of a deadly virus"
You know what else is unheard of? A country wide lockdown for 2-3 months. Businesses will be affected. Its predicted that this economic slowdown will be worse than the GFC. Unemployment is at a record high world wide.
So yes, that number indeed cant conclude anything. If anything, it suggests BUSINESSES are closing due to an economic slowdown.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dannyisnow1004 "We have to look at why the people want independence from China and the roots of it"
Like I said, opinions dont matter. Doesnt matter what people THINK. Its the facts that matter. And the fact is, Taiwans government, Republic of China, still to this day claims to be the country called China.
"Taiwan has been drifting off from China ever since the end of the Cold War and that Taiwan has economically advanced despite having few Allies"
What? ROC has been drifting from PRC? What are you on about? If anything theyve gotten closer. Before they were constantly shelling each other, and had ZERO communication between each other. Now theyre not shelling each other, and is economically intertwined AND citizens can cross over now unlike before.
Also, economics have nothing to do with this topic, theyre not economically isolated, so not sure why you bothered even mentioning that...
"China cannot force reunification it must let the people of Taiwan decide otherwise it would be seen as a imperial regime"
Since when did civil war cared about the opinions of the minority?
And this goes back to my original question "so youre saying if people in your country want their block of land to be their own country, they can?"
Since when did a tiny minority of people in a country can decide anything? If thats the case I could own a block of land and say thats now a new country separate from my current country. You know how many people wanted this and failed?
"Additionally, eastern imperialism like China were equally worse as colonial imperialism"
Taking over its claimed sovereign territory is equally as bad as cross continental mass genocide???
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pjacobsen1000 "I'm asking you because you made the original implication that these products do not comply with HK standards"
No read carefully. I never said that. I responded to the OP saying the products were made in China, that EVEN IF they were made in China, they follow the standards and use ingredients set out by their parent company, which isnt Chinese. What I said originally had absolutely nothing to do with HK.
These products are sold worldwide. So this isnt specifically a HK issue.
Then you asked me why doesnt China or HK doesnt have those standards or why theyre not enforced. At this point I havent made ANY implication of any sort. Ill say this to you again, if youre truly curious, ask the government themselves, not some random person on the internet.
"I also answered your question further up: If HK indeed has standards that ban these chemicals, then it is the responsibility of the HK government to enforce those standards"
No. You didnt answer anything. You asked more questions. You asked "if HK doesn't have those standards, isn't it the responsibility of the HK government to change that?". In which I responded with "if youre truly curious on why the HK government isnt doing anything on it, you should be asking the HK government, not some random person online".
Moreover, Im not sure if you even watched the video, but it explicitly stated that these products did not list the allergens in their ingredients. So how is HK or any other government meant to enforce something they dont know about?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KonradofKrakow "The Soviet Union was NOTHING like the EU - you have no idea what you are talking about, to the the point it is intellectually insulting"
Who said I said the Soviet Union was like the EU? The fact that youre miscomprehending basic English and putting words in my mouth is intellectually insulting. For the 3rd time, Russia never had control over those countries. USSR did. USSR is NOT Russia. Russia is PART OF the USSR. The "U" stands for UNION. Just like the European UNION. By that, I mean it is a collective group of nations, not USSR structure is similar to the EU.
"Russia definitely controlled those states. It controlled the entire Eastern Bloc"
The country of "Russia" didnt control those states. USSR did. The capital of USSR just happened to be in Moscow thats all. The fact that you cant tell the difference is also intellectually insulting.
And the Eastern Bloc includes China and Vietnam. To say "Russia" controlled the entire Eastern Bloc which includes China and Vietnam is also intellectually insulting.
Moreover, Stalin is Georgian, not Russian. Not controlled by "Russia" again. Its controlled by the USSR!
"If you say "might is right" you are nothing more than an imperialist"
I specifically said those are not my words. But whoever said that is not wrong. You cant disagree to that as there is a degree of truth to it.
"Peoples' votes, their desires, should be respected"
Sure. I desire no tax. In fact a significant proportion of my country (and the world) prefers no tax. Should our desires be "respected"? Sure it can be "respected", but does it mean those with power should listen to us and enforce that? No. Theres no obligation for any government to enforce peoples desires just because they voted so. Governments tend to do whats they think is best for their country.
"obviously Canada could use "firepower" to force Quebec to stay, and England could use "firepower" to force Scotland to stay in the UK - but would that be right? No . No , it wouldn't"
Every country has their own ways of doing things. If thats how they prefer to do things, then let them be. No one can say anything about that. Same goes for China.
"If China and Chinese people do not respect the will of the Taiwanese people, then no wonder the Taiwanese do not want to unify - who would want to unify or cooperate with a country does not take into account what you want, what you feel, and what you think?"
Remember what I said earlier? Governments have no obligations to enforce peoples desires. They will do what they think is best for their country. Otherwise my countrys desire for no tax HAS to be implemented. But that would cause civil unrest. So the government wont.
Also, unless youre talking about Taiwanese aboriginals, all "Taiwanese" are Chinese by blood AND by nationality. Citizens of Republic of CHINA are CHINESE by default.
"They see what's going on in Hong Kong, and they don't want anything to do with that"
Oh whats going on in Hong Kong? They self-govern themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ThaiTuVietTV "Chinese was Huaxia people. Do not lie us- VIetnamese can know about history even better than normal CHinese. Han CHinese is the descendent of Huaxia people in Zhongkwo ( middle-kingdom)"
First of all, if youre going to talk about race/ethnicity/descendents, dont use the word "Chinese". The term "Chinese" is too vague and does not mean anything in this regards. Chinese means youre a citizen of the country called China, regardless of ethnicity.
Secondly, Huaxia is a CONCEPT of a collective group of people, from different tribes/clans/ethnicities that embraced the dominate CULTURE at that time. "Huaxia people" are not of the same DNA, so dont lump them together as the same people. Its a cultural group, not a ethnic group.
"Manchurian and Mongolia was outside of Great Wall- means that they never ever CHinese in history"
Again, what is "Chinese"? You mean Middle Kingdom (MK)? If you mean MK then they are indeed Chinese, as they themselves took on the "Chinese" throne to the MK.
"CHinese are so greedy , so you claim all of the culture and land of other people as yours: Bai Yue, Dongzhi, Miao, ...are all victims of Chinese ( Huaxia people)"
Mongolian and Manchurians claim all of China as theirs, were they not "greedy"? Why have double standards? As for your so called "victims", they reside within the borders of current day China, of course they are citizens of China, therefore Chinese.
"Chinese" is a nationality, not a a single race (even the Huaxia is not a single race). Still think you know a lot?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paiwanhan "The Dongning and the Qing also only had partial control of the island. Neither even had total control of the coastline"
Youre making misleading claims. Large countries dont "control" every single inch of land they claim. You think Russia or Canada has total "control" over their arctic coastline? They dont have total control there, does it mean its not theirs?
"Japan is essentially the first colonial power to claim and actually have sovereignty over the entire island"
It was Qing that had sovereignty over the entire island first, its on their map under their jurisdiction. I can point to an area, say forest, on a Taiwan map that Japan did not control over. Is that area not part of a countrys sovereignty?
"After the war, Taiwan's trust territory status should have been guaranteed to foster eventual self-determination like other former Japanese held UN trust territories in the Pacific.
What UN? What trust? As of Japan surrendering the war, the UN did not exist yet. The surrender of Japan was to follow the Potdam declaration as CLEARLY stated in their signed surrender instrument.
Moreover, the islands in the pacific were colonies of another empire taken by force without any treaty, in other words they actually deserve the right to self-determination instead of being ruled by a foreign colonising power. Whereas Taiwan was already Chinese, being are 98% Han, and was formally surrendered by Qing China to Japan under a treaty unlike the others. Those are the differences.
"Those so called declarations weren't even signed"
An agreement is an agreement. Signed or not is just a matter of formality.
Regardless, the very first sentence in Japans SIGNED Instrument of Surrender says it all:
"We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China and Great Britain on 26 July 1945, at Potsdam (AKA the Potsdam declaration)".
"They were more like memorandums, and doesn't have legal status as the final treaties such as the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco"
Who said the Japanese Instrument of Surrender has no legal status? The UN didnt even exist at their time of surrender. So how were they meant to follow the usual "UN formalities" prior to their existence?
"The ROC essentially had been the trustee since Japan's surrender"
No such thing as a "trustee" then. Japan surrendered prior to the existence of the UN.
The agreement and acknowledgement of Taiwan returning to China PREDATES the existence of the UN. So your point here is redundant.
"The ROC doesn't de facto get Taiwan's sovereignty just because Japan surrendered to them. Just like the ROC didn't automatically get the sovereignty of North Vietnam just because they accepted Japanese surrender there on the behalf of the Allied powers".
North Vietnam was part of Qing China? And was taken by Japan? Idk about that but I do know Taiwan was part of Qing China, and was taken by Japan. All China did was take back what originally belong to theirs after Japans defeat. And it was supported and acknowledged by world powers.
"With the DPP in power, Taiwan is more than happy to draft a new constitution, however, it would be all a pipe dream if the US isn't onboard"
Taiwan is more than happy to draft a new constitution? Roughly half of Taiwan supports KMT (give or take, varies year to year). To change the constitution you would need 75% of the government to be on board. If Taiwan is truly more than happy to change their constitution, then they need 75% of the population to vote for DPP. Question is, is that the case? Can DPP gather support from 75% of its population?
And whats the US got to do with this? Since when is a foreign country involved in another countrys constitution???
1
-
@paiwanhan "Canada and Russia has full control over their Arctic territories. If they sent their military through those regions, no one would oppose them"
Thats not what I meant by "control". By control I meant actual control. They dont control the tribes living in the area. Even if a crime is committed there, they wouldnt know. Thats not called "control".
And your reasoning is not what defines "control".
"There are more than half the island where Qing military would get ambushed and slaughter for entering"
So youre saying Brazil/Bolivia/Columbia/Ecuador/Paraguay etc has no control over the Amazon/rainforests? And India has no control over the Sentinel Islands? To this day, tribes there will attack anyone that set foot into their territory. Whats your take on that? Are the rainforests/islands part of those respective countrys sovereign territory?
"The UN didn't exist doesn't mean the rules doesn't apply"
Nonsense. If they dont exist of course it doesnt apply. You cant use future laws to judge current rulings.
If a new law came out that children born in the US after WW2 (with foreign parents) are no longer US citizens, does that mean those people are no longer US citizens and are to be deported despite being US citizens their whole life?
"That is why the UN charter explicitly mentions...Trust territories was an Allied Power policy..."
Tell me, were ANY of these "trust territories" mentioned in ANY declarations or ANY agreement of ANY sort prior to the establishment of the UN that they were NOT to be designated as trust territories or anything of the sort?
"The Potsdam declaration isn't a legal treaty. It serves as merely a guideline. The legally binding stuff is in the final treaty, which would be the Treaty of San Francisco"
So youre saying Japans Instrument of Surrender was not legally binding? Japans Instrument of Surrender EXPLICITLY states they accept the provisions set forth in the Potsdam declaration.
"Northern Vietnam had been a proper territory of China much longer than Taiwan had ever been. In fact, so is true for North Korea"
We are specifically talking about Qing, the predecessor of ROC, not whatever dynasty you wish to pick from from an undefined timeline without relevant context to suit your narrative.
North Vietnam was never part of Qing. Same as North Korea. Tributary States are another story, and thats different to sovereign territory.
"In fact, the Qing claimed entire Siberia"
Youre speaking nonsense now. Where do you even get your "facts" from? Show me a map of Qing that claims the "entire Siberia".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hkchinese888 "you statement are contradicted with each other, on one hand your didn't observe the verdict of the international maritime court, on the other hand you ask other to adhere your baseless claims that the waters is your territory"
Theres no contradiction at all. Its your interpretation thats contradicting. Firstly, what did the verdict say? It only merely stated that China (and by extension all other countries) have no legal basis in making historical claims to a territory. That is all. Well, what happens when ALL countries in the world cannot make those claims, does that mean islands can belong to no country in the world? Whats the next deciding factor? Obviously the one who made the first claim in the region. And who was that? It was China! China made their claims in the 1940s (some sources say 1930s). When did PH make their claims? 1970! 3 decades later! I dont know about you, but if you make a claim to an unclaimed plot of land, and 3 decades later someone else claims that plot of land is theirs, who do you think really owns that plot of land?
As for your other point. "I" didnt ask nor is the territory "mine", and China is NOT my country, so dont try and get personal with me. Stick with the facts. I never made those claims, so nothings "contradictory" to what I said.
"if it is a disputed area, it doesn't mean you can expel others by illegal means"
What are the laws in disputed areas? Its a grey area NOT defined by international law. So by definition, it cant be deemed "illegal". Theres no laws that prohibits one from safeguarding their territorial integrity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChnesRep中華民國OfTaiwan "so many bugs in your latest reply, so hard to repel them all"
Bugs? This isnt a program lol. Theres no flaws in my words. Only something that you dont fully comprehend so you think theres something wrong. Ill respond to all your rebuttals.
"1. Authoritarian model is a you-obey-me model that by itself is unjustifiable"
Name me a country that does not have a "you-obey-me" model under the law. Everyone must obey the law of ANY country regardless of political system, democratic or not.
Or were you suggesting everyone must obey Xi when you say "you-obey-ME"? China isnt under dictatorship, its authoritarian. Even Xi needs permission from his government before he can implement what he wants.
"2. Name a few countries thrived post WWII without FDI to make your point"
"Name me a few country that needed FDI to thrive in Q3 2021 to make your point". See how limiting time frames are? After globalisation, every single country in this world received some form of FDIs. How you meant to differentiate whether one country thrives or not with FDI when ALL countries in this world have FDIs?
The only way to find out whether FDI is a factor in determining whether FDI makes a country thrive or not is go back to a time when FDI does not exists (pre-globalisation era) and see whether ANY country economically thrived during this time period.
So Ive already made my point very clear, and its proven by history. China and India for example did NOT need FDI to thrive centuries before the West arrived in Asia. History has proven my point already.
"3. China spends more in social stability than military every year"
As does every other country. Your point?
"War drains funding to expose instability risk accumulated for the last 70 years"
So why is the USs economy still great after all these years of war?
"Sanctions? China could not even bring Australia and Canada to its kneel, let alone when more than 130 countries boycott it altogether to stall China's exports to trigger more instability"
Chinas dispute with AU and CA were in RETALIATION to AU and CA. Its a tit for tat strategy. 1 for 1. Eye for an eye. Sanctions are not meant to "cripple" economies. Didnt you know?
And where did you get this "130" figure from? Youre literally making numbers up at this point. Theres only around 30 countries sanctioning Russia right now. What makes you think EVEN MORE will sanction or "boycott" Chinese goods?
Moreover, China is the #1 exporting country to almost all the countries in the world. And China also controls 85% of the worlds Rare Earth Metals. Good luck to the technological development of that country when China sanctions them back on the tech front.
And the PRC vs ROC conflict is a DOMESTIC issue. Its called the Chinese Civil War. Civil war meaning war within the SAME COUNTRY. No country is that dumb to launch a kamikaze attack on something thats got nothing to do with them in the first place - a domestic issue of another country.
"4...for starting a war that is going to cripple itself more badly. Keep our own fabs as hostages and sacrifice is a tactic to raise the urgency to foreign countries and is not rare to see in past wars. Leave nothing to help the enemies"
Why do you keep thinking that PRC invading Taiwan will cripple itself? Its an obviously win. Even if TSMC is completely destroyed, thats only $50 billion lost every year, compared to Taiwans whole GDP of $750 billion. Thats a net positive of $700 billion added each year!
And by kamakazeing, it only destroys local Taiwanese peoples livelihoods, not mainland Chinas.
"5. China can make some chips but not competitive in cost that's the fact. 5nm in which process can be done in China? You might be very naive to relate lab samples to mass production end products"
Youre basically rewording what I said earlier here.
Capable of creating a lab sample means capable of creating it. As said earlier, theyre just not able to produce it commercially at economies of scale (aka mass production) for them to be profitable yet. But make no mistake, theyre still capable to do so, they have the tech.
"Keep your blind faith and history would prove you wrong"
Actually, no. History is proving China to actually be catching up technologically. Even surpassing and taking the #1 spot in some fields (like 5G and AI for example).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@avatarairbinder6157 "Taiwan,PH and Vietnam were first country occupied SCS not China"
Taiwans government, Republic of CHINA (ROC), is the predecessor of PRC. And PRC mirrors ROCs claims. ROCs claims only predates PRCs clams by a few years in the 1940s. South Vietnam aka Republic of Vietnam (ROV) had claims over the SCS, but PRC and North Vietnam aka Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) has deals that said those islands in the SCS belong to China, in which they agreed. When PRC helped DRV in the war against ROV and won, all those claims in the SCS are now void because DRV never claimed islands in the SCS in the first place, it was ROV that did, and now ROV cease to exist. So it was only China that have claims in the SCS from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. It was not until oil was found in 1970 that NV/DRV and PH started to make sovereign claims in the SCS.
Know history before making blanket statements.
'China never mention or even claim 9 dashline or 11 dashline as territory even before dashline publish in 1950s it alwasy "core of interst"'
Irrelevant. I never mentioned it either. Im talking about the individual sovereignty of said islands/reefs. And Im still waiting for your evidence that they said its ONLY their "core of interest" and not sovereignty. This is my 3rd time asking now, if you still cannot provide the evidence then this point of yours is invalid. So stop bringing that point up if you cant back it up.
Moreover, as mentioned earlier, its already been ruled that under UNCLOS that there is no legal basis for claiming territory based on historical rights. So why keep up bringing claims of historical rights when theres no legal basis on claiming territory? Youre making mute points that dont get anywhere. Under international law of the seas, there is no legal basis for ANY country to make territorial claims based on historical rights - something that cant seem to get through to you.
"PH claim is already existed since 1645 and 1750 velarde map back by treaty of washington"
The Republic of the Philippines did not exist prior to 1899, and had no independence till 1946. So dont make it sound like PH had any say in this matter. PH had no say in anything till 1946. PH had been colonised for centuries with no say in anything prior to that.
And if you bothered reading the actual transfer of sovereignty treaty (Treaty of Paris) from 1898, youd realise that when the Spanish transferred its sovereignty over to the US it did NOT include ANY of the islands/reefs/shoals in the SCS.
What does that tell us?
That the Spanish never included those uneconomic islands/reefs in the SCS as part of their sovereign territory in their first place!
1
-
@avatarairbinder6157 "Map publish in 1947 is 11 dashline and 9 dashline dont exist until PRC revised 11 dashline into 9 in 1950 still claiming predessesor? 🤣🤣🤣"
I know, but irrelevant. And yes, ROC is the predecessor of PRC. PRC is the successor of ROC. Thats a fact. Why you laughing?
"but revised by US and spain for 150k$ under 1930 "treaty of washington" after US discovered d existence of Spratly islands"
Ive read the Treaty of Washington. No where does it mention the Spratlys. If you insist you are correct then state the Article that specifies it.
In fact, when Japan annexed the Spratlys in the 1938, the US did nothing and never asserted that that was their territory. Thats says everything already.
"Ur claiming vietnam agreed wherein reality vietnam dont even recognized china dashline"
If you bothered reading what I wrote, I spoke absolutely nothing about the dashed lines. I spoke about islands only. And yes, in 1958 they wrote a formal letter "acknowledging" and "respecting" Chinas territorial claims over the Paracel and Spratlys. Thats why China supported North Vietnam and helped them win the Vietnam War.
Heres the translated letter:
"Comrade Prime Minister,
We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration".
Then they backstabbed China in the 1970s by claiming the very islands they "acknowledged" and "respect" were Chinas.
"Taiwan is d first country occupy Spratlys in 1947 back and escoeted by US Taiping and PH 1968 vietnam 1970s China 1980"
We are not talking about "occupy" here. We are talking about sovereign claims.
Republic of China aka China (not Taiwan) was the first country to make the claim in the 1947, PRC did not exist then, ROC was the official government of China at that time, its politically incorrect to say "Taiwan" when Taiwan specifically refers to the island only.
As soon as PRC effectively won the Chinese Civil War in 1949, they succeeded all territory ROC claimed mirroring them 1 to 1. So PRC made their claims in 1949, not 1980 as you say.
And PH made their claims on 1978, when "President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines issued Presidential decree No. 1596, declaring the Spratly Islands as Philippine territory".
Sovereignty already belongs to China as theyre the first claimants in the region, yet PH wants to claim something others already claimed? Youre just looking for war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rexluminus9867 "I'm talking about the corona virus & don't you tell me on what I can comment on.😠"
No youre not. Youre talking about the flu. Did you forget what you said already? Here, let me remind you: "China should be on a long term quarantine from the rest of the world. Simple , as all the flues come from there"
And EVEN IF you were talking about coronavirus, MERS (2012), another recent coronavirus, originated in the Middle East. So much for as "all" the "flues" or coronaviruses comes from China...Just admit it, youre ignorAnt (with an "a").
Also, did I tell you what you can or cannot comment on? I said you are not qualified to make comments on my spelling as you have made more incorrect spelling than I did. In fact, I arguably made no spelling errors. I merely chose not to use apostrophes for simplification purposes. You on the other hand made so many errors.
You can comment all you want, it only shows that not only are you ignorant, but also a hypocrite and someone with a small mind that focuses on things that dont even matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cmck1777 "don't feel bad that I look more closely at sources..."
Youre gaslighting at this point. I dont feel bad at all. Not one bit.
And it doesnt matter how "close" you look at the source if you only look at source that suits your narrative, ie biased. You may be right that "It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored". But did you "look closely" at the data for men too? And provided a balanced assessment in your post? If you dont look at the data for men, then from the conclusion youve made youll also receive an F if you wrote a thesis on our topic of discussion.
"You've stated that you're comfortable with the idea that proportionally more women complain"
Dont put words in my mouth. I never stated that. I could very well be stating something Im very uncomfortable with, uncomfortable that theres some much complaint from one side but not the other. It baffles me how you keep misinterpreting things. I truly question your ability to interpret information. As a "researcher", you lose credibility every time you misinterpret something. And youve done it many times now...
"If you were doing a thesis in...and you submitted work that compared the behaviour of one woman to that of 9 men, you would be heavily penalised, and possibly even fail. You would be using mismatched sample sizes but comparing them; this is a big no-no"
I honestly surprised how you keep coming up with obvious misinterpretation after obvious misinterpretation. Not sure if thats deliberate or not. For someone that supposedly interprets information and what information CAN mean, thats certainly surprising.
That is obviously not what I meant. Youre talking about "reports" and "unions". I did not give an absolute number of 9 to 1. I gave a ratio of 9:1. The numbers could very well be 9 million to 1 million.
If the sample size is big enough (which it is when it comes to reports and number of people in unions) and if the data has a sound level of consistency (which again is, based on data) then the conclusion is valid. Yet youre somehow trying to discredit that? Again, thats so disingenuous of you to do that.
"The point I was making to you earlier, about women self-reporting that they don't make complaints because they feel it isn't worth it, cannot be compared to male experiences within the workplace because the female employees are made to feel uncomfortable through their gender"
Youre moving goal posts here. "Uncomfortable through gender" is not "misogyny" - the very word I was refuting. Do you know the definition of the word youre using?
1
-
@cmck1777 "don't feel bad that I look more closely at sources..."
Are you gaslighting or you misinterpreting my words? I dont feel bad at all. Not one bit.
And it doesnt matter how "close" you look at the source if you only look at source that suits your narrative, ie biased. You may be right that "It is a very commonly reported symptom of workplace oppression that women do not bother speaking up for fear of losing their jobs or being ignored". But did you "look closely" at the data for men too? And provided a balanced assessment in your post? If you dont look at the data for men, then from the conclusion youve made youll also receive an F if you wrote a thesis on our topic of discussion.
"You've stated that you're comfortable with the idea that proportionally more women complain"
Ok now dont put words in my mouth. I never stated that. I could very well be stating something Im very uncomfortable with, uncomfortable that theres some much complaint from one side but not the other. It baffles me how you keep misinterpreting things. I truly question your ability to interpret information. As a "researcher", you lose credibility every time you misinterpret something. And youve done it many times now...
"If you were doing a thesis in...and you submitted work that compared the behaviour of one woman to that of 9 men, you would be heavily penalised, and possibly even fail. You would be using mismatched sample sizes but comparing them; this is a big no-no"
I honestly surprised how you keep coming up with obvious misinterpretation after obvious misinterpretation. For someone that supposedly interprets information and what information CAN mean, thats certainly surprising.
That is obviously not what I meant. Youre talking about "reports" and "unions". I did not give an absolute number of 9 to 1. I gave a ratio of 9:1. The numbers could very well be 9 million to 1 million.
If the sample size is big enough (which it is when it comes to reports and number of people in unions) and if the data has a sound level of consistency (which again is, based on data) then the conclusion is valid. Yet youre somehow trying to discredit that? Again, thats so disingenuous of you to do that.
"The point I was making to you earlier, about women self-reporting that they don't make complaints because they feel it isn't worth it, cannot be compared to male experiences within the workplace because the female employees are made to feel uncomfortable through their gender"
Youre moving goal posts here. "Uncomfortable through gender" is not "misogyny" - the very word I was refuting. Do you know the definition of the word youre using?
1
-
1
-
@cmck1777 No, my main qualm is people making biased or misleading statements, and throwing words like "misogyny" out there even when it isnt misogyny.
No one cares about men. Heck even I dont as a man. And thats technically misandry (misogyny for men), but we all dont care about men thats why people dont see it as misandry. We brush it off as nothing. But not for women, because women are "special" and we need to take special care in the way we speak to them, otherwise its misogyny...
Regardless, the only reason I brought up men was to counter your worldview that the work place was "against" women, when in fact both sexes suffer. Men just zuck it up and deal with it.
The number 1 reason why theres less women in STEM, more specifically T and E, is because theres simply less women (proportionally) interested in these fields. Men tend to be more interested in working with "things" and women tend to be more interested in working with "people". Our biologies are different so our interests are also different. Interest/biology is the #1 thing deterring women from this field, not "misogyny".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@huuduyvu9714 Hữu Duy Vũ "a few companies but it brings millions tons of trash from one country to many other, causes effect for millions of native people, that’s the thing that matters"
Yeh. A few MALAYSIAN COMPANIES might bring in that much.
"Is millions tons of trash insignificant to total number created by a nation?...By the way, no matter how hard you deny, it’s clearly represents a country in dumping the others."
Millions created by a nation? Do you not know how to count as well? Do your due diligence. Australia only exported 71,000 tonnes of plastics to Malaysia in the past year. Malaysia also imports rub_bish from US, UK, NZ, Canada, and Europe.
Also, its very clear you dont comprehend English very well. Nowhere did I "deny" Australia shipping its rub_bish to SE Asian countries. Stop putting words in my mouth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zeke860 "Here is a map produced by a dutch that proves there is no legal nor occupation of chinese in the said island"
Oh look! Lets trust some Dutch guy that has absolutely no authority in determining another countrys sovereignty to prove your point! If I drew a map that show there was no occupation in the PH, that MUST also mean PH was not occupied, right?!
And why you looking at something so far back? Its already been ruled by some tribunal that there is no legal basis for China (and by extension other countries) to claim territory based on historical rights.
"Amazingly, none of it was produced by the Philippines itself, I wonder why?"
You wonder why? Because PH simply did not have the expertise to draw maps? Duh!
"Care to share your evidence and proofs? YouTube scholars."
My evidence in the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US, and from the US to PH. Its specifically stated. If you bothered reading it, youd realise that the islands/reefs in the SCS were NOT transferred to the PH. In other words, PH has absolutely ZERO sovereignty to ANY of the islands/reefs in the SCS. Its already been set in stone. If you want more territory you need to conquer it. What has PH conquered?
China was the first country in the region to make sovereign claims to the islands/reefs in the SCS in the 1940s. PH, Vietnam etc made their first claim in the 1970s after oil was found. Theyre 3 decades too late! Its already been owned by China.
Whos the "YouTube scholar" now? Youre talking about yourself are you not, Youtube scholar?
Heres a tip, its unwise to say things that can so easily backfire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "You're forgetting one thing, China's still a signatory to UNCLOS"
I didnt forget anything at all. Sovereignty has NOTHING to do with UNCLOS. UNCLOS is about maritime boundaries, not which country has sovereignty over what territory.
"They have just as much right to use those waters as China does"
Sure, but to be within 12nm from the said territories? Who says? Try venturing into 12NM of the US or something, see how you will be dealt with. Every country has the legal right to defend their own sovereign territory, China is not exception.
"But the area hasn't seen exclusive use by a single nation, nor has China even respected the environment or it's neighbors enough to even help their own case"
Its the others than need to respect Chinas sovereignty over the islands/reefs. They were the first country in the region to lay claims to the territories in the 1940s after all. PH, VN etc laid claims to those same territories 3 decades too late in the 1970s. If one claims a piece of territory as theirs, anyone else that claims it AFTERWARDS are the thieves.
"This is 2023, not 1323"
Exactly, so dont claim territory thats not yours. You can claim any unclaimed territory that exists, just dont claim territory thats already been claimed.
"There's a science to this stuff now"
Science? Whats that suppose to me? What science? You mean laws?
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "1. Sovereignty does have to do with UNCLOS when China's one of the very first nations to have ratified it. That means that on an official level, they put themselves under the self-created impression that they'd follow international law. However, the second they lose, they wanna act like it doesn't apply to them and continue to violate it."
Ratifying first or last has NOTHING to do with "sovereignty", so not sure what point youre trying to make there. As mentioned earlier, UNCLOS is about maritime boundaries and their rights, not which country has sovereignty over what territory. If you say China has violated international law, then state the law that they have broken. Its PH that has violated international law.
"2. The US won't do anything if foreign ships don't sail into it's territory"
Lies. If ANY ship sails within 12NM from ANY countrys territory, they will seize their ship and detain the people on it. If NK sails their warships into US territory and you think theyll do nothing?
"Have you ever heard of the US aggressively patrolling the ocean like China does? Probably not."
Of course. The US has been aggressively patrolling the Taiwan strait for many years with their warships and warplanes. Thats an act of provocation on many fronts.
And not only "patrolling", the US has also aggressively stirred up many conflicts behind the scene to fuel their military industrial complex all around the world.
"And the Spratlies aren't "12NM" away from China, their 400NM, far away from the coast"
Youre right, its not 12NM from China. Its 0NM from China. The whole Spratly are theirs. They claim it as their SOVEREIGN territory, not just a mere "EEZone" that they can exploit resources from. And like I said in another comment, distance is not what dictates sovereignty. There are many countries around the world having islands half way across the world.
"3. That's literally not how claiming territory works"
Prior to international law existing, thats exactly how it works. If you claim it first, its yours. If contested, theres war to fight for it.
"There's historical use that has to come into play as well as ownership and occupational issues"
Prior to international law, might is right. Nothing comes into play other than through force.
"China claims that they've used the Spratlies since the Ming, yet have never produced anything proving that, nor have they shown any long-lasting historical military installations or settlements"
What do you mean never? Everything is documented in Chinese history, and its been documented that they have exercised jurisdiction over those islands over many dynasties. Or were you referring to the tribunal that China wasnt even there to defend themselves with?
Its already been ruled that there is no legal basis for any country to claim territories based on historical rights, so no point talking about "historical use".
"China's destroying the reef system with a project to create manmade military islands because they just wanna win and claim it, which is illegal to do in international waters"
Stop making things up. State the exact law that prohibits a country from doing so. Bet you cant. Because there is none. Go on. Im waiting.
"4. Again, not how it works. Can I claim the sidewalk adjacent to your house? No"
You cant do that once laws have been established. But before law was established, you can. And if there were any parties that disagree with that, then might is right. Thats exactly how the world works prior to laws existing. And China made their SOVEREIGN claims prior to international law existing. PH and VN etc made their claims AFTER international law existed when China already owns those islands for over 3 decades already. Claiming something that others already owns is theft.
"5. Yes, Law is a science"
No its not.
No one with a law degree will say their degree is a science degree.
No one will refer a to lawyer as a scientist.
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "1.UNCLOS ruled in favor of the Philippines and the correct order of international waters"
Wrong. It was also not in favour of the PH. Why? Because PH also made claims based on historical rights. Ive repeated multiple times what the ruling was already: based on UNCLOS, China, and by extension other countries, have no legal basis to claim territory based on historical rights. And that includes the PH. So how is that "in favour" of the PH again? If anything it was neutral, no party wins, neither China nor PH.
"The Philippine's are not putting installations outside of their EEZ, so you can't say they violated any international law"
0:35 Right here, PH violated international laws on collision avoidance at sea and threatened the safety of the navigating vessel.
And China claims sovereignty over those islands/reefs. And there is NO LAW that prohibits building artificial islands or installations in their sovereign territory. You keep speaking about EEZ, Im not talking about EEZ, Im talking about SOVEREIGNTY. Its 2 different things here.
"And if you try to bring up fishing, people are allowed to fish in international waters, but not in other countries' EEZ, which is what China let's their fishermen do"
Well first of all, China is not prohibiting fishermen from fishing in the SCS. Theyre prohibiting fishermen from conducting any activities within 12NM from their sovereignty territory. Youre conveniently omitting that important piece of information. This is what causes disinformation.
'2. Again, no they don't. And they don't "patrol" the Taiwan Straight'
At this point youre arguing semantics here. Just because the patrols are not as frequent as youd like, doesnt mean theyre not patrolling the area. What theyre doing falls under the definition of patrol.
"They sail through it to deter potentially violent action by the CCP against the ROC"
You really think that sailing warships between them will deter anything? If PRC wants to attack, they would do it regardless. Having warships and warplanes halfway across the world in a place that they have no business with is a blatant sign of provocation if you ask me.
"to enforce the concept of free transit(since the Straight is another international waterway disputably claimed by China)"
They dont have the right to "enforce" anything outside of their jurisdiction. Heck, they havent even ratified UNCLOS!
"And the US does not shadow foreign ships if they go by us in this day and age"
If its near US territory, yes. Yes they will. Even aircrafts they will shadow, so I dont see why they wont with ships.
"So again, the US doesn't act like China when it comes to maritime behavior"
Say that again when NK sails a warship 13NM off US territory. Just because they havent (because no one has done it) doesnt mean they wont.
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "3. This is the modern day, not the Three Kingdoms or the Roman Empire. Again, that's a mute point"
I keep talking about the 1940s, just prior to international law existing, yet you conveniently pull out history from thousands of years ago?
Its certainly not a mute point, but I can see you trying very hard in attempt to make it one by conflating 1940s with something that happened a couple thousand years ago.
My point still stands right up to WW2. So not sure what youre playing here.
"How childish do you have to be to claim an entire ocean for China?"
I cant speak for China, but I can speak for myself. What I spoke of are the islands specifically, not the seas. So dont go talk about something thats got nothing to do with me.
You keep conflating things together.
"They are 400NM away from China and nothing will change that, so face the facts. That area belongs to no one"
Distance is not what dictates sovereignty. Sovereignty is claimed by the first claimant. If contested, then what usually happens is a fight over the territory. Not advocating for it, but an observation.
"Again, the Spratlies aren't China's sovereign territory. If it was, why don't they occupy it? Wanna know why? Because..."
Unlike you I dont speak on others behalf. But I will speak logic. Territory belongs to the first claimant. If another party wants to claim it, there will be a fight for it.
"I'm talking about the 2016 ruling and modern day claims. China always says they've used that place since the Ming, and are yet to produce even a scrap of paper referring to it as territory. Not a letter nor a map"
Ive done my fair share of reading in the past, and Ive indeed seen plenty of evidence of archaeological evidence and age-old documents which mentions their jurisdictions and activity over the islands not just from Ming (1400), but also from Jin (300 CE), Liu Song (450), Tang (650), Song (1000), and Qing (1650).
These evidence are much stronger than PH evidence. But I stopped looking further into it since there is no legal basis on historical rights as the tribunal has ruled.
Chinas strongest point now is that they has made sovereign claims over the islands since the 1940s and were uncontested for over 3 decades. Its PH and VN thats needs to stop the provocation.
"Articles Article 209, 211, 217, and even 235 of Part XII of Convention"
I skimmed through it. All of them require China to have THEIR OWN laws and regulations on the protecting the environment. My question to you is, how do you know China violated their own laws on the?
"They made their claims after WW2. But even back then there were treaties that harkened to an early form of international law"
Did China sign it? If China didnt sign it then why bother mentioning it? China made their sovereign claims to the islands in the SCS prior to international law even existing with the help of the US. Even if they did sign it, if their claims violated anything, it wouldve been brought to light.
"Law is a Social Science"
And now you wish to add a "social" in front of science.
That is not how the English language is used. No one calls law a "science". If you want to get down to is, then literally everything and every subject in this world is a "science". Everyone will just get a Bachelor/Master of "Science" degree. Forget about "Law degrees", its a "science degree". Lets not get ahead of ourselves and use the language everyone uses. Otherwise one can say that you a manipulative person and your relationships are transactional, because technically it is. Just that no one uses those words in such a way.
1
-
@tylerfuller-battles8370 "Well, UNCLOS didn't say the Philippines can claim the entire sea either, just their EEZ, which is why the area outside of the Philippine's EEZ is international water"
Wrong. Legally speaking (which I assume youre talking about since you speak of UNCLOS), there is no such thing as "international waters", theres only "high seas", which is any water outside of the 12NM territorial waters of any territory, not outside EEZ of 200NM.
And course they didnt say that. UNCLOS has no authority to determine what is is and what is not part of a countrys sovereignty territory.
"which is why the argument of historical rights can't come into play regarding the Spratlies"
So its not in the favour of the PH as you said. PH also cannot claim the islands based on historical rights.
"That ship was bringing supplies to the Sierra Madre, which is inside the Philippine's 200NM EEZ. China has no right to be there, are interfering with foreign military operations and the Philippine's sovereignty"
What do you mean China has "no right" to be there? Sierra Madre is located in Second Thomas Shoal, a reef that China claims sovereignty over. Remember, China were the FIRST in the region to make that sovereign claim. PH has ZERO sovereignty over ANY islands in the SCS as per their stated in the sovereign handover from the US to PH. If they want to suddenly claim sovereignty over islands/reefs China already claims then they must fight for it.
"and intentionally sailed in a path towards the smaller Fillipino ship while the smaller one turned at the last minute. You can clearly tell by the direction of the bows"
Under UNCLOS, every country has the right to defend their territorial integrity, even by use of force if necessary. So even if China blew them up, it wouldnt be illegal.
"Also, EEZ's are directly connected to the issue of sovereignty, which China seems keen on violating in regards to the Philippines"
When sovereignty was handed over the PH, it was very clear, it DID NOT include any islands in the SCS. So PH does NOT have any sovereignty of ANY territory in the SCS. So dont try any dance around with words with me. China violated nothing in regards to sovereign claims.
"I know China doesn't prohibit fishing in the SCS, but they let their fishermen poach from the waters of other nations"
Sure, I dont agree with that as well. But thats irrelevant to what we are speaking about right now.
"4. It's international waters. Any ship from any nation absolutely has the right to sail through there, even passing warships"
Funny how you considered "international waters" as outside the EEZ when if comes to PH, but when it comes to China, inside their EEZ is considered "international waters".
And my point isnt about their "right", my point is that thats a provocation. Like, just because you have freedom of speech to say what you want, doesnt mean what you say cannot be considered provocation.
"And I know that the US hasn't ratified UNCLOS, but they consider it an official guideline to international maritime behavior and use it as such"
Rules for thee but not for me. Typical American mindset. Doesnt matter if they "consider" it as a guideline, they are in no position to "enforce" anything that they themselves refuse to be legally bounded by it.
"And no, sailing warships in this context isn't provocation, it's deterrence"
When Russia sailed warships to Cuba and armed Cuba with capabilities to defend themselves as deterrence of an invasion, thats provocation? But when US arms Taiwan and sails warships there its not?
Such double standards.
"Provocation would be claiming Taiwan as theirs or something to that extent, which the US doesn't"
Thats not provocation only, thats a declaration of war.
Provocation is defined as; action or speech that makes someone angry, especially deliberately; stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone; deliberately make (someone) annoyed or angry.
What the US did falls under the definition of provocation to the Chinese. Not sure why youre so adamant in defending somethings thats clearly provocation to them.
"Again, no they don't....But they've never intercepted over international water or airspace"
Again, just because it hasnt happened before (because no one dared to) doesnt mean they wont. Even Australia did when China came close to them.
"Besides, they have radar to track them, so shadowing or aggressive action isn't necessary...NK doesn't have the capability to do that, lol. Their tech is still stuck in the Cold War-era, which some of it being even more outdated"
You missed the point. My point is that when a threat is at your doorstep, you will be closely monitoring it.
Radars alone just doesnt it cut it, they will send ships and even warn them via radio that theyre approaching their territory.
P.S not sure if deliberate but just FYI you didnt touch on my 2nd post of my last comment in case you missed it
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cheerwhiner7829 "Some art, because of its nature, must be preserved"
Opinions. If one wants their art to be preserved, then the artist is to protect it and preserve it themselves, not put it somewhere where they have zero control over. Tell them to preserve it in their own private property.
"this is about controlling the narrative of the past… denying the existence of some true event that took place"
Removal is NOT denial. Thats your own opinion. And opinions can be wrong.
For example, removal of guns from society is NOT denying that guns ever existed, nor denying historical events involving guns.
Is that also "shameful" and "pathetic"? "Cowards" running from their past and "denying" it? Your logic is flawed.
"Facing what one has done helps to keep it from being repeated"
Again, opinions. You think students in China know nothing about about TS? Oh they know. They know more than you do. You need to know both side of the story before formulating any conclusions. My question is, do you know the other side of the story?
Also again, private property, private rights. If one wants to preserve their artwork, they do so in their own private property or one that approves of their artwork being placed there. No one is changing any narrative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cakeyummy6608 "China's army sucks in quality. Have you seen how terribly they faired against Indian troops during border fights for the past 3 years?"
Yeh I saw. You know why they "sucked"? Because they restrained themselves. They have a no-fire-first policy. Same goes for India. So only scuffles happened. Youre going to judge an army "quality" based on scuffles? Really?
Moreover, you speak about Chinese quality being bad, what about PH? Why no comment there? This comment is about CN vs PH after all.
"Not to mention during the Korean War the US/allied soldiers were outnumbered over 5 to one by the Chinese/North Korean soldiers throughout the war and they still lost land"
And what "technology" did this poor impoverished Chinese have compared to the US then? Is the disparity still the same in 2023? And we're talking about swords and spears here. How many years experience does China have with swords compared to America? And why you talking about US again? This is about PH. Even if there are US allies, youre comparing the Korean War where China only "helped" out with, whereas if its CN vs PH, China will use its FULL force. Compare apple with apples, not with oranges.
"And despite that they still lost territory by the end of the war"
Territory was more or less the same. Instead of dividing NK and SK by a straight line, its divided more practically by a river. So not sure what youre on about there.
"I'm saying that if only swords and spears are used like in this guy's example, it would most likely be a win for America"
The examples you gave with the Korean war etc with China losing more soldiers, that all comes down to the disparity in technology.
If its swords and spear where its 1v1 for the most part, numbers and experience matter. So no, China will win there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kahldiss2689 "Pedro Velarde is not a cartographer but a spanish priest"
Wrong. Who said priests cant be cartographers? Where you getting your info from? Pedro Murillo Velarde is a Spanish Jesuit missionary, administrator, historian, AND cartographer.
"The map was drawn up by Francisco Suarez and Later engraved by Nicolas dela cruz Bagay. Both are native Filipinos"
Wrong again. Francisco Suarez was a Spanish Jesuit priest, philosopher and theologian. Only Nicolas dela cruz Bagay, the engraver was PH. But maps arent created by engravers, theyre created by cartographers. And the cartographer was Spanish. PH simply did not have the expertise to create maps. Engravers are just mere copiers of maps that was already measured and drawn up. Zero credit to PHs in creating the map. Stop trying to claim credit over something you didnt do.
"The map was only named after Velarde because he's the one who ordered it created"
Wrong. Its named after him because he was the cartographer. Where you even getting your info from?
"On the the lower left side of the 1796 Velarde map are 3 groups of banana shaped dots named "Los Bajos de Paragua". Shown as being part of Palawan islands. today it is called the Spratlys"
Wrong. Again, if you bothered looking at the map, none of those are islands. Theyre all submerged. Draw the line from the tip of Palawan up north and youll only see Wood bank, Leslie Bank, Brown Bank, and Seahorse Shoal. Neither of them are islands. And China didnt even do anything near there so why talk about that?
'On the upper right side is "Panacot", today known as Scarborough Shoal'
You mean upper left? Borneo is also on the map, you telling me thats part of PH too?
Heres the deal, when the Spanish transferred their sovereignty to the US, it specifically mapped up what was transferred. And what was transferred did not include any of the islands, shoals, reefs or banks. Therefore, PH does not have sovereignty over any of the islands, shoals, reefs or banks in the SCS. So stop trying to claim that its yours. Its not.
1
-
@kahldiss2689 '1. You've mistaken the famous jesuit priest named "Francisco Suarez", with the person I've mentioned'
Ok point taken. They have the same name. Regardless, credit of creating a map does not go to drawers or engravers, it goes to the cartographer, which was Spanish. PH simply did not have the expertise to create maps.
"2. Los Bajos de Paragua included all shoals and rocks (islands) in today what is called Spratlys. There are no other features in that area other than the Spratlys"
Wrong. Theres only 3 circles, meaning 3 banks/shoals. And 99% of the Spratlys are WEST of Palawan, not within Palawan when drawn a straight line up north. Just look at the map of all the Spratlys and compare.
Also as mentioned earlier, when the Spanish transferred their sovereignty to the US, it specifically mapped up what was transferred. And what was transferred did NOT include any of the islands, shoals, reefs or banks in the Spratlys. Therefore, PH does not have sovereignty over any of the islands, shoals, reefs or banks in the Spratlys.
"3. North Borneo (or Sabah) was part of the territory of The Sulatnate of Sulu under the dominion of the Spanish. Yes it is part of PH during that time"
The Spanish was only the protectorate of the The Sulatnate of Sulu, they did not have sovereignty over them.
Moreover, that was during the period of 1851-1898. The Verlarde map was from 1734. What does that tell us? That everything drawn in the map DOES NOT mean its part of PH/Spanish sovereignty. Its just a mere map of the region, not a map that ONLY showed what the Spanish had sovereignty over. And its backed by the fact that when the Spanish transferred their sovereignty to the US, it specifically mapped up what was transferred and it DID NOT include ANY of the shoals, reefs, or islands in the SCS.
PHs sovereignty is already set in stone. Stop trying to claim territory that isnt yours. China has already claimed the Spratlys in the 1940s. PH claimed it in the 1970s, over 3 decades after Chinas claims.
1
-
@kahldiss2689 "You mentioned in your original reply that Filipinos do not know how to draw a map"
I obviously meant draw UP the map, meaning the expertise of a cartographer, creating the map from scratch. Not literally only "draw" and nothing else. Even I can draw.
"2. Los Bajos de Paragua refers only to the Spratlys"
Wrong. As shown in the map, it only shows 3 circles. Those are the 3 banks. thats like 1% of the Spratlies. And none of them are islands or reefs. Just look at the modern map and compare. 99% of the Spratlies are WEST of Palawan, which is OUTSIDE of the Verlarde map. Stoping trying to claim ALL of the Spratlies just because the Spanish map shows 1% of it.
"Spratlys is also described in many other earlier maps as part of the Philippines"
"Describe" does not mean sovereignty. Moreover, its already been established from the 2016 tribunal ruling that there is no legal basis in claiming territory based on historical rights. So not sure why youre so adamant in bringing up unlawful points up.
"3. Spain considered all people in the Philippies and all their territories as part of their domain"
Wrong. Like the Dutch, and other colonisers, the Spanish only cared about economic exploitation. If there is no economic values, they wouldnt consider it theirs. Thats why they were not included in the sovereign transfer to the US in the Treaty of Paris - they never claimed sovereignty over it in the first place.
"4. On your claim regarding USA acquisitin of the Philippines from Spaines: The 1900 Treaty of Washinton had Spain given all other territories to USA those that were not included in the earlier Treaty of Paris. And that implies to the Spratlys and all others within the Philippine Islands"
No it did not. Youre spewing lies. The transfer coordinates were crystal clear. Especially in the SCS. It was just a straight line off the coast of Palawan, and straight line up the coast of Luzon. Just enter said coordinates on Gmaps and verify it yourself. Its not that hard. Nothing in the SCS, whether islands, reefs or shoals, were mentioned in the treaty. So you can stop dreaming.
"you and china should stop invading other people's territories that are not yours. truth is china begun to exist only in 1949"
Prior to international law existed, all countries in this world can claim whatever territory they wanted through conquest. China claimed the islands in the SCS when no country had sovereignty over it. PH especially did not have sovereignty over it. So its definitely NOT yours.
"your Francisco Suarez lived a couple of centuries before the other Francisco Zuarez was born. talking about credibility"
As I said, point taken. They have the same name. Even YOU used the name "Francisco Suarez" before. Where did this "Francisco Zuarez" suddenly come from?
If you want to talk about credibility, you said Velarde was not a cartographer, when he in fact is.
Remember that.
And theres only one Pedro Murillo Velarde in history without any room for confusion.
Want to talk about credibility hey?
1
-
1
-
@kahldiss2689 "1. Ahhh looks like your saying Spratlys is east of Palawan, unfortunately for you that is Sulu Sea. simple direction says spratlys is west of palawan. Now your obliterated again"
The one that cant read got obliterated.
Quote me where I even remotely suggested that Spratlies is east of Palawan in Sulu Sea. I said the coordinates from the TREATY is in Sulu sea. And that was my point, the treaty DID NOT mention the Spratlies AT ALL.
And the Verlarde map does NOT show the Spratlies because the islands/reefs are West of Palawan, that means its off the map! Meaning its NOT part of the PH!
"2. China NEVER had sovereignty of the South China Sea in any manner"
They claimed sovereignty of islands in the SCS in the 1940s with the help of the US, its well documented. If you dont know about then that means your boss is hiding that info from you.
"for a very long time in so many decades, china is begging Philippines to allow its ships to shelter in the spratlys."
Provide evidence that so-called big bully China ever "begged" weak tiny PH. If you cannot provide a source that they "begged" PH then that means your words are not credible.
Moreover, China prefers to solve problems diplomatically instead of methods that result in casualties. So even if PH invaded Chinas sovereign territory, they would try resolve in a way that there are no casualties if they can.
"3. UNCLOS simply says that it has no jurisdiction to rule and decide on land disputes"
Wrong. UNCLOS does not have the power nor did they say what country has jurisdiction over what. UNCLOS only speaks about maritime boundaries, NOT sovereignty. EEZ is not within any country "jurisdiction", its merely an economic "zone".
"But what UNCLOS made clear is that china has no business anywhere in the that part of south china sea which is in the 200 mile EEZ of the Philippines. so your obliterated once again"
Wrong again. You failed to read English properly. The tribunal ruling if thats what youre referring to, says that China (and by extension, other countries) has no legal basis in claiming territory based on historical rights. What that means is under UNCLOS, no country on this planet can claim territory based on "historical rights", including the PH.
But too bad for you, China conquered those territory BEFORE international law even existed, so China doesnt need any "legal basis" in claiming territory.
If youre against that, then you must be consistent with your claims and must be against Europeans claiming North America as their sovereignty territory.
The worlds territory prior to international law was claimed through conquest. If you want it, then you must fight for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kahldiss2689 "you are in conflict with your own statements. you had already proclaimed UNCLOS decision which says that there is no legal basis in claiming territory based on historical rights, and yet you persist on historical lies of the 1940's 10 dash lines"
Just because you dont understand what my words mean doesnt mean that Im in conflict with my own statements. Do you even understand what "legal basis" and "historical rights" mean?
Firstly, Im not saying making claims need to be "legal", because prior to international law, there need not be a "legal basis" in making any sovereign claims as there is no "law". How can anything have a "legal basis" when there is no law? This is the period when China made their claims, when there was no international laws in existence. So in the 1940s, China doesnt need any "legal basis" to make their claims.
Secondly, historical rights refers to history from hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. PRC that made the claims in the 1940s is still the same PRC today, that does not fall under, nor has anything to do with the "historical rights" that UNCLOS speaks of.
And not once did I speak about the "dashed lines". Dont put words in my mouth. Read properly.
"how can china conquer the spratlys when they are scared to the bones"
Again, deciding how others should feel/think only shows your words arent credible. If you words arent credible why should anyone believe what you say?
From how I see it, youre projecting at this point. All colonised people would be "scared" of the US/West to go against them. But China wasnt colonised by the West, so why would they be?
But to answer your question, because from Chinas point of view, theyre reclaiming their lost territory the Japanese took from them. And the US acknowledged thats whats Chinas doing. So of course they did nothing. They werent even against it, and its not even US territory so why should they care?
"there was never a news saying that china conquered the spratlys"
Dumb point. Was there any "news" that PH, US, or Spanish conquered the spratlies?
"News" is not what makes a sovereign claim a sovereign claim. Countries dont need to step on every inch of their land to make sovereign claims over that land. Otherwise large countries like Russia, US, CA, AUS, Brazil etc would be in big trouble.
China made their sovereign claims in the 1940s, and was acknowledged by the US then. PH made their sovereign claims in the 1970s. Stop denying facts. Its PH thats trying to steal Chinese territory. When China made their claims it wasnt owned by anyone. But when PH made their claims its already been owned by others for at least 3 decades!
"After international law of the seas were established, it was only now that china is militarily stealing it"
If your neighbour has a block of land and you dont see them using it. Even if you start building on top of their land its still your neighbours land.
"all china does is to beg the Philippines for shelter of its fishing fleets in the spratlys"
Im still waiting for your evidence that the Chinese government "begged" the PH for anything.
If you cant, then it only shows your words are not credible. And if your words are not credible, why should anyone continue engaging in a conversation with you when your words cant be backed by anything?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@antoniussamuelson3748 You are talking about history here, so of course we have to talk about happens in history. Whether you agree with it or not, that happened, and is still happening till this day. Doesnt matter if I "want" it or not. It is what it is. If the US was to take over Canada and Greenland. Who can stop them? Will "disagreeing" stop them? You can disagree all you want, but thats reality. Territory belongs to those that conquered.
Invalid? What makes it "valid" then? Do you even have a proper answer to that question? Is Vietnams claims "valid"? Are the Frenches claims "valid"? What makes it "valid"? By occupying it? By "building" on it?
Again, territories does not need to be inhabited or physically marked. There are many forests, deserts, mountains, grasslands etc in this world that are uninhabited. Must countries inhabit them or build upon them or "mark" them for it to be theirs? If that is your logic, then the MAJORITY of this words land cannot be claimed by their respective countries. Who are you to say countries must "build" upon that territory otherwise their claim is "invalid"?
And like I said already, China did have physical markers. Look it up yourself. Markers dont have to be buildings. It could be flags too.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TeeHee-vo1bn You even said it yourself, the keyword you used was "can". But the word used here is "modified". You have zero information on what modification it is. So you dont have to keep suggesting it that it is an "upgrade".
And like I said, modified cars have not undergone any large scale testing like car manufacturers have done. You keep talking about the "parts", you exclude the installation, compatibility and the mass testing.
And the parts could be "superior", what ever that means. But "superior" or "improvements" does not equate to "safer", which was my point.
As for the wheel, you see, this you can understand. There are limitations of the wheel "upgrade" that can compromise the safety of the car. Which again, was my point.
And wheels are a common "upgrade" and theres plenty of testing done for that with reviews. Other parts, not so much. Which was again, my point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mllyett1901 "Learn how to read. 1/3"
Mate, you said 1/3 then you said "1 million is 6/9". Youre not even consistent. Instead of telling others to learn how to read, how about you learn how to be consistent?
"The HK police arrests bystanders in Shatin New Town Plaza"
Violent protesters assaulting police arent "bystanders". They assaulted police officers.
"The HK police let go of all white shirted mobsters at Yeun Long MTR station who beated up kids, pregnant woman, and anyone in the station. Emergency calls were ignored. HK police showed up 1.5 hr later"
Not all black shirt protesters are violent, just like not all white shirt protesters are violent. They can just arrest people for just wearing white shirts! As for HK showing up "late", youve been brainwashed. I watched the live stream footage, it was only 15mins. So much for emergency called "ignored". Youre honestly being brainwashed and you dont even know.
"The police closed down the gate when people tried report on the incident 7/21 evening"
The gate was closed because it was time for the station to be closed. Moreover, do you have evidence that the "police closed" the gates?
"During the protests, youngsters are ambushed with tear gases and rubber bullets shot in their faces"
Ambushed? Do you even know what ambushed means? The police were already there and warned them multiple times. If they refused to comply with the officers demands, then there will be consequences.
"Yes, I dare to say Hk police are not law abiding and corrupted since the control and influence of the Bejing officials"
You are entitled to your opinion. HK police are among the most corrupt-free police forces in the world. And theyre independent from Mainland China. Thats fact for you. Speak facts, not opinions.
"Of course, that is what the Chinese officials ignore since the people matter nothing to the communists"
China isnt communist anymore. Capitalism and communism dont go hand-in-hand.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VonWipfenfels You lose an argument so you can only resort to accusing someone as part of a propaganda machine? Or are you really that dumb you cant tell the difference?
Beijing handpicking is BJ personally picking candidate A, B, C, D, E for HK to vote for. Which is not the case. The case is HK picking candidates A, B, C, D, E and BJ filters the HK handpicked candidates to A, B, D, E for HK to elect. Huge difference.
Also, just because you say someone is "lieing" (especially without providing evidence nor logical reasoning) doesnt mean they are. It means that either you are lieing yourself, or you are just outright dumb.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@markiss7620 "I belive it's geological location and values. America and Europe are considered "the west" so anyone raised here with our values would be western...Just seems silly to be part of a geologically western country, that part of "the west" but not be considered "western" based on race"
Yes, if raised in a western civilisation, ones values would be western. As mentioned earlier, an Asian raised in the US is merely a "Easterner" raised with "Western" values.
America and Europe is considered the "West" because the people there are predominately of European descent. The Americas is also geographically located in the "west" yet no one refers to an American Indian or an Amazon as someone from the "west". Also, Australia is geographically located in the far East, yet is also considered the "West".
From this we can conclude its not based off modern day geographic locations. As for values, if a Chinese person born in China spent his whole life in China, but was raise with western values, does that make this person a "westerner" simply because of having western values? I dont think so. Therefore, having "western" values does not simply make one a "westerner".
Its based on race, specifically those of European descent.
"I've never heard that the west are just the white countries, not to mention both America and Europe are extremely diverse"
The US is 75% White and Europe is 95%+ White. Thats not "extremely diverse" in my books...
'It would be pretty silly if "the west" only meant white becuase every major western contry has had huge minority populations for centuries'
Your "huge" minority population is probably just Black people. 2 races that make up 95%+ of a citys population is not called diverse.
"America itself is about to become 50% white if it hasn't already"
No, the statistics shows its close to 75%. White Hispanics are also descendents of Europeans.
'"only major cities are not homogenous" Well that's just not true. All cities here are very diverse since cities make up most of our population'
Maine - 95.0% White
Vermont - 94.9% White
New Hampshire - 93.7% White
West Virginia - 93.6% White
Idaho - 91.7% White
Iowa - 91.2% White
Wyoming - 91.0%
Im sorry but the numbers tell a different story. If you exclude California and New York out of the equation, the US would be well over 80% White, with the remainder mostly Black. As a country, not diverse at all. Only larger coastal cities are diverse.
'Again I've never heard that being "western" is being white'
Maybe not in your country, but the vast majority of the world certainly has that view.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
InternationalStrategy "Fabrication. Sports performance is not correlated to bones nor muscles"
You are entitled to your opinions. But these are documented facts supported by the science.
"I am a biological woman, but I have always been a faster butterfly swimmer than men. I am also a downhill skiier, and I've been faster than men"
There are always exceptions, but that doesnt discount the fact that men have a biological advance in physical performance due to higher bone density and muscle mass. If men mirrored your training routine from day 0 of all your training, I doubt you would outperform them. You are probably comparing with local part-time male swimmers that dont train as serious as you do.
"My wife is a male to female...My daughter is also male to female..."
Irrelevant. As I said, there are always exceptions. And you are not comparing apples with apples. Who knows what youre training regimen is compared to them. If you had married a world champion fighter (male to female) you wouldnt say those words. So your personal experience doesnt mean anything in the grand scale of things. As I said, there are MANY instances of male to female athletes completely dominating females in the SAME FIELD. If not all, almost all do.
"The deadliest most feared soldier was a woman"
Again, you are entitled to your opinions. Just because she was "deadly" and feared by many, doesnt mean THE MOST feared soldier was a women. Shes an elite soldier, sure, but there were many more elite men soldiers. Like I said, there are always exceptions to everything. She literally one in a million, if not, one in 10 million. How many men were in the same level she was? How many women were i the same level she was? The numbers speak for itself.
"Size has nothing to do with athletic performance. One of the longest reigning Yokozuna was a tiny rikishi"
Depends on the type of sport. You mean Hakuho Sho? Wrestling is played by weight divisions. He was literally competing with other people the same weight as him. If this sport is not divided into weight class, he wouldnt win any matches against his larger opponents of the same level. So size DOES matter. It mattered so much that it would be an unfair advantage of larger players over lighter weight classes that they sport needed to be divided into weight divisions (aka size).
"My biological mother was the first female car racer of Japan"
As I said, ones physical biological advantage depends on the sport. That sport has little use of bone, lungs nor muscles.
"Body mass, bone mass, has no correlation to athletic performance"
You are entitled to your opinions. But the facts speak otherwise.
Also, there are always exceptions to things. You dont use the exceptions to discount the facts.
And not all sports performance is determined by ones body mass, bone density, or lung capacity (eg car racing), but at large, most are determined by those.
1
-
InternationalStrategy "Fabrication on Sumo. There's no such thing as weight categorization"
Did I use the word "sumo"? I used the word "wrestling". If theres no such thing as weight categorisation, they why on earth are their weight divisions from fights in MOST wrestling, martial arts, and fight sports in this world?
Because SIZE DOES MATTER.
Just because Japan doesnt use it doesnt mean size magically doesnt matter in sports.
"Please consult with your primary care physician. Gender has nothing to do with sex"
Please read English carefully. NOWHERE did I say "gender" had anything to do with sex. In fact, I never refer to anyone by their "gender", only sex, as thats the correct definition of male/female in the English language. So not sure what youre talking about here.
"I have competed with male athletes my entire life that train like I do...My lung capacity is 3000 cc"
I dont know what unit of measurement "cc" is, but like I said, there are always exceptions to things. Something you dont seem to be able to get your head around. How many women are able to compete on the same level as you compared to men?
The numbers speak for itself.
"Athletic performance has nothing to do with lung cubic, size of muscles or mass of bones"
Again, you are entitled to your opinions. Theres really no need to repeat it over and over. Otherwise I would also have to respond to you by repeating the same thing over and over.
"Being able to butterfly swim fast is a disadvantage when your body line is bolky because of water resistance. Muscles and heavy bones makes the body heavier...The talent to swim fast in butterfly is effected by how much water resistance you have and how you float without sinking. The heavier you are in mass, the further you sink before you pull your body up"
Oh yeh? So then why is it that the heavier and bulkier male swimmers at large swim much faster than their female counterparts? If there was really no difference, then why separate the males and females in competitions?
Heres a hint: If they did that then 99% of the times it would be males at the top!
"My father wanted a boy but he got a girl..."
Theres no need to recount your life story. We are talking about objective facts here, not your subjective personal experience.
"Batterfield during Tomoe Gozen had no guns, no vehicles. She was smaller in body than male soldiers that were trying to kill her. Swords handling is dependent of athletic performance, not size. Male soldiers couldn't kill her because she was a better sword handler, archer, aquestrian than men"
Even if youre not sick of hearing it, Im sick of repeating myself: there are always exceptions in everything. Moreover, you are discounting the other ELITE male soldiers on the same level as Tomoe. You are merely describing her achievements over the COMMON soldier. All the other elite male soldiers can kill as many (if not more) common soldiers as her too.
And you shouldnt be painting all men as the same. I shouldnt be needing to tell you this, but there are various levels of mastery between people regardless of sex.
Just like just because ONE female was like this doesnt mean ALL females were.
"The most violent and bloodiest pirate in history was a woman"
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. Just because a female pirate was a violent and bloodthirsty, doesnt mean she was "THE MOST" violent and bloodiest pirate in all of history.
And EVEN IF she was, same answer: there are always exceptions to everything. How many female pirates were violent and bloodthirsty? How many male pirates were violent and bloodthirsty?
The numbers speak for itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UltraGamer9999999999 "According to that logic, why not Chinese Boss, or Korean Boss then? At this point, you're just spouting a ton of BS and trying to make sense of all the nonsense that you've said"
I said the more targeted the niche is, the higher the CONVERSION RATE. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with that statement, nor any contradiction. Just because you lack the brain to comprehend and compute what I said, doesnt mean what I said is "BS" or "nonsense". CONVERSION RATE and AUDIENCE SIZE are 2 VERY different things.
The brand name "Global Boss" would have a wider audience, but the CONVERSION RATE would be lower. Generally speaking, the wider the audience the lower the overall engagement and user retention rate aka "loyalty". And thus when asking for support, that CONVERSION RATE would naturally be much lower.
Also, by starting off as "Global Boss", one would need to speak about the WHOLE world. Not saying its impossible but its literally managing news from the WORLD vs just a handful of countries.
"Korean Boss" would have a more targeted audience, but to get to where they are now just speaking about Korea, extremely difficult. Although the conversion rate is higher, the audience for people only interested into Korean news is much lower than Asia news in as a whole general. So they wouldnt have made it this far as a company with just "Korean Boss" etc.
"Asian Boss" is the sweet spot where they can cover a wide audience while achieving a high rate of user retention/loyalty.
Get it now? Was that "nonsense" to you?
Now, all this talk, what are you trying to get at again? You dont even have a point. I already specifically mentioned the business side of merchs and how they can easily make profit out of this with their huge following. What now? You just going to argue for the sake of arguing just because you dont get something? If you dont know something, ask politely. Dont get personal with others and accuse others of doing the exact same thing youre doing and say what theyre saying is "BS" just because you dont get it. Get a life.
1
-
@UltraGamer9999999999 "My point is that selling merchandise won't always yield a net profit, and I've been trying to explain that the entire time to you as you are adamant that they can 'easily make money with their huge following;"
Ive already said that the ONLY way for them to not yield a profit is if they over-order and not sell everything. And I have already provided a solution to that matter. What else you got to say? What more input can you add? Other than what I have said, how else can they not yield a profit? You didnt even answer my question and you said youve been "trying to explain"?
"I've even presented numbers like you asked for but I guess you've brushed that aside seeing that you didn't talk about it."
You presented no such numbers. Where did you present ANY numbers? Quote yourself.
"It was from this statement alone that triggered you to rant on leading up to this point, which you now accuse me of 'creating this argument' when you clearly started it"
Stating that I will not buy it does not meant anything. I dont buy Apple products, nor will I ever. Does mean Apple cant be successful? Also, do you even know what a "rant" is? Responding to you in a succinct manner is not a "rant". And no, the argument did not start from there. The argument started when you got personal with me and made baseless assumptions about me.
"Was asking "Will you buy it?" considered rude? You clearly misinterpreted the question..."
Who said I considered that asking that question is rude? Youre making another baseless assumption there. Did I misinterpret something? Or did YOU misinterpret something? Youre accusing me of exactly what you are doing right now. Your hypocritical tendencies are showing again.
"And you tell me not to get personal with others when you do the exact same thing by saying things like 'Just because you lack the brain to comprehend..." shows how much of a hypocrite you are as well."
No. I never initiate personal attacks. I only respond accordingly. If you attack me, I will attack you back. Plain and simple.
"You tell me to get a life when you've spent just the same amount of time replying back to my messages, so in your own words, Go get a life"
I corrected your mistakes and provided solutions for you and whoevers reading. That itself is value. Its not a waste of time if theres value to something. Whereas you? You just argued for the sake of arguing. You dont have a point. Your "point" is that selling merch is not profitable unless you know all the EXACT numbers in black and white. Otherwise, fail...
"Also, just because Asian Boss has found the right balance in the conversion rate and audience size doesn't mean that their merch will sell well"
There you go again with the mentality that it will "fail" unless xyz...So negative. Getting sick of it honestly. I already said, selling merch is ALWAYS profitable as long as they can sell most of their products. Whether is order 10 sell 10 (at a premium for exclusivity) or order 500 and sell 500 in batches, they WILL sell well.
"Probably, but clearly it wasn't enough to keep the company afloat. But directly saying that that'd help sell merch is jumping the gun. You'd need numbers to prove that cause and effect"
That might be the case for someone that doesnt know anything. But I know. Ive dealth with merchs in the past. So I know its profitable, therefore I made the suggestion.
I dont need to "prove" anything for you, nor do I need to give you the "EXACT" figures. I did you a favour by giving you the figures on how profitable the merch business is already. The ONLY way to not yield a profit in this business is if they do not sell everything. The solution to mitigate that risk is order less and work with pre-orders. Its honestly that simple.
"Furthermore, in your own words, higher conversion = more loyalty, yet I doubt many would buy and wear a shirt that says CNN or Fox News unless they were employed there."
CNN nor Fox News is not a niche. Their viewer base is extremely broad. There is almost no "loyalty" in that. And their brand does not appeal to non-CNN or non-Fox News viewers unlike "Asian Boss".
"It's clear that simply having a balance between conversion and audience size isn't sufficient to fully explain financial success"
Obviously not. Youre now making it seem like I said those 2 are the only variables defining financial success...Moreover, I never linked "financial success" with those 2 variables. I linked those two variables to getting "support" i.e buying merchs from them. Whether they succeed as a company is another story - I didnt even touch on that.
"Regardless of the reason, my point being is that simply having a good logo doesn't equate to merch being sold"
First of all, you never said that from the start. You already assumed it would fail (unless the EXACT numbers are known) BEFORE we got into the conversation about the logo.
But even so, if you only said that, I would probably not have continued this conversation. I have nothing against that point. But you just HAD to get personal with me and mentioned a lot of things afterwards that needed correction. Like that Im "lacking" or "spouting BS/nonsense", and "all the things you said are not backed by any financial studies or numbers" when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of case studies on merchs...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@barryford1482 "China has an Authoritarian government"
Authoritarian at the highest levels. But its not the highest level thats actually governing its people, its the lower levels of goverments that are. And Chinese citizens DO in fact have a say on the laws and policies there.
"A Democracy has the vote whereby a government can be removed and an opposition party can take government. Also in a democracy an individual or group can form a new party"
Thats ONE FORM of democracy. Doesnt mean thats the ONLY FORM of democracy.
I dont know about you, but Id rather have a say on policies/laws than have a say on who sits at the top...
"In a Democracy the Press is free to support a government or support an opposition party"
In the US, media is controlled by either right-winged or left-winged media. Itll broadcast news bias towards their political agenda. You call that "free"? Free for corporations you mean.
True "free press" means that media company broadcasts OBJECTIVE and UNBIAS news, for viewers to form their OWN opinions on matters. And not have the medias views shoved down its viewers throats.
"The Swiss have a democracy where they vote on any matter where anyone can take on an issue and if they get 250000 signatures there will be a referendum"
But you seem to overlook that China also has a similar thing? Average citizens can literally change local laws/policies/regulations actually affecting their daily lives. Did you not even watch the video?
Here, click this 0:00. Its literally mentioned in the first few seconds...
"Taiwan has a thriving democracy a good standard of living that its people has enjoyed since the 1980s while mainland China under communism has had the cultural revolution that has put the country into poverty"
Why you comparing 2 different timelines? Might as well compare Japan now to USA half a century ago and ask who has a better standard of living...
Also, it was not the cultural revolution that plunged China into poverty...China was already in poverty due to previous invasions and wars.
Also, Taiwans standard of living is now high is not because of "democracy", its because it was literally shielded from war more than 100 years.
Whereas in Mainland China, war was ongoing for over 100 years. Even in times where it didnt seem like there was any war going on, there was internal power struggles which affected development.
And just FYI, Taiwans economy had its highest GDP growth rate when it was under dictatorship, NOT democracy.
'and even today when Chinese people greet one another they will say "have you eaten"'
You seem to think you know a whole lot of China and the Chinese language. Let me tell you something...
ALMOST ALL of East and South East Asia greet each other like that! And that includes the Taiwan you speak of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hadi Purwanto 'You said it yourself that local workers, and i quote, "lazy AF"'
Yes, but that has nothing to do with race or birthplace as youve mentioned? You brought that up yourself out of no where. I dont appreciate you putting words in my mouth.
Please read carefully.
"Maybe i was thinking about other China supporters who insulted me in this post"
No worries. But do read carefully next time before responding.
"No, the point of loan is to train local workers. If not the host country will keep relying on debtors in any similar project in the future. If you don't train the local workers, then you just exploitative, my point"
There are projects where they build roads/railways. There are projects wher they build power plants. There are projects that deal with materials like iron and steel.
In each project, China transfer their knowledge in certain areas. It would make no sense for China to transfer skills for literally everything. They teach locals how to drive and maintain roads/railways and assembling vehicles. They teach locals how to operate and how to manage power plants. etc etc. Pretty much everything except building it as that slows down the process, and not in chinas best interest to transfer 100% of all the knowledge. Its goal is to help them get off their feet. Not spoon feed everything.
"They are also behind work productivity. Long hours work =/= productivity...long hours work has negative implication to health and do not improve efficiancy and productivity"
Productivity is one thing. Getting everything done on time is another thing. And I dont think governments of non-developed countries care enough about peoples health to be worried about that. Besides, its just a short few years to build. Not their whole life.
"Mexico has longest average work and ranked last form 38 countries in OECD"
That is bogus information. According to that ranking, average Japanese work 33hours a week. This doesnt take in consideration to cultural aspects. Married women dont tend to work full times hours in Japan. Most of them are part time workers, and take advantage of their housewives tax incentive by working less hours. Japanese men take the full brunt of the work and can easily hit 80 hours a week working. They call them the "salaryman".
Survey showed that 30% of Japanese work over 50hours a week. And almost all of them are men. So its safe to say 60% of Japanese men work over 50 hours a week. The stats of are brought down by women working less hours.
"And they do not defend China in ALL cases"
No country defends any country in ALL cases. I stated one country in response to you saying that "no other nationality will defend that country[China]". There are also many African countries that defend China. Dont say "no other nationality" when there clearly are.
"No sane people in normal situation will defend China led CCP"
Again, dont say "no sane people" will defend China when so many people do. A lot of Europeans do in this specific case.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aribethdetylmarande8228 I cant find anything in relation to ""historical sovereignty". Source me the basic principle of UN Charter that specifies that "historical sovereignty is prohibited to be reclaimed".
"nothing about changing of sovereignty"
Yes, there was nothing about "changing" sovereignty. ROC simply reclaimed unclaimed territory, therefore claiming sovereignty. Thats different. Remember, any unclaimed territory in this world can be claimed by any government in this world.
"Since ROCer never allowed Formosan vote to decide their own fate, they are colonizers, foreign government ruling without sovereignty.
Again, by definition, you cant "colonise" your own people. While voting may be a right in your country, it is not a universal human right that is to be applied to all countries.
"And, yes, you are right Qing Empire and Japanese Empire were both colonizers to the aboriginals. Not only them, Portugal, Dutch land and Spanish Empire were once their colonizers"
Colonisers to the aboriginals. Sure, I can agree with that. But what about in 1945 when Taiwan was literally 95%+ Han Chinese? Can Han Chinese ROCs presence be considered "colonising" then?
Also, Portugal, Dutch, and Spanish merely had ports. They didnt colonise "Taiwan". They colonised ports which pretty much little to no aborigines there.
"For the Han Chinese decedents and Formosa Polynesians, as they are living peacefully on the island together, they both considered resident of Formosa island, they will have equal right to freely choose their own sovereignty"
"they will have equal right to freely choose their own sovereignty"? No they dont. Thats an opinion. If everyone had equal rights to choose their own sovereignty then there will be 1million+ new countries. Theres also ridiculous sovereign citizen movements as well whereby people are declaring that they have their own sovereignty and therefore not subjugated to their "real countrys" laws.
"It's not your place to say Taiwan is part of China, and they already delivered clear massage that no agreement made in 1992 meeting"
No, Taiwans own government said that. Its even in their constitution.
No "agreement" was made. But a "consensus" was. Moreover, even if DPP denies, it doesnt mean anything, it was KMT at the meeting, not DPP. And given the track record of DPP, you think their words can be trusted?
"Only Taiwanese have the right to say so, after they vote to decide their own sovereignty"
Again, your opinion. Voting is not a right.
1
-
@aribethdetylmarande8228 "1. I stated clearly in my previous reply that the concept of historical sovereignty was concluded in the principle of self-determination"
Just because you "state" it it must be true? Source it, or youre lying. There is no information on the term "historical sovereignty" by the UN.
"Because multiple authorizations declaring one land will always cause war and UN is suppose to prevent initiating any war, everyone was prohibited to reclaim any historical land"
Like I said, assuming that is true, reclaiming historical land that is ALREADY CLAIMED, is different to reclaiming historical land UNCLAIMED by any any government in this world.
'Just "let them vote to decide their own fate", if everyone respect to what their own decision, the conflict can be solved peacefully. I don't want to keep repeating the same answer'
That is an opinion. You can keep repeating that all you want but that doesnt make it a fact. If it was a fact, then there would be over 1 million+ countries in this world.
"2..Since the ruler (ROC/KMT) never allow Formosan vote to determine, the sovereignty became uncertain, and awaiting to be determined by Formosan and only by Formosan. Is that clear enough? "
You keeping bring this imaginary notion of "voting". Its clear to me that you have been brainwashed in thing voting is a universal right when its in fact not.
"3. Please stop twisting concepts of Ethnicity, bloodlines, culture, languages etc. etc. into nationality. To be the same Ethnicity doesn't mean to be the same countries"
I never said that? I said people residing in Taiwan are citzens of Republic of CHINA, which by default means theyre CHINESE by nationality.
Adding on to that 95% of Taiwan is also of Han Chinese descent. I never said "to be the same ethnicity means to be of the same countries". They just happen to be both.
"Han Chinese definitely can colonize other Han Chinese descendants (E.g. Americans were colonized by great British)"
No they cant. You cant colonise your own people. White "Americans" cant be colonised by the British. Native Americans however, can, because theyre not of the same people.
"Additionally, descendants of Han Chinese can also developed into different Ethnic groups. To my knowledge, modern Formosa Hokkien, Formosa Hakka, native Formosan, Formosa Polynesian all have their own self-identity; not necessarily be Han Chinese anymore"
Well your knowledge is wrong. "Identity" and Ethnic groups are 2 very different things. British and Australians/NZ right after independence have different identities, but are of the same Ethnic group.
"4. When Taiwanese try to change the constitution of ROC, their were militarily threatened by KMT and CCP, reason? ...ROC is not the sovereign ruler so that ROCer (no matter KMT or DPP) has no right to represent Taiwanese making decisions"
Taiwan was officially unclaimed territory in this world when Japan relinquished its claim. There is no law stopping any government from claiming any UNCLAIMED territory in this world. So yes, ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan island. And almost all Taiwanese support this.
Also, be clear on what you say. Did you mean average people tried to change the constitution? In what way? Independence? Tell me, what country would voluntarily allow its average citizens to illegally change its constitution to cede away sovereign territory?
1
-
1
-
@eurmal5681 What a joke. Government mentioning and telling the world IS claim. How else they meant to "claim it"? Sign out a form? Wheres this form where the Americans claim America? Id like to see where this "claim" is.
As for the French/Vietnam claim you mentioned. When the French took over IndoChina, the French knew the islands were Chinas, so didnt take over the islands, until China was invaded by Japan. Shortly after, Japan, knowing that the islands where Chinas, took it over from the short-lived French takeover. Then after WW2, Japan relinquished their claims. At this point, whether its the French or Chinas, hard to say. Because legally speaking, there was no treaty over it. So China?
After the French left, South Vietnam inherited Frances claim over the islands. But North Vietnam didnt. In 1958, North Vietnam even sent an official letter acknowledging and respecting Chinas claims over the islands in the SCS. Because of that, China helped North Vietnam in the war, and they won. So Vietnam relinquished their claims over the islands from the 1958 onwards. Leaving only China having sole claims over those islands.
Until the 1970s when oil was found. Thats when both (new) Vietnam and PH made their first sovereign claims to any islands in the region. Mind you, for over 2 decades, it was only China that had sovereign claims to those islands. Imagine having sole ownership to territory, and then suddenly your neighbour started claim your land as theirs. Its ridiculous. So Im with China on this one. They have the strongest claims.
1
-
@eurmal5681 Government mentioning and telling the world is claim. How else they meant to "claim it"? Sign out a form? Wheres this form where the Americans claim America? Id like to see where this "claim" is.
As for the French/Vietnam claim you mentioned. When the French took over Indochina, the French knew the islands were Chinas, so didnt take over the islands, not until China was ln\/aded by Japan. Shortly after, Japan, knowing that the islands where Chinas, took it over from the short-lived French takeover. Then after WW2, Japan relinquished their claims. At this point, whether its the French or Chinas, hard to say. Because legally speaking, there was no treaty over it. So China?
After the French left, South Vietnam inherited Frances claim over the islands. But North Vietnam didnt. In 1958, North Vietnam even sent an official letter acknowledging and respecting Chinas claims over the islands in the SCS. Because of that, China helped North Vietnam in the war, and they won. So Vietnam relinquished their claims over the islands from the 1958 onwards. Leaving only China having sole claims over those islands.
Until the 1970s when oil was found. Thats when both (new) Vietnam and PH made their first sovereign claims to any islands in the region. Mind you, for over 2 decades, it was only China that had sovereign claims to those islands. Imagine having sole ownership to territory, and then suddenly your neighbour started claim your land as theirs. Its ridiculous. So Im with China on this one. They have the strongest claims.
1
-
Government mentioning and telling the world is claim. How else they meant to "claim" an uninhabitable island before international law existed? Sign out a form? Wheres this form where the Americans claim America? Id like to see where this "claim" is.
As for the French/Vietnam claim you mentioned. When the French took over Indochina, the French knew the islands were Chinas, so didnt take over the islands, not until China was ln\/ayded by Japan. Shortly after, Japan, knowing that the islands where Chinas, took it over from the short-lived French takeover. Then after WW2, Japan relinquished their claims. At this point, whether its the French or Chinas, hard to say. Because legally speaking, there was no treaty over it. So China?
After the French left, South Vietnam inherited Frances claim over the islands. But North Vietnam didnt. In 1958, North Vietnam even sent an official letter acknowledging and respecting Chinas claims over the islands in the SCS. Because of that, China helped North Vietnam in the war, and they won. So Vietnam relinquished their claims over the islands from the 1958 onwards. Leaving only China having sole claims over those islands.
Until the 1970s when oil was found. Thats when both (new) Vietnam and PH made their first sovereign claims to any islands in the region. Mind you, for over 2 decades, it was only China that had sovereign claims to those islands. Imagine having sole ownership to territory, and then suddenly your neighbour started claim your land as theirs. Its ridiculous. So Im with China on this one. They have the strongest claims.
1
-
Government mentioning and telling the world is claim. How else they meant to "claim" an uninhabitable island before international law existed? Sign out a form? Wheres this form where the Americans claim America? Id like to see where this "claim" is.
As for the French/Vietnam claim you mentioned. When the French took over Indochina, the French knew the islands were Chinas, so didnt take over the islands, not until China was ln\/aded by Japan. Shortly after, Japan, knowing that the islands where Chinas, took it over from the short-lived French takeover. Then after WW2, Japan relinquished their claims. At this point, whether its the French or Chinas, hard to say. Because legally speaking, there was no treaty over it. So China?
1
-
1
-
As for the French/Vietnam claim you mentioned. When the French took over Indochina, the French knew the islands were Chinas, so didnt take over the islands, not until China was ln\/aded by Japan. Shortly after, Japan, knowing that the islands where Chinas, took it over from the short-lived French takeover. Then after WW2, Japan relinquished their claims. At this point, whether its the French or Chinas, hard to say. Because legally speaking, there was no treaty over it. So China?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eurmal5681 "wrong, ph won international claims that this is its islands the rest doesn’t matter and is just wrong quit making fiction"
Wrong. What does "won" mean? Do you even know what they "won"? The ruling did not rule that the PH owns the islands. It also ruled that countries (inc PH) cannot making territorial claims based on historical rights. So they didnt "win" anything".
"it’s more like China knew Ph owns it by international law but since it has oil and resources they want to cling to it as possible even if they don’t follow international law pathetic"
Owns "it"? Whats "it"? If youre talking about the islands, no international laws says its PH. In fact, no international body has the authority to determine what country has sovereignty over what. Not even the ICJ. So you dont know what youre talking about here.
Heres a legally binding treaty for you. When the US handed over sovereignty of PH to PH, the sovereign handover treaty specifically stated what is and what isnt under PHs sovereignty. And guess what? Absolutely nothing in the SCS was transferred to PH. Zip zilch nothing I tell you. So its set in stone that PH has no sovereign over anything in the SCS at all. And they have the audacity to make sovereign claims after oil was found in the 1970s? 3 decades after China had sole ownership over the islands? Whos the pathetic one now?
"and not to mention this claim is objectively incorrect"
What claim is incorrect?
"China wants to claim the whole islands from a sentence in biblical times yet Vietnam has maps, and documents to prove it. Maps of the islands always said it was Vietnamese cry about it"
Except that these "biblical claims" are continuous, not written once 2000 yeas ago and never heard of ever again.
"Vietnamese maps"...remember Vietnam was part of China for over a millennium. Depending on the year, these maps could very well be helping solidify Chinas case.
Moreover, China had maps too. Same as every European power that travelled past the region. In fact, I own a map that includes these islands too! Do I own these islands?
Maps are maps, theyre to include everything pertained within the geographic region regardless of politics. Many "maps" include territory of neighbouring countries thats obviously not theirs. Surely you understand this logic, right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@krashme997 "Taiwan, or the ROC, has been acting independently for almost 8 decades"
Wrong. ROC has been independent for over 110 years. Taiwan is NOT ROC. Taiwan is just a PART of ROC.
"and the PRC has no say in its internal affairs"
The PRC and ROC issue is an internal affair of China, as they BOTH claim to be China and fought a civil war called the Chinese Civil War. Civil war meaning war within the SAME country.
"To any outside observer, nobody's going to care about the technical details, they'll see the reality for what it is: Taiwan's an independent country"
Whats why people are wrong and ignorant on the issue.
Your "Taiwan" claims to be the country called CHINA. If people all knew that then they wouldnt think like the way they think!
If people knew that ROC and PRC fought a civil war, and understand that civil war means war within the SAME country, again, they wouldnt think that!
Its ignorance thats blinding them from seeing the truth. And its in the Wests interest to keep their people ignorant of the truth!
"I'm talking about people's impressions upon looking at Taiwan and how it functions, not the complicated historical and legal background mumbo jumbo that the average Joe in Asia, Arfica, or Europe doesn't care about"
And thats just proving my point. These governments DONT want their people to know so that they can keep being ignorant, and support the push for a split China. Its the divide and conquer stratagem!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thea3400 "here is a difference in being banned from an app or even being arrested from outright dissapearing with no reason whatsoever"
Who said she was arrested? You and your media said it therefore it MUST be true? Wheres Mark Z now? He also "disappeared" from this world. We havent heard from since the Meta announcement...
"In Trumps example we see that he no longer posts on Twitter but you can still find him living his life as always on many other media sites"
No. Trump also "disappeared". He just reappeared a few weeks/months later. On and off. No one knows what happened to him.
Also, you lied. What social media he not banned from? Twitter, FB, YT, Instagram, Amazon, Shopify, Apple, Google, Reddit, Discord, Snapchat, Tiktok, Twitch, and even Pinterest. All banned. And not just silenced him, but anything Trump or Pro-Trump related topics were also banned/removed/censored.
"Peng shui dissapeared, her notice is suspicious and out of place and its not the first dissapearance in China"
Bill Gates "disappeared" at one stage. Mark Z also "disappeared", heck even Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and a lot of celebrities also "disappeared". No one knew where they went for weeks/months. You know whats thats called? Its called privacy. Cant ppl lay low? Just because they dont appear in public doesnt mean they really "disappeared".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willywonka4340 "then based on your logic of sovereignty, the Republic of China can claim, as it has done so in the past, the entire Mainland is China as part of their territory. The thing is, they have no Administration over the mainland, at least not anymore. Even I find this ambitious claim laughable"
Its not "MY" logic, thats how the world defines sovereignty.
And yes, ROC claims mainland China as part of its territory. Till this day, they still have not revoked their claims over the mainland. Theyre just being low key about it biding their time thats all.
"From what I read, they're okay with it as long as the government provides them with what they need"
Maybe some, but not all. And Im talking about untouched/unexplored land too, not just the tribes.
"But during the times of Qing Dynasty annexation of Taiwan, the indigenous Aborigines were very very hostel and refuse to give up their claims of their lands in the mountainous regions, to the point that they will fight to the death...See the difference?"
Excuse me? Youre telling me that the Amazonian tribes didnt fight to their deaths before their compromise?
What about the Sentinel islands that India has sovereignty over? Till this day theyre still untouched and still hostile to all forces other than their own tribe. Does that mean that India doesnt have sovereignty over the islands?
1
-
@bctvanw "I know the Netherlands ranks at the top of “who can claim” Taiwan by your logic. "
"By my logic" again? You sure you 2 arent the same people? I already said, its not "MY" logic, its the WORLDS logic.
Netherlands NEVER claimed sovereignty over the island. They only had control over ports.
So tell me, how "by my logic" can Netherlands claim sovereignty over Taiwan, when they never claimed sovereignty over Taiwan in the past again?
"Btw ROC claimed Mongolia, but it never ruled it since it was founded in 1949"
What was founded in 1949? ROC was founded in 1912. When Qing China collapsed in 1912, Qing transferred its sovereignty to ROC which included Mongolia. It was written very clearly in black and white. And it was Mongolia that illegally revolted with the support of Russia then. ROC didnt even have a say as they were in the losing side of a civil war then.
"PRC claims Taiwan, but it has never ruled over Taiwan since it was founded in 1949"
After effectively winning the civil war, PRC, with the recognition of the world, succeeded the ROC, and claimed sovereignty over ALL of ROCs territory, including mainland China and provincial Taiwan. Every country you can think of in this world also supported this and agreed PRC is the legitimate ruler of all China including Taiwan. And that includes your country too.
1
-
@bctvanw "The same?"
Did I say they were the same? And since when was sovereignty about ethnicity? They got nothing to do with each other. So not sure why you even bringing that up.
"The Netherlands only ruled some ports of Taiwan? Yes... and so did Koxinga and Qing for most of its years in Taiwan. They all stayed near the coastal areas of Taiwan"
Again, Netherlands NEVER claimed sovereignty over the island, Koxinga said Ming did, but not enough evidence, but Qing definitely claimed sovereignty over the WHOLE island - even if they didnt have absolute control over the whole island. Remember, sovereignty isnt about absolute control. Otherwise South Americans countries like Brazil cant claim sovereignty over the Amazon, and India cant claim sovereignty over the Sentinel islands etc. But they do.
"ROC claimed Mongolia and Tibet from the beginning indeed, but ROC has never actually ruled them. PRC first ruled Tibet in 1951"
Again, sovereignty is not about "absolute control" or the "rule" you speak of. Its about the legal transfer of ownership of the land. ROC had legal sovereignty over Mongolia and Tibet even if they didnt "rule" them. Heck even Qing didnt even rule them, they let them rule themselves for the most part. But make no mistake, Qing had sovereignty over the land.
As for Tibet pre-1951, Tibet illegally formed their own government, recognised by no one. So sovereignty was still Chinas. Which China is the question. By 1949 PRC effectively won the civil war. So all ROCs territory was effectively PRCs. Nothing wrong with taking back control over their own territory.
"You may not know that when ROC was founded in 1912....ROC did not even try to claim Taiwan"
I do know that. Japan invaded Qing China, Qing lost and ceded Taiwan to them. ROC had no right to claim Taiwan as theirs then, as Qing never transferred sovereignty of Taiwan to ROC, because Qing DIDNT have sovereignty over Taiwan then.
"In 1930s, ROC even had a Chinese consulate in Taihoku, Formosa(Taipei, Taiwan)"
Because Taiwan was part of Japan then. Japan had sovereignty over Taiwan.
"Both KMT and CCP leaders support Taiwan independence from 1920s to 1940s. They could claim Taiwan to be part of China, but they did not"
??? What are you on about? What evidence do you have for that claim?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JayJayM57 "legitimate prisons do not arrest regular people who had committed no crimes"
Remember what I said. There are 2 things, prisons, and vocational/re-education centre. All the "pictures" you see are mostly inmates in actual prison. Whether they committed a crime or not YOU DO NOT KNOW.
But those that are put into re-education centres, most have already "graduated", and the facilities there are top notch, everything is completely new and made for re-educating the brainwashed and for equipping them with work skills for society.
Nothing like these "camps" you speak of. The term "concentration camp" suggests torture and harsh living conditions. Unless youre talking about prisons, "concentration camps" is just another buzz word for prisons - not what innocent Uighurs are sent to.
And harvesting for organs is OUTDATED news. They made it illegal a few years back. And they DONT die from it like what the above guy said. And thats for actual CRIMINALS. NOT those sent to reeducation/vocational centres.
"Before you say something like brainwashed this information comes from trustworthy sources in the UN"
You have been brainwashed. That was not a report from the UN. The UN specifically said that their members have received these reports. And these individuals that happen to be part of the UN made statements on this issue. THEIR STATEMENT WAS NOT ON BEHALF OF THE UN.
Just like if a US politician said "China is a great country", it DOESNT mean they speak on behalf of the US. Im sure there are many that are against that statement.
Here are some statements you might want to look into:
'A spokesperson from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) confirmed in a statement to The Grayzone that the allegation of Chinese “camps” was not made by the United Nations, but rather by a member of an independent committee that does not speak for the UN as a whole. That member happened to be the only American on the committee, and one with no background of scholarship or research on China'
'The claim that China has detained millions of ethnic Uyghurs in its Xinjiang region is repeated with increasing frequency, but little scrutiny is ever applied. Yet a closer look at the figure and how it was obtained reveals a serious deficiency in data.
While this extraordinary claim is treated as unassailable in the West, it is, in fact, based on two highly dubious “studies.”
The first, by the US government-backed Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders, formed its estimate by interviewing a grand total of eight people.
The second study relied on flimsy media reports and speculation. It was authored by Adrian Zenz, a far-right fundamentalist Christian who opposes homosexuality and gender equality, supports “scriptural spanking” of children, and believes he is “led by God” on a “mission” against China.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sabrinay "The whole "one country, two systems" phrase exists for a reason. Regardless of how, they ARE connected in some way"
Thats right. It means HK is part of the country called China, but has a separate governing system. Hence the term "one country, two systems"...its not called "one country, one system" for a reason...The mess in HK has NOTHING to do with China. China is NOT involved in this mess.
"I'm fairly sure there's already been a number of cases where protesters who were not violent or damaging private property got arrested"
Of course. Refusing to cooperate with police warrants for an arrest. Organisers of riots or illegal assemblies warrants for an arrest. Providing weapons or illegally selling goods on the streets warrants for an arrest. A lot of things other than being violent or damaging property (doesnt matter if public or private) warrants for an arrest.
"From what I've seen, I think I'll believe those protesters"
What have you seen? What did protesters do? What did the other side do?
"I don't believe France enacted an anti-mask law during a controversial protest where most ppl wore masks"
You are ignorant. You dont believe a lot of things without even doing your own due diligence. They specifically made that law right after people started rioting with masks.
"But when folks DO protest, in most western countries they don't typically wear masks, since they wouldn't be punished for protesting nearly as much as HK has"
That because in the West they dont have a culture for casually wearing masks. In East Asia, its a very casual thing. And also, in the West, most know how to properly protest. Unlike HK...
""lies" isn't an argument, nor a good reply"
Firstly, of course its not an argument. Im calling you out for lieing. Dont make a statement if youre not 100% sure nor have evidence to back that up. Remember what you said "they're gonna use this law mainly to track down the protesters (ANY protester)". What evidence do you have that theyre going to track down legal protesters? Please, since youre so adamant about me calling you out for lieing, do provide evidence that theyre going to track down legal protesters as indicated by your "(ANY protester)" statement.
Secondly, I didnt just say "lies" and moved on. I wrote almost 100 words after that explaining why. So much for "not a good reply". If I just left it at "lies" when your point is valid. But I didnt.
"You'd just deny anything you don't like"
I trust hard facts and evidence. As long as there is sufficient evidence then there wont be any need to deny something. If there isnt hard facts nor evidence, why do you expect me to "believe" anything?
1
-
@sabrinay "Bruh you literally just said that HK had nothing to do with China, and here you is saying they're connected. And even just the fact that you're quoting me obsessively like this shows something bout you"
Context is important. HK politics is separate from China. China has sovereignty over HK. Learn to discern the difference. And you seem to have an issue with quoting for reference. Is something wrong with me or is something wrong with you?
"I already been saying: just because something is a law, don't mean it's moral"
So youre saying banning masks from riots and illegal assemblies that clearly disrupt everyday citizens should not be allowed? Thats immoral to you?
"I heard that no, they did not enact that law after a bunch of protesters wore masks, but you can tell me what riot it was or when, then I'll look it up"
Protests and riots are common in France...dont tell me youve never heard of the "Yellow Vest" movement. Its been ongoing for almost a year now...
"YOU take in media and have the perspective that most of the HK protesters are only violent"
Baseless assumption. Who said I said most protesters are violent?
"And I support what they are fighting for. Which is also why I am against this mask ban, bc it goes against what they are fighting for. Make sense?"
Do you even know what they are fighting for? What are they fighting for? Be careful when you answer this question. Lets see if you are also brainwashed.
"Personally, I think them peaceful protesters would be STUPID not to wear a mask if they're being jailed for protesting at all"
You already sound brainwashed for that assumption.
"After all, if you can claim "my" media lies, then who's to say your sources aren't too? Doesn't matter how high and mighty you think YOURS are, cause that's what everyone else thinks of their intake too"
My so-called "media" is the law. Ive read the bill. Primary source right off the HK government website. Yes, the law is indeed high and mighty. Are you trying to say my source of the law are "lies"?
"You technically don't know 100% for sure, and it's only up to you in the end who to believe.
I believe in the protesters. Don't @ me anymore, there's no middle ground to be gained when there's two diff. perspectives."
The law is the law, and I believe in the law. Not "opinions" of what people "think" or "believe" off the streets. Because they themselves dont even know the law. If you disagree with the law and intent to play with fire by finding the "middle ground" between your own opinions and the "law" then enacting on that, then good luck in life. Youll be running into a lot of trouble with the law then.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shenzhou. "Around half of Taiwan's ADIZ extends into mainland territory itself, meaning that PLAAF jet's travelling in mainland airspace are recorded"
Im not sure why half of Taiwans ADIZ is in mainland China, but I dont think Taiwan cares if PRC flies on the mainland half of their ADIZ. Its only when they cross the strait that theyre alarmed and feel threatened.
"It's insane how huge Taiwan's ADIZ is as you can see from the images"
And as I mentioned earlier, Taiwans regional neighbours ADIZs are even larger.
"A county's airspace is defined as the portion of the atmosphere controlled by a country above its territory, including its territorial waters. That means it encompasses region of Taiwan island as well as 12 Nautical Miles of territorial waters around the island. But PLAAF jet flew further than 12 NM away from Taiwan island, so they did not intrude into Taiwan's airspace"
By your explanation, PRCs ADIZ also holds no water. So if Japan, US etc flies their military jets into Chinas ADIZ outside of Chinas "actual airspace", China will not feel threatened?
But the question is not whether one party flew over anothers territory or not, its whether one party feels threatened from anothers military actions. Remember, the main point that I was addressing was the OPs comment that "people in Taiwan do not feel the military threat from China". They clearly do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Shenzhou. 'You first quoted my explanation, then you said "By your explanation, PRCs ADIZ also holds no water." so it's evident that you're referring to my explanation.'
You seem to have not read my previous comment properly. By using the word "also", Im implying the LOGIC behind your explanation also satisfies the point Ive raised, not referring to the WORDING of your explanations. If the word "also" doesnt satisfies you, then add a "then" before PRCs ADIZ so it becomes "By your explanation, then PRCs ADIZ also holds no water".
"But where in my explanation did I talk about ADIZ? I was explaining the definition of airspace, then why'd you quote my explanation when it has nothing to do with ADIZ (which is a separate definition from a country's airspace)?"
Refer back to your previous comments before that. My comment was in response to your comment that was responding to my comment before that etc etc. This whole conversation between me and you stemmed from ADIZ. Thats the context. And thats why Im referring back to ADIZ.
"And why'd you suddenly jump to your first comment being about ADIZ, when it's clear that you're referring to my explanation of what airspace is? Isn't that moving the goalpost?"
No its not. How is asking you what you mean by "Taiwan airspace" a "goalpost"? Thats just a side question. I was simply just trying to understand what you mean by that.
Its your misinterpretation of that, and the word "also" that weve come to this. By saying "also" in this case, Im referring to the LOGIC of the explanation that you raised to make my point, not referring to the WORDINGS of your explanations...
Youre arguing over semantics at this point. My main point is that Taiwan feels threatened from all these military incursions. Address it if you want to continue on this issue, not go around in circles commenting on the English instead of the main issue Ive raised. Otherwise this will become an English language discussion...
"So now you're comparing real events (that PLAAF jet's flight path was closer to mainland China than Taiwan) with hypothetical examples?"
I already provided you with the search terms and dates PLAAF flew closer to Taiwan than Mainland China. These are REAL events. Yet you still bring up that the paths were closer to mainland China than Taiwan?
And what do you mean by "now"? Ive always had?
The hypothetical examples I gave is for you to understand the threat that that poses.
"And again, which U.S jet has flown into China's ADIZ on the East China Sea?"
And what do you mean by "again"? This is your first time asking that.
It was you that stated "And in case you didn't know, THE U.S JETS IN CHINA'S ADIZ are so much farther from the American mainland as compared to the Chinese mainland".
And does it even have to be jets at this point? Even an aircraft carrier through the Taiwan straight PRC already feels alarmed and threatened.
And a reminder, main point of what I said is about feeling threatened. Do address it if you have something to say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@loot6 "Carrie is the head of the government, if Hong Kong violated basic law then it must be the government that violated it...since Carrie answers directly to the Beijing government that would mean Beijing violated article 23"
Firstly, HK isnt under dictatorship. We refer to HK government as the HK government, not a singular figure in government, especially when you say insist Carrie answers directly to Beijing.
Secondly, your logic does not make sense. If you are the head of the family, and your 17yo child murdered someone, did YOU violate anything?
Flawed logic and completely irrelevant.
And you seem to be brainwashed by your media. You need to understand that HK is self-ruled to a HIGH DEGREE of autonomy. Beijing give goals for HK to achieve. HOW HK does it is on HK themselves.
Just like how Beijing and HK created Article 23 together. HOW HK enacts article 23 is on HK themselves. Since HK wasnt able to do so, Beijing intervenes.
If Carrie answers directly to Beijing, then why does Beijing even need to intervene? Let that sink in...
"you can't add a slash to two completely different places"
Yes you can. Sydney/Melbourne is highly populated in Australia. USSR/Russia was in cold war with the US. US/UK/AUS/NZ/CA are part of the 5 eyes.
"Carrie Lam did but she IS the PRC"
IS the PRC? So she can rule China? Because as far as anyone understands, thats exactly what your statements means.
"HK itself obviously didn't since 2 million of them protested it"
The media says 2 million, therefore it must be 2 million right? Thats exactly how the media brainwashes people.
HK police as well as independent 3rd party organisations from the US have used digital imaging technology to verify that thats a lie. At its PEAK, the protests amounted to only 350k. Thats less than 5% of HKs population.
"in fact it was withdrawn in the end if you want to check your history. Surprised you don't remember one of the biggest protests in history lol"
Why are you assuming I dont remember? Did I say I dont know/remember?
"That's most certainly NOT wanting something lol"
You need to differentiate between government and people. Government wanted, people didnt. I never spoke about the people, I spoke about the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kaiyuzheng7663 'Shaking hands as a greeting method is him "presuming", especially with Muslim woman'
Thats not "presuming" that thats the "norm". Thats sharing his culture, he was trying to greet her and her family in a nice way. Sharing culture is not arrogance. You think Chinese people dont "share" their culture too?
"The culture norm with regards to physical contact between man and woman in a religious conservative society should be well understood by any cultured person"
Firstly, why are you assuming shes Muslim? You think everyone there is Muslim just because thats the main religion there? Secondly, like I said, shaking hands with Muslim women in the West is the norm. So whats this "Islam custom" you were speaking about that he "should have learnt" from Muslim women in the West when they all shake hands? Even if we take your point on them being conservative, that falls under ignorance, not arrogance.
"If you cannot even understand this, you are more like the kind of lads go on club18-30 holidays to Ibiza"
All Muslim women from the West shake hands, if you cannot even understand this, then...actually Im not going to stoop to your level and make wrong assumptions about others with zero information like what you are doing.
"The same goes with the silly sad music interpretation. Totally unnecessary, if not a bit juvenile for a grown man"
Youre shifting goal posts. Unnecessary or not, juvenile or not, thats got nothing to do with arrogance, you know, the topic at hand?
"I can say generally, unless there is a large group, Chinese tourists when travelling individually or in small groups are more observant and try not to create unnecessary tensions. Whereas westerners, particularly Americans are more likely to do things to their own likings. Of course, this is on average, which includes approx 70%"
You are shifting goal posts here as well. I spoke nothing about "creating tensions". I specifically addressed your point on not being bothered learning the basics of the local language when travelling. Most Chinese do not learn the local language when travelling to non-English speaking countries, they just try speak English instead. This applies to most travellers across the road. Im asking you, why bother mentioning this point when it applies to Chinese travellers too?
As for your "creating tension" point. Whats this about 70%? Whats "to their own likings"? Doing something "to their own liking" means "creating tension"? Well one can say that people speaking another language "to their own liking", especially loudly, in country XYZ is "creating tension". That applies to more than 70% of Chinese. Your point again? This is about this guy in the video, not the worse of the worse from country X. So why bother bringing it up, especially when it can be said for Chinese tourists too?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@中央山脈-c4i "There're Great Britain and United Kingdom; there also are Netherland and Holland. Also, United States and US. What's the difference?"
Allow me to shed some light.
Great Britain (or simply Britain) is the geographic term. It specifically refers to the island and island only.
United Kingdom on the other hand, is a political term. It specifically refers to Kingdoms in the region that are united to become one sovereign state, hence the term "united kingdom". This politically entity includes the territory of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.
Netherlands is the name of the country. Holland only refers to the 2 most populous and highest GDP contributing provinces of Netherlands, namely North Holland, and South Holland. Calling the Netherlands as "Holland" is ignorant, which unfortunately most of the people in this world are. Its just like calling the US as "America". America is a continent, not a country.
As for US and United States. US is the initial for United States. I didnt think youd need to be told that.
Ill also add the difference between Taiwan and Republic of China (ROC). Republic of China is founded as a Chinese state in China, and once sat in the UN representing the country called China. In ROCs constitution, it specifically refers to Taiwan as a province of China. So Taiwan is a PART of ROC, not Taiwan "is" ROC like most ignorant people in this world tend to think. And ROC claims to be the country called China, again, not "Taiwan" like most ignorant people in this world tend to think.
Any other questions?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@beanie741 "Do you use the platform..?"
Ive checked it out.
"Lots of snide comments and saying they should be ashamed etc"
Worse than the West? Doubt it.
"There is tonnes of content mocking and criticising middle easterners and Indians specifically"
Mocking their actions, or their race? Theres a difference. Highly doubt they would mock their race just for being born that way. If its mocking/criticising their actions, by definition, thats not racist.
"I’m not vegan or vegetarian but it shouldn’t matter"
Well I am. And everyone that eats meat is just as bad as the so-called "animal abusers". Contributing to the demand of killing animals isnt any better. You pay others to kill animals for you. In my eyes, youre no better than an "animal abuser". But yes, animal abuse is wrong and should be stopped.
"And those ‘hacks’ are not legal. They are legally grey"
Im not sure what specifically youre talking about, but If the law allows it and wont punish you for it. Then its not illegal. Tax for example, if the law allows one to minimise tax through such and such mean, then it means the law allows it. Thats how the rich do their taxes in the West too. If you want to criticise, then criticise the government for allowing it, not the people taking advantage of whats legal. Even Trump openly says he does that and encourage others to do it.
"There is also an overwhelming attitude in immigration content of using other countries as a means to an end, only caring about issues that affect them directly and refusing to contribute to the public good there"
Not sure what that means, you got to be more specific. My stance is, if its not illegal then its fine. If theyre immigrating to another country, theyre working there and paying taxes there, so what do you mean theyre "refusing to contribute to the public good there"? Theyre literally contributing by working for the country/community, and paying taxes for the country/community.
1
-
"Do you use the platform..?"
Ive checked it out.
"Lots of snide comments and saying they should be ashamed etc"
Worse than the West? Doubt it.
"There is tonnes of content mocking and criticising middle easterners and Indians specifically"
Mocking their actions, or their race? Theres a difference. Highly doubt they would mock their race just for being born that way. If its mocking/criticising their actions, by definition, thats not racist.
"I’m not vegan or vegetarian but it shouldn’t matter"
Well I am. And everyone that eats meat is just as bad as the so-called "animal abusers". Contributing to the demand of killing animals isnt any better. You pay others to kill animals for you. In my eyes, youre no better than an "animal abuser". But yes, animal abuse is wrong and should be stopped.
"And those ‘hacks’ are not legal. They are legally grey"
Im not sure what specifically youre talking about, but If the law allows it and wont punish you for it. Then its not illegal. Tax for example, if the law allows one to minimise tax through such and such mean, then it means the law allows it. Thats how the rich do their taxes in the West too. If you want to criticise, then criticise the government for allowing it, not the people taking advantage of whats legal. Even Trump openly says he does that and encourage others to do it.
"There is also an overwhelming attitude in immigration content of using other countries as a means to an end, only caring about issues that affect them directly and refusing to contribute to the public good there"
Not sure what that means, you got to be more specific. My stance is, if its not illegal then its fine. If theyre immigrating to another country, theyre working there and paying taxes there, so what do you mean theyre "refusing to contribute to the public good there"? Theyre literally contributing by working for the country/community, and paying taxes for the country/community.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tooltalk "Also re: your refusal to read the EU's finding, that's ok. I know I'm dealing with intellectually very lazy and dishonest folks here who have hard life earning 50 cent per comments"
I was going to end this here. But you insinuating that I earn 50 cent per comment is uncalled for.
Shame on you.
You indirectly call yourself an "intellectual" and an "honest" person, yet here you are making ad hominem attacks. Something unbefitting of your "status".
My comment isnt about EU at all. So why would I waste my time reading about something thats got nothing to do with my country/region? Im not from either EU or China. So why would I read about that? Would you like to read about a paper from Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Mexico, Japan, India and other countries too just because they have some "findings" on Chinas EV industry relevant to their own countrys regulations? Who knows, YOU might, but I have no interest in doing so. And just because I have no interest in doing so, doesnt mean Im an intellectually lazy and dishonest person who has a hard life earning 50 cents per comment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
paula Lyeo "If china think you break the law, they can get you from Hongkong, even if you only transfer from HOngkong. Before you know what you are talking about,you need minimum study it"
No you cant. Unless they have done something that is ALSO considered a crime in HK of at least 7 years imprisonment.
"That is the reason why even some lawyers protest on the street. Do you think you know law better than the professional lawyers in HOngkong?"
Lawyers? What type of lawyers? Property lawyers? Tax lawyers? Commercial lawyers? Family lawyer? The profession of most lawyers arent even in the field of the fugitives bill. And just because youre a lawyer doesnt mean you have read the bill and cant be brainwashed. I know better than all the lawyers that havent read the bill amendment tyvm.
"There are more than 2 million hongkong people protested"
Media says 2 million so it must be 2 million? HK official reports say the highest amount is 250k-300k protesters in any 1 day. The "2 million" at that time was cumulative. Its the same people every single time.
"If Chinese government is not happy about your speech,as hongkong people still have free speech according to hongkong law.
Freedom of speech is not a crime in HK, therefore, China cannot request a extradition of someone suspected of saying something "wrong" or "bad".
"Or if you are a rich hongkong business people, maybe you have bribed some Chinese officials by force. You can be wanted by the Chinese government,even you are a westerner, if you are wanted by the Chinese government,they can extradited from hongkong to china"
Commercial fugitives are exempted in this bill, so even if you are "rich" and China wanted you, they cant. And even if
touch you unless theyve committed a crime that is punishable in HK of at least 7 years imprisonment.
All the examples you gave, only brainwashed people "hearing" from unverified sources think that is so.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Duke Of Prunes "My point was 1) Chinese goods are no longer cheap"
It might not be the cheapest but its still much cheaper than the US. Moreover, US importers dont just look at price, they look at speed and volume. There isnt another country in this world that can produce at the same pace and quantity that China can.
"2) if you want to go next level, say Barneys, Saks, or Neiman Marcus, nobody wants crap from China"
Like I said, those ties only cost $2 to make. The extra $198 is literally just the brand and profits to companies in between. Take away the brand, its literally the SAME THING as the $2 tie.
"You keep wearing your $2 ties, and don't drop out of school, ok?"
Are you trying to be funny here? Because thats not working. And youre only shows your level of intelligence in assuming things with absolutely no information.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nathanbruce1992 Yes, so why didnt you source me that instead? As for the term "college", I dont know what you mean by "college", but college for us is for those that didnt get into real universities. And proper universities certainly dont accept wikipedia as a source for any paper...
Moreover, based on your "source", is was also written:
"She was regarded as ruthless in her endeavours to grab power and was believed by traditional historians even to have killed her own daughter to frame Empress Wang (and, later, her own eldest son Li Hong), in a power struggle"
The wording "believed by traditional historians" in essence means "most historians".
"Or did you mean the one or two sources that you read claimed this, and therefore you take it as objective fact?"
Why are you questioning me? If you dont agree then why dont you question the historians themselves? This piece of information is all over the world, not "one or two sources". And although there is no such thing as absolutely certainty for something like this, this is "most likely" the case. If you have a problem with this, dont question me, question the source. I cant do anything about what was recorded over 1000 years ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rotzepopel1381 "HK is under pressure from China and get chinese laws"
China is keeping HK accountable to their laws. In fact, HK violated article 23 of their own mini constitution, that is Hong Kong "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."
HK broke their end of the deal, yet the media is spinning as if China is in the wrong.
"Btw see Western world, if you disrespect the flag or anthem you have to fear nothing"
Not in Europe. You get sentenced.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chillout8185 I mean the term free will is quite straight forward. I dont think that needs an elaborate definition?
In the context of this video, God, free will, and care, lets use war as an example. Humans wage wars. God doesnt stop that war. Does that means God doesnt care? If yes, if God stops that war, that doesnt change the fact that these people can start war again the next day, and the next, and the next, etc. So the war wont actually "stop". Just delayed. To actually "stop" that war, humans free will to do things must be taken away. But if thats taken away, is that "care"? Thats my question
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tioswift3676 We do have "a clue" on our "source". Scientifically speaking, every single fabric/cell/atom of our body came from Earth. So we can safely say we are literally children of Earth. Or some might say we are children of the stars. As every single atom that makes up the Earth came from the residue gas (atom) from the formation of our Sun (star). And by extension, every single atom of our star came from our galaxy, so on and so forth. All energy or atom in this world has a source.
Whether people worship or revere the Earth, Sun, Stars, Universe etc depending on how far back the "source" of our very being came to be, the most furthest point of origin of this "source" is what many cultures/religion in this world call "God", the creator. Some label it as "God", some label it as "The Heavens", some label it as "The Universe" or "Higher Power", whatever it is, every single human civilisation since time immemorial acknowledged that there was something greater than us our there, something greater than us out there worthy of their civilisations respect/reverence/worship or whatever you want to call it.
1
-
@tioswift3676 We do have "a clue" on our "source". Scientifically speaking, every single fabric/cell/atom of our body came from Earth. So we can safely say we are literally children of Earth. Or some might say we are children of the stars. As every single atom that makes up the Earth came from the residue gas (atom) from the formation of our Sun (star). And by extension, every single atom of our star came from our galaxy, so on and so forth. All energy or atom in this world has a source.
Whether people worship or revere the Earth, Sun, Stars, Universe etc depending on how far back the "source" of our very being came to be, the most furthest point of origin of this "source" is what many cultures/religion in this world call "God", the creator. Some label it as "God", some label it as "The Heavens", some label it as "The Universe" or "Higher Power", whatever it is, every single human civilisation since time immemorial acknowledged that there was something greater than us our there, something greater than us out there worthy of their civilisations respect/reverence/worship or whatever you want to call it.
1
-
We do have "a clue" on our "source". Scientifically speaking, every single fabric/cell/atom of our body came from Earth. So we can safely say we are literally children of Earth. Or some might say we are children of the stars. As every single atom that makes up the Earth came from the residue gas (atom) from the formation of our Sun (star). And by extension, every single atom of our star came from our galaxy, so on and so forth. All energy or atom in this world has a source.
Whether people worship or revere the Earth, Sun, Stars, Universe etc depending on how far back the "source" of our very being came to be, the most furthest point of origin of this "source" is what many cultures/religion in this world call "God", the creator. Some label it as "God", some label it as "The Heavens", some label it as "The Universe" or "Higher Power", whatever it is, every single human civilisation since time immemorial acknowledged that there was something greater than us our there, something greater than us out there worthy of their civilisations respect/reverence/worship or whatever you want to call it.
1
-
We do have "a clue" on our "source". Scientifically speaking, every single fabric/cell/atom of our body came from Earth. So we can safely say we are literally children of Earth. Or some might say we are children of the stars. As every single atom that makes up the Earth came from the residue gas (atom) from the formation of our Sun (star). And by extension, every single atom of our star came from our galaxy, so on and so forth. All energy or atom in this world has a source.
Whether people worship or revere the Earth, Sun, Stars, Universe etc depending on how far back the "source" of our very being came to be, the most furthest point of origin of this "source" is what many cultures/religion in this world call "G0d", the creator. Some label it as "G0d", some label it as "The Heavens", some label it as "The Universe" or "Higher Power", whatever it is, every single human civilisation since time immemorial acknowledged that there was something greater than us our there, something greater than us out there worthy of their civilisations respect/reverence/worship or whatever you want to call it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Khepri "Exist doesn't mean not over thrown. they were overthrown in 1949 and exist as rebel group"
If they were "overthrown" in 1949 then why did PRC continued to attack ROC over the next 2+ decades? Clearly they were not "overthrown" thats why they continued to attack them.
"Have no Real power to defend themselves, that's why they collude with foreign forces"
Theres a reason why PRC couldnt completely invade ROC back then, its because ROC took the whole nations navy over to Taiwan, leaving PRC with none.
Now with time, PRC has over overtaken them due to the nature of having more resources. Why not "overthrow" them now? And you think PRC didnt "collude" with foreign forces to come into power?
"They lost support of the people, that's why they lost the war"
They lost mainland China, not the war, technically speaking anyways (no peace treaty was ever signed), because their forces were weak after fighting head on with the Japanese, whereas CCP maintained their forces during this period while only engaging in guerrilla warfare against the Japanese, AND had support from USSR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alainw77 "maybe you should look at historic maps of china, both tibet and xinjiang were independent states for most of the time ever since the qin dynasty"
Why you looking a map from Qin dynasty? A dynasty from over 2000 years ago? Based on your logic, USA and CA shouldnt rule North America because their map didnt cover North America for most of the 2000 years right?
"the only time xinjiang was conquered was during the tang, yuan and qing dynasties and those last two weren’t even han people"
Since when was sovereignty over a piece of land was based on ones ethnicity?
"After the qing dynasty fell, both tibet and xinjiang regained their independence"
Wrong. After Qing Dynasty fell, there was a legal transfer of sovereignty of its to Republic of China. Any so-called "independence" were in fact illegal, thus therefore not valid.
"North Korea invaded south korea first with stalin’s blessing and he asked china to help them when things turned bad for north korea when US went to help south korea"
Sure, but you said it out of context and made it sound like China helped NK invade SK, when in fact it was alone NK that invaded SK. China only came into the picture when NK was being invaded by SK when SK called for US and its allies to almost fully invade NK.
"And it was the United Nations who voted to defend south korea with the US being in command"
For the vote, China was not there, and Russia was also not there. The UN was basically ruled by US and its allies then. So of course the US would favour themselves.
No third party should ever intervene in a civil war. This mistake involving the world in a civil war shouldnt ever have happened.
"China invaded Vietnam in response to vietnam invading cambodia because the khmer rouge were allies of china"
There was a multitude of reason like I said, but that was the tipping point.
Also, Chinas invasion was a warning to Vietnam - if you can unilaterally invade another country in our backyard, so can we.
China has not invaded any country out of nowhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriscromeyn7807 You are you. Diplomatic relationships are diplomatic relationships. 2 very completely different things. And just because you can take a punch in the face, doesnt mean others have to take it like you do. They can respond call it out if they wish. Who are you to tell them how to think?
And sure, they have every right to do so as a sovereign country, but doesnt mean that thats not discrimination, nor does it mean that there will be no consequences.
Also, since you want to bring up Chinas policies, Chinas policies were NON-DISCRIMINATORY. It was same for ALL across the board.
And dont say "who are we to say any different". Yeh, exactly, who are you to say any different? Your country, your media, your peers. All criticising and "saying" things about Chinas policies.
But when China does it, "oh get over it".
Hypocrite. Why the double standards huh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chriscromeyn7807 "in 2020 China was not very forthcoming about the severity of the V, and they let it spread fully knowing the devastating effects"
The first countries that came in mind when you said that was the US and the Western world. They knew about the V and just let it spread with their policies, also not very forthcoming about the severity of the V: "Its just like a flu" Trump and half the US says...
And what do you mean they let it spread? China was the first country in the world to lockdown an entire city/region. The West criticised Chinas policies as "draconian" then. Then a few months later the West did exactly the same thing...but this time it was "we need to do what to protect the people", painted in a positive light. Then when the West dropped the lockdowns they went back criticising China again...funny isnt it?
"They would not allow WHO and CDC officials from other countries to come in and monitor what was going on"
Why would any capable country allow a third party to "monitor" them BEFORE DOING IT THEMSELVES when theyre fully capable of doing it?
You want to let other police/military from foreign countries to catch criminals within your country too? BEFORE your country even tries?
"Now China is reopening and this time not only are they not sharing information on the outbreak, they are supposedly not even recording information on it themselves"
You mean like how the US and the West now arent even accurately recording cases anymore? And what information are you speaking of?
"People and countries outside China have no idea how severe things are and what potential dangers might arise from the current massive infection rate happening in China"
The counties that adopted a "living with C" policy dropped all restrictions for C19 already. They dont care about C19 anymore. All this "potential danger" talk is just fear mongering. Its all in the head.
This is literally the most researched V in the history of this planet. We know everything we need to know about it already. As V evolves, it typically evolves to be LESS dangerous, so that the V can thrive. If it kills the host, the V also dies - so thats not ideal for their evolution. Just because you have no idea doesnt mean health officials have no idea. They know exactly what theyre doing when they dropped all restrictions and opened up their borders. Moreover, any evolution of the V is not limited to China only, it can happen anywhere. So again, the policy is targeted and discriminatory, when as said earlier, they literally dont care about the V anymore.
"As far as I know, there are no daily reports being given on the situation like other governments did during 2021 and 2022"
Same for a lot of countries now. They dont do daily reporting too. Even if there is, its not accurate. Most people now do RAT tests. And positive RAT tests are not reported to the government to be included in the statistics.
"It is each government's choice how they want to handle the virus, but it is equally other governments' choice how they want to protect themselves from potentially worse outbreaks and/or variants that might arise from the current wave in China"
If youre going to protect your country, then do what you need to protect your country, but dont discriminate. Have that policy across the board for ALL countries. I dont see why positive cases for other countries can slip through except for China. Clearly discrimination here.
Yes, China has a "wave" now. But so do other countries. And other countries also have waves that never ended. And as I said, its 2023 now, and countries have adopted a "living with C" policy whereby they dropped all restrictions within the country and to incoming passengers. It screams that they NO LONGER CARE ABOUT C19!
The policy targeting one country is merely just pretext for pretending they care when in actual fact they dont. Its purely discrimination + politics at play here.
1
-
@chris cromeyn "in 2020 China was not very forthcoming about the severity of the V, and they let it spread fully knowing the devastating effects"
The first countries that came in mind when you said that was the US and the Western world. They knew about the V and just let it spread with their policies, also not very forthcoming about the severity of the V: "Its just like a flu" Trump and half the US says...
And what do you mean they let it spread? China was the first country in the world to lockdown an entire city/region. The West criticised Chinas policies as "draconian" then. Then a few months later the West did exactly the same thing...but this time it was "we need to do what to protect the people", painted in a positive light. Then when the West dropped the lockdowns they went back criticising China again...funny isnt it?
"They would not allow WHO and CDC officials from other countries to come in and monitor what was going on"
Why would any capable country allow a third party to "monitor" them BEFORE DOING IT THEMSELVES when theyre fully capable of doing it?
You want to let other police/military from foreign countries to catch criminals within your country too? BEFORE your country even tries?
"Now China is reopening and this time not only are they not sharing information on the outbreak, they are supposedly not even recording information on it themselves"
You mean like how the US and the West now arent even accurately recording cases anymore? And what information are you speaking of?
"People and countries outside China have no idea how severe things are and what potential dangers might arise from the current massive infection rate happening in China"
The counties that adopted a "living with C" policy dropped all restrictions for C19 already. They dont care about C19 anymore. All this "potential danger" talk is just fear mongering. Its all in the head.
This is literally the most researched V in the history of this planet. We know everything we need to know about it already. As V evolves, it typically evolves to be LESS dangerous, so that the V can thrive. If it kills the host, the V also dies - so thats not ideal for their evolution. Just because you have no idea doesnt mean health officials have no idea. They know exactly what theyre doing when they dropped all restrictions and opened up their borders. Moreover, any evolution of the V is not limited to China only, it can happen anywhere. So again, the policy is targeted and discriminatory, when as said earlier, they literally dont care about the V anymore.
"As far as I know, there are no daily reports being given on the situation like other governments did during 2021 and 2022"
Same for a lot of countries now. They dont do daily reporting too. Even if there is, its not accurate. Most people now do RAT tests. And positive RAT tests are not reported to the government to be included in the statistics.
"It is each government's choice how they want to handle the virus, but it is equally other governments' choice how they want to protect themselves from potentially worse outbreaks and/or variants that might arise from the current wave in China"
If youre going to protect your country, then do what you need to protect your country, but dont discriminate. Have that policy across the board for ALL countries. I dont see why positive cases for other countries can slip through except for China. Clearly discrimination here.
Yes, China has a "wave" now. But so do other countries. And other countries also have waves that never ended. And as I said, its 2023 now, and countries have adopted a "living with C" policy whereby they dropped all restrictions within the country and to incoming passengers. It screams that they NO LONGER CARE ABOUT C19!
The policy targeting one country is merely just pretext for pretending they care when in actual fact they dont. Its purely discrimination + politics at play here.
1
-
chris cromeyn "in 2020 China was not very forthcoming about the severity of the V, and they let it spread fully knowing the devastating effects"
The first countries that came in mind when you said that was the US and the Western world. They knew about the V and just let it spread with their policies, also not very forthcoming about the severity of the V: "Its just like a flu" Trump and half the US says...
And what do you mean they let it spread? China was the first country in the world to lockdown an entire city/region. The West criticised Chinas policies as "draconian" then. Then a few months later the West did exactly the same thing...but this time it was "we need to do what to protect the people", painted in a positive light. Then when the West dropped the lockdowns they went back criticising China again...funny isnt it?
"They would not allow WHO and CDC officials from other countries to come in and monitor what was going on"
Why would any capable country allow a third party to "monitor" them BEFORE DOING IT THEMSELVES when theyre fully capable of doing it?
You want to let other police/military from foreign countries to catch criminals within your country too? BEFORE your country even tries?
"Now China is reopening and this time not only are they not sharing information on the outbreak, they are supposedly not even recording information on it themselves"
You mean like how the US and the West now arent even accurately recording cases anymore? And what information are you speaking of?
"People and countries outside China have no idea how severe things are and what potential dangers might arise from the current massive infection rate happening in China"
The counties that adopted a "living with C" policy dropped all restrictions for C19 already. They dont care about C19 anymore. All this "potential danger" talk is just fear mongering. Its all in the head.
This is literally the most researched V in the history of this planet. We know everything we need to know about it already. As V evolves, it typically evolves to be LESS dangerous, so that the V can thrive. If it kills the host, the V also dies - so thats not ideal for their evolution. Just because you have no idea doesnt mean health officials have no idea. They know exactly what theyre doing when they dropped all restrictions and opened up their borders. Moreover, any evolution of the V is not limited to China only, it can happen anywhere. So again, the policy is targeted and discriminatory, when as said earlier, they literally dont care about the V anymore.
"As far as I know, there are no daily reports being given on the situation like other governments did during 2021 and 2022"
Same for a lot of countries now. They dont do daily reporting too. Even if there is, its not accurate. Most people now do RAT tests. And positive RAT tests are not reported to the government to be included in the statistics.
"It is each government's choice how they want to handle the V, but it is equally other governments' choice how they want to protect themselves from potentially worse outbreaks and/or variants that might arise from the current wave in China"
If youre going to protect your country, then do what you need to protect your country, but dont discriminate. Have that policy across the board for ALL countries. I dont see why positive cases for other countries can slip through except for China. Clearly discrimination here.
Yes, China has a "wave" now. But so do other countries. And other countries also have waves that never ended. And as I said, its 2023 now, and countries have adopted a "living with C" policy whereby they dropped all restrictions within the country and to incoming passengers. It screams that they NO LONGER CARE ABOUT C19!
The policy targeting one country is merely just pretext for pretending they care when in actual fact they dont. Its purely discrimination + politics at play here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buildmotosykletist1987 So you cant win a political and legal argument so now you try with military? Youll still lose to me.
"The CCP does not have any operational old tech, diesel carriers. None...The third carrier is still being built"
Again, it seems like you just came out of prison or something. Your information is out of date. They have 2 operational aircraft carriers now. And even though third is like 99% completed, that doesnt change the fact that they have 3 and ROC has 0. Again, what is your point? You trying to mock ROC?
"The 001 can't launch any jets and 002 can only launch lightly fueled J15's and no others"
Right. An aircraft carrier that can carry jets but cant launch any jets...makes sense...
And the J-15 has a range of 3500km whereas Taiwan is just about 150km away, why would they use anything else other than these so-called "lightly fueled" jets? No, a better question is, why would they need an aircraft carrier against Taiwan in the first place? Theres no need for PRC to use aircraft carriers against Taiwan, so honestly not sure why youre even bringing that up. Aircraft carriers are for countries that go to war half way across the world, not for something thats less than a quarter of the distance between San Fran and LA.
"There is only one hypersonic missile that can hit a target and it's Australian designed. The CCP don't have any that have actually hit a target"
Right. Seems like you know more than US intelligence. Guess the US got scared for not reason then.
"A CCP plane can't fly to Taiwan 5 times as it will be shot down on the first attempt"
Sure. And going by your logic, whats the point of aircraft carriers again if theyre gonna get shot down first attempt anyways?
"The world will not stand by and let a dictator invade a democracy"
* cough * Russia * cough *
Sorry what?
"The USA and Japan and Philippines have stated they will defend Taiwan so you are obviously wrong"
The US double talks. They say they will, just like they would with Ukraine, but look what happened? And Japan will only join if the US joins. And lets be real here, the US wont be sending their troops to die when its a sure-fire win for PRC.
And PH wont nor can do shit to China.
1
-
1
-
So you cant win a political and legal argument so now you try with military? Youll still lose to me.
"The CCP does not have any operational old tech, diesel carriers. None...The third carrier is still being built"
Again, it seems like you just came out of prison or something. Your information is out of date. They have 2 operational aircraft carriers now. And even though third is like 99% completed, that doesnt change the fact that they have 3 and ROC has 0. Again, what is your point? You trying to mock ROC?
"The 001 can't launch any jets and 002 can only launch lightly fueled J15's and no others"
Right. An aircraft carrier that can carry jets but cant launch any jets...makes sense...
And the J-15 has a range of 3500km whereas Taiwan is just about 150km away, why would they use anything else other than these so-called "lightly fueled" jets? No, a better question is, why would they need an aircraft carrier against Taiwan in the first place? Theres no need for PRC to use aircraft carriers against Taiwan, so honestly not sure why youre even bringing that up. Aircraft carriers are for countries that go to war half way across the world, not for something thats less than a quarter of the distance between San Fran and LA.
"There is only one hypersonic missile that can hit a target and it's Australian designed. The CCP don't have any that have actually hit a target"
Right. Seems like you know more than US intelligence. Guess the US got scared for not reason then.
"A CCP plane can't fly to Taiwan 5 times as it will be shot down on the first attempt"
Sure. And going by your logic, whats the point of aircraft carriers again if theyre gonna get shot down first attempt anyways?
"The world will not stand by and let a dictator invade a democracy"
* cough * Russia * cough *
Sorry what?
"The USA and Japan and Philippines have stated they will defend Taiwan so you are obviously wrong"
The US double talks. They say they will, just like they would with Ukraine, but look what happened? And Japan will only join if the
1
-
@buildmotosykletist1987 So you cant win a political and legal argument so now you try with military? Youll still lose to me.
"The CCP does not have any operational old tech, diesel carriers. None...The third carrier is still being built"
Again, it seems like you just came out of prison or something. Your information is out of date. They have 2 operational aircraft carriers now. And even though third is like 99% completed, that doesnt change the fact that they have 3 and ROC has 0. Again, what is your point? You trying to mock ROC?
"The 001 can't launch any jets and 002 can only launch lightly fueled J15's and no others"
Right. An aircraft carrier that can carry jets but cant launch any jets...makes sense...
And the J-15 has a range of 3500km whereas Taiwan is just about 150km away, why would they use anything else other than these so-called "lightly fueled" jets? No, a better question is, why would they need an aircraft carrier against Taiwan in the first place? Theres no need for PRC to use aircraft carriers against Taiwan, so honestly not sure why youre even bringing that up. Aircraft carriers are for countries that go to war half way across the world, not for something thats less than a quarter of the distance between San Fran and LA.
"There is only one hypersonic missile that can hit a target and it's Australian designed. The CCP don't have any that have actually hit a target"
Right. Seems like you know more than US intelligence. Guess the US got scared for not reason then.
"A CCP plane can't fly to Taiwan 5 times as it will be shot down on the first attempt"
Sure. And going by your logic, whats the point of aircraft carriers again if theyre gonna get shot down first attempt anyways?
"The world will not stand by and let a dictator invade a democracy"
* cough * Russia * cough *
Sorry what?
"The USA and Japan and Philippines have stated they will defend Taiwan so you are obviously wrong"
The US double talks. They say they will, just like they would with Ukraine, but look what happened? And Japan will only join if the
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@buildmotosykletist1987 For the 4th time, space before question mark is an error. Starting a sentence with a colon is also an error. You claim its just punctuation, but punctuation is an aspect of grammar!
Ive already given you my answer and told you to verify it yourself. If you refused to do it, thats on you, not me. But for any readers reading this, heres whats Googles top link on this says:
'Is Punctuation Part of Grammar?
Grammar is the construction of sentences and paragraphs and how they form meaning. One aspect of grammar is “punctuation”, which relates to the symbols used to add meaning to sentences. Many grammatical rules cannot be followed without punctuation; therefore, it does form part of “grammar.”
The Cambridge Dictionary states that punctuation is “symbols used to separate phrases.” These symbols have many functions, including informing whether a sentence is a question or exclamation. They also inform when to pause and signal the end of a sentence.
Essentially “grammar” is the blueprint of the rules of the English language and how to put words together, and “punctuation” is one “branch” of these rules.
Some people argue that ”punctuation” is not part of “grammar” because “grammar” exists in spoken English, but punctuation doesn’t.
However, a person’s ability to speak well and without “grammatical” errors is intrinsically linked to a basic understanding and competence in written English’s grammatical rules, including punctuation.
In some grading systems and rubrics, “punctuation” is a separate category. However, errors in this section would directly affect the “grammar” section of the grading because the sentences would not be constructed correctly. For example, misusing commas and semi-colons would result in “run-sentences” or “sentence fragments”, which are classed as “grammatical errors.”'
Much like the following statement: I helped my uncle, Jack, off a horse vs I helped my uncle jack off a horse.
Punctuation is an aspect of grammar.
Oh, and your question "are you simple?" is also a subpar English as well. Not the "impeccable" English you thought you had.
1
-
1
-
Continuing quote:
'Essentially “grammar” is the blueprint of the rules of the English language and how to put words together, and “punctuation” is one “branch” of these rules.
Some people argue that ”punctuation” is not part of “grammar” because “grammar” exists in spoken English, but punctuation doesn’t.
However, a person’s ability to speak well and without “grammatical” errors is intrinsically linked to a basic understanding and competence in written English’s grammatical rules, including punctuation.
In some grading systems and rubrics, “punctuation” is a separate category. However, errors in this section would directly affect the “grammar” section of the grading because the sentences would not be constructed correctly. For example, misusing commas and semi-colons would result in “run-sentences” or “sentence fragments”, which are classed as “grammatical errors.”'
Much like the following statement: I helped my uncle, Jack, off a horse vs I helped my uncle jack off a horse.
Punctuation is an aspect of grammar.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Vincent_de_Paul "If it is indeed 'food tampering, then provide me with a legal case"
You do realise that immoral actions such as food tampering doesnt have to involve a legal case right?
Your logic is basically saying, if there is no legal case against XYZ (food tampering in this case), then XYZ does not exist. How ridiculous is that?
If there is no legal case against verbal abuse, does that mean verbal abuse does not exists?
If there is no legal case against cheating, does that mean cheating does not exists?
"Food tampering is a legal term. So since you insist that it is a crime, provide an example"
No, "tampering" is the legal term, not "food tampering".
And just because its a term used in judicial system doesnt mean that term can ONLY be used in the judicial system.
Are people not allowed to use legal terms outside of the court of law in a non-legal way?
And you keep putting words in my mouth. Quote where I "insisted" its a "crime"?
This WHOLE conversation I spoke NOTHING about the legality of things. So how did I insist its a "crime"?
Whats a crime in one country may not be a crime in another. Thats literally why I intentionally excluded the legal framework in this. There are 200 countries in this world, each with their own governmental system and laws. Its unwise to use ONE countrys laws to judge another for the same action. And in your case, youre attempting to use the supposed "law" of a single state in the whole US to judge China? Or judge the whole US? Whats even your point? Youre not being very clear. You want to talk about the law? The definition? Or the action? Thats 3 different things.
And your "definition" is from NY department of health. Its not even the "law" or a "legal term".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alan Lee When Google, YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, and Dropbox adheres to local Chinese laws. But they refused to do so. Moreover, PRC already stated multiple times that Taiwan will have a high degree of autonomy under PRCS "one country, two system" model just like HK and Macau. And they both have access to your Google, YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo, and Dropbox.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nick2minhne What do you mean "no evidence"? Its literally documented. Just because you dont know about it doesnt mean it doesnt exists.
Here:
'In 1958, the People's Republic of China issued a declaration defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly and Paracel Islands. North Vietnam's prime minister, Pham Van Dong, sent a diplomatic note to Zhou Enlai, stating that "The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision." The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper(Vietnam) on September 22, 1958.
The content of Pham Van Dong's diplomatic note to Premier Zhou Enlai is as follows:
"Comrade Prime Minister,
We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration".'
And what on earth did you mean by "international sites"? All sites are "international". Or did you assume I was Chinese and only had access to Chinese sites?
And I dont know if average Vietnamese knows why, but the Vietnamese government knows exactly why China went to war with Vietnam in 1979. Backstab after backstab after backstab. It was an accumulation of grievances. Suddenly reclaiming islands that you acknowledged was Chinas 2 decades later, attacking China over the islands and allowing USSR to set up a military base in the Spratlies is one. Ungrateful of the assistance China made to help you win the Vietnam war, and instead discriminated against and mistreated the Chinese minority in Vietnam with various anti-Chinese policies and forcing them to leave Vietnam is another. And the last push of attacking their pro-China Cambodian puppet ally is another. Every action Vietnam took was a stab at China. And you wonder why China attacked Vietnam in 1979?
1
-
@nick2minhne What do you mean there was no evidence? Just because you dont know about it doesnt mean theres isnt. Its literally documented.
Here:
'In 1958, the People's Republic of China issued a declaration defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly and Paracel Islands. North Vietnam's prime minister, Pham Van Dong, sent a diplomatic note to Zhou Enlai, stating that "The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision." The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper(Vietnam) on September 22, 1958.
The content of Pham Van Dong's diplomatic note to Premier Zhou Enlai is as follows:
"Comrade Prime Minister,
We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration".'
Dont say theres no evidence again.
Also, what did you mean by "international site"? All sites are "international". Did you assume I was Chinese or something?
Im not sure if your government wants the average Vietnamese know this, but the Vietnamese government knows exactly why China attacked them in 1979. Backstab, after backstab, after backstab. From trying to take back the islands that you acknowledged were Chinas, and attacking Chinese soldiers over the islands + allowing their enemy USSR to build military base on some of the islands. To being ungrateful of the assistance that helped you win the Vietnam war, and instead discriminated against and mistreated ethnic Chinese in Vietnam with various anti-Chinese policies, forcing them to leave. To attacking Chinas puppet ally in Cambodia. Every action taken was a stab at China one after another. And you wonder why China attacked Vietnam in 1979?
1
-
@nick2minhne What do you mean there was no evidence? Just because you dont know about it doesnt mean theres isnt. Its literally documented.
Here:
'In 1958, the People's Republic of China issued a declaration defining its territorial waters which encompassed the Spratly and Paracel Islands. North Vietnam's prime minister, Pham Van Dong, sent a diplomatic note to Zhou Enlai, stating that "The Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam respects this decision." The diplomatic note was written on September 14 and was publicized on Nhan Dan newspaper(Vietnam) on September 22, 1958.
The content of Pham Van Dong's diplomatic note to Premier Zhou Enlai is as follows:
"Comrade Prime Minister,
We have the honour to bring to your knowledge that the Government of the DRVN recognizes and supports the declaration dated 4th September, 1958 of the Government of the PRC fixing the width of the Chinese territorial waters. The Government of the DRVN respects this decision and will give instructions to its State bodies to respect the 12-mile width of the territorial waters of China in all their relations in the maritime field with the PRC. I address to you, comrade Prime Minister, the assurance of my distinguished consideration".'
Dont say theres no evidence again.
Also, what did you mean by "international site"? All sites are "international". Did you assume I was Chinese or something?
Im not sure if your government wants the average Vietnamese know this, but the Vietnamese government knows exactly why China attacked them in 1979. Backstab, after backstab, after backstab. From trying to take back the islands that you acknowledged were Chinas, and attacking Chinese soldiers over the islands + allowing their enemy USSR to build military base on some of the islands. To being ungrateful of the assistance that helped you win the Vietnam war, and instead discriminated against and mistreated ethnic Chinese in Vietnam with various anti-Chinese policies, forcing them to leave. To attacking Chinas puppet ally in Cambodia. Every action taken was a stab at China one after another. And you wonder why China attacked Vietnam in 1979?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kashutosh9132 Oh please try keep this short and concise. The longer it is, the more I have to quote you to reference what Im responding to, the longer the comments will be.
"See,we are not saying anything about Tibet or Xinjiang"
Indeed. We are not talking about Tibet or Xinjiang. We are talking about whats traditionally Ladakhi territory. Which most of it lies in modern day Tibet and Xinjiang. Or did you prefer me to give you co-ordinates in longitude and latitude? I think just using modern day terms is easier for us to understand the location.
"Hari Singh kingdom included the parts of laddhak which India claims(and beyond) but we are are not claiming 10x more than we actually had. Hari Singh ruled till 1947 and signed instrument of accession with Indian govt(not brits)"
Your Hari Singh kingdom did not have sovereignty during British rule. It was the British that had sovereignty over British Indias lands. It was only after the British left that Hari Singh had a say in anything. Which was basically my point: none of this region was part of India till the British came along. You are talking about something AFTER the British left.
"100s of instrument of accession were signed between Indian govt and different local leaders. All this happened after British left,so all of this invalid? Hari Singh had the control of that territory,he handed over to us. This is as simple as that"
Well, British Indian invaded the Tibetan region of Qing China. Took their land without any sort of treaty with the Qing government, who had sovereignty over the land. Which is why China today does not recognise the disputed area as Indias. British Indias annexation over Qing territory was illegal to begin with. Even if they did win the war there, no formal treaty was signed with Qing China to cede that territory to British India. A war without any treaties signed afterwards is a war at most, not cession of territory.
"and Qinq didn't rule or control those lands when they collapsed"
No country in this world rules every inch of territory they lay claims to. There are vast empty lands in Russia, Canada, US, Australia that no man has ever walked. Even the Sentinel Islands, India does not rule nor have control over. Does that mean its not Indias?
"so by your this implications also those land belong to India"
My implication? My implication is based on legality. Hari Singh does not have legal sovereignty over the lands they signed off to India. They couldve illegally claimed Pakistan as part of their territory too. Does that mean Pakistan now belong to India because of their illegal claims?
"No,Qing collapsed and their territory become independent that's what happened. Just like Mauryan,chola empire collapsed and different kingdom started declaring themselves independent. Roman Empire collapsed and different small kingdom emerged. That's how it has been happening all over history to all the imperial empires"
That depends on how the empire collapsed. Some collapse were from total annihilation of the empire. For Qing, the imperial family still lived, and thus signed their territory off to Republic of China through an imperial edict (its available online for your to read). So legally speaking, all territories that Qing ruled, now all belong to Republic of China. And empires of the past had no such concept of passing their empires on legally. This is the 20th century way of doing things, we are not talking about empires way of doing things 2000 years ago.
"It took 40 years for govt in China to exert power over Tibet after Qing collapsed and Tibet people,their rulers didn't want them. They came and forcefully occupied those land. Tibet didnt want them"
When if comes to the law, it doesnt matter if they "want to" or not. Legally speaking, Tibet has been part of China since the 1600s, they were allowed to self-govern themselves, but ultimately, sovereignty over the territory had always been under Qing. When Qing collapse, sovereignty over Tibet was legally handed over to Republic of China via an imperial edict. It was Tibet that "forcefully" tried to seceded from China. Not China "forcefully" occupied their land. Their land had always been legally part of China.
1
-
@kashutosh9132 "After fall of Qing,ROC and then PRC tried to claim everything which Qing claimed,those kingdoms which didn't comply they attacked them,occupied them"
There were no "kingdoms" within China at that time. And it was Qing that gave all their territory to ROC. If its legally yours and people say "no its mine" and bear arms at you, of course force will be used on them during a civil war.
"Indian story is bit different,India was now parts of afganistan, Pakistan, mayanmar,Sri Lanka and Bangladesh..."
We are talking about the last Indian and Chinese governments leading up to modern India/China. Not ancient history. Not once did British India rule Afghanistan.
"Afganistan was already a kingdom,they didn't want to anything with India,we didnt claim,same for burma and Sri lanka. Even though through course of history same rulers had ruled all these region locally at different times"
You didnt try? Or they just didnt want to?
And not once in all of Indias history did any Indian empire ever rule Southern India, North East India, Myanmar, or Sri Lanka. Not once. So of course Myanmar or Sri Lanka wouldnt want to join India. Indias lucky to even have South India and NE India.
"Even for present India, leaders had to convince local leaders and kings to come join Indian union. Indian govt didn't automatically inherit what British India...Indian leaders had to negotiate case by case to form the present map of India"
I applaud Indians for their relatively peaceful formation. Indias very lucky to not have a civil war. But that didnt mean everyone in India was happy. In the early days of Indias formation, NE India said they were "tricked" into becoming part of India, as they had little knowledge on politics.
"That's why I said - ask local people who are living there,laddhaki are living there,so asking them make sense,in which country they want to belong? As essentialy their life will be affected first"
Im a person that doesnt care about opinions when it come to world politics and law. Whats law is law. Opinions do not matter when it comes to the law. Even if they want to become their own country, theyre not legally allowed to. If Sihks want to cede from India and become a Sihkistan, would you respect their "opinions" and allow it to happen? Doubt it.
"Tibetans are in exile and they want to independent,you know who is the aggressor"
So if Sikhs want to be independent, starts to amass an army to use force, and India brings in their army to suppress them, who is the "aggressor"?
The only Tibetans in so-called "exile" are those that want to be independent from China. Tibetans in China are living just fine. Ive seen enough videos from non-Chinese peoples vlogs to know whats reality.
"Ofc Laddhak territory is bigger than what belongs to India and we are not claiming what don't belong to us"
Just the part that was illegally claimed by Hari Singh. If Pakistan "illegal" claimed Kashmir and ceded territory to China via a legal treaty, does that make it legitimate? This is pretty much the same situation what British India did with Qing China.
"Do you think such a offer has been made id those lands belong to mainland Chinese?"
Ofcourse. Thats how negotiations are made. How else do you think negotiations are made? Through using someone else property/territory?
"But not for us,our then pm refused this stupid proposal as both arunachal and laddhak was ours and then war broke out"
Refer to my Pakistan ceding Kashmir to China example. If you agree Pakistan ceding Kashmir to China is illegitimate, then local Tibetans ceding Tibet to British India/Hari Singh is also illegitimate.
"No bcuz Chinese live way East,whereas Indians(laddaki and arunachali) have been living there for 100s years and they don't want their lands be occupied by chinese"
Youre confusing ethnicity with whats "Chinese" now. The Laddaki and arunachali people have also been occupied by British India for 100s of years. So ofcourse their identity is that of "Indias". I bet you if this was the other way round, in 100s of years they would also identify as "Chinese".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kashutosh9132 "The laddhak region of India before Tibet was ruled by local kings in times of karkota,utpala etc..."
Again, the only relevant time period we are speaking of is the previous governments prior to the current governments. Not something that happened over 1000 years ago.
Also, lets be specific here. Whats the "Laddahk region of India" you are speaking about? If youre including the disputed area that China also claims, then Im afraid that area will have to be called "disputed area" for the purpose of clarity in this conversation.
"Dogras won and inherited the territory of laddhak from namygyals and they didn't consider Tibet as their overlord and were independent of them...Dogras rules those land and then Dogras came under British"
Again, Tibet had no sovereignty over their lands. Sovereignty was under Qing China. Even if they did fight and win against the Tibetans, they themselves also dont have sovereignty over the lands. The land they won from Tibet also is under sovereignty of Qing China. Remember, Qing China designated that area (Tibetan plateau) as a self-governing region. If Dogra or the British wants to claim sovereignty over the territory from Qing, then the must have a formal treaty from Qing China to specify the ceded territory. Otherwise any sovereign claims over the territory from Dogra or British is illegal. Thats the point Ive been saying this whole time. You can "govern" all you want, as this is a "self-governing zone" so to speak. But sovereignty? No, it belongs to Qing.
"those Laddhaki lands we inherited from Hari Singh. Long before Brits attacked Tibet,Those laddhaki land were already under Dogra and these dogra were independent of Tibet rulers"
They still did not have sovereignty over those lands. Which was my point.
"So it is hard understand those lands are Indian bcuz Dogra won those lands and handed over to Indian government by instrument of accession?"
Where was the "instrument of accession" from Chinas side to hand it over to Dogra/Singh/British? Sovereignty over that piece of self-governing territory was Qing Chinas. You must ask the true legal owners of the land before deciding sovereign was theirs just because they won some local wars in a self-governing territory.
"are you confusing Tibet and laddhak? Laddhak(Indian part of it) was already independent of tibet when dogras were ruling? So there is no claim of Qing over them"
First of all, Qing China does not care who rules the designated land over the Tibetan plateu. Its a self-governing area. Whether its 1 ruler, or 10 rulers, they dont care. Theyre all Qing Chinas territory. Its a territory that has been granted self governing privileges. So even if Dogras were governing that area, sovereignty over the designated area that Qing claimed was still Qings. No treaty was ever signed to cede sovereignty away to Dogras. If Dogras truly did claim sovereignty over that piece of territory, you honestly think Qing China who was more than 100x its size and power would just let them have it?
"Hari Singh didn't only claim,he was ruling those lands unlike the Qing"
In Qing Chinas eyes, "ruling" means nothing. As mentioned earlier, that territory was designated as a self-governing area, so it doesnt matter who ruled it. Did Dogra or Singh receive any treaty from Qing ceding territory to them? No! So sovereignty is not legally theirs. Simple as that.
1
-
1
-
@kashutosh9132 "See how we treat -sentinels? Their way of living still preserved,we are not interfering and imposing our wills on them"
Yes, I see how youre treating them. Youre not providing them of proper health care, safe drinking water, proper shelter, education, electricity, internet etc. Not sure why you sound so proud of that.
Why dont you treat NW and NE India the same way? Preserving their culture and not interfering or imposing your wills on them? Youre contracting yourself here.
"British ruled ind-pak-bd-sri Lanka and mayanmar. Does that mean none of those lands belong to local people just bcuz Brits conquered them? Well doesn't matter,we have legal documents now for those lands"
On the topic of the British conquering and ruling, Im assuming you mean sovereignty. Yes, the people had no sovereignty over those lands. Sovereignty belongs to the British.
And what do you mean? Republic of India has legal documents over Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar?
"At the time of reorganization of state in 1947,there was no demand for sikhistan"
When it comes to the rule of law, the law is the law. Doesnt matter if theres "demand" or "no demand" for it at the time of founding. Over the years, people change, and demands can change too.
If a piece of territory is legally yours, then the piece of territory cannot secede unless the ruling sovereign state legally allows it to, whether itd be Sikhistan or Tibet. Tibet was legally part of China and was never granted any green light to independence of any sort. Therefore, their "independence" was illegal. So you need not bring up their illegal "independence" and "occupation" as if its some major point again. It was illegal for them to be independent in the first place.
"Also Pakistan didn't own those lands which it gifted to China"
And I can say Dogra/Singh did not have legal sovereignty over the lands it signed off to India. Where was the treaty that says Dogra/Singh received sovereignty over those territory from Qing? Because there is none. Sovereignty of those territory was part of Qing since the 1600s. What Dogra/Singh signed off to India was simply illegal.
"No Tibet didnt acede those lands to Brits,dogra already ruling it before -writing it the 10th time"
And also, for the 10th time. They can rule it as much as they want but they have no SOVEREIGNTY over that territory. Sovereignty over the designated self-governing territory in the Tibetan plateu had always been Qing Chinas since the 1700s. There was NO treaty to cede sovereignty of that terrority to Dogra from Qing whatsoever. They only won rights to govern, not rights of sovereignty. Theres a difference.
"That's not how negotiation are done,that's how trade happens"
Oh? So how are negotiations done then?
"China didn't adminster laddhak nor adminster arunachal.Yet they want to sell,what they didn't have,it's shows their respect for people of laddhak and arunachal.if they have considered them their own,they will strike such a deal. Don't you agree?"
No I dont. Because thats not a fact. You can disagree all you want, but the fact is, thats how some territories are negotiated over for many countries over the course of history. And let me repeat. Its the territory we are talking about here, not the people. When it comes to negotiations, its always about the territory, and never the people (even though people are on the territory). Talking about "people" here is irrelevant.
"In this reality,people of laddhak and arunachal identify as Indian(as you also said). So shouldn't Chinese leave them as it is? when they don't consider themselves Chinese national?"
Again, this is a matter of sovereignty. Sovereignty is about territory, not "people". S0 peoples "opinions" do not matter. If people are not happy, they can migrate. Thats what people have been doing since the dawn of civilisation.
And the sovereignty of the disputed territories were never legally ceded from Qing to British/whoever in the first place.
1
-
@kashutosh9132 "long before Brits,there had been connection and history btwn people of laddhak, arunachal and people living in up,bihar,Andhra etc"
"Connections" mean nothing. India never ruled the disputed part of Laddahk nor the disputed part of AR till the British came along. It was never part of Indian history prior to the British.
"Nanda ruled from south Afghanistan to some parts of mayanmar"
Nanda? No. Not according the the maps available online.
"Pala also ruled most of NE and east India"
No. Not "most". Pala barely touched NE India. And it was only for a few decades in the grand scale of all of Indias history.
"Kashmir and laddhak had been under local rulers way more than try had been under Tibet"
Sovereignty was still Qings. If you insist that sovereignty was theirs. Then where is the treaty where Qing ceded sovereignty to them?
"I was referring to 15 provinces which declared themselves independent including Tibet when Qing collapsed"
Illegally that is. Just like if Sikhistan suddenly declared independence, would that be legal?
And that happened after the new president declared himself the new "emperor". So if he didnt do that unconstitutional move, then there there also wouldnt be any unconstitutional declaration of independence from these provinces as well.
"That's how it used to happen when empires collapsed before the advent of modern nation and it has happened with many empires"
As mentioned earlier, when Qing collapsed, their royal family remained alive, and an imperial edict was issued to notify the formal transfer of sovereignty over all their territory to Republic of China. When empires collapsed in the past, did their kings/emperor live? Qings emperor did. Thats the difference.
"No single Empire ruled over all the territories at the same time,it's true for Qing and china too"
Thats why the term "rule" is not used in international law nowadays. Its too ambiguous. Thats why the term "sovereignty" is used instead.
"Those different regions I mentioned were under 1 king with varying geography at different period of time"
And thats my point. India was never the "India" that you have today. They were all seperate countries/kingdoms for most of Indias history. It was only after the British that India was unified as it was today. Especially NE and Southern India which none of the largest Indian empires ever had control over.
"People speaking same language, same local culture,same written script had to get divided btwn 2 countries...Families were torn...Chinese never had to face this,so they will never understand"
Really? You sure? Didnt they experience that with AR (South Tibet)? Whereby Chinese citizens of Tibet were split between 2 countries? And what about Taiwan? Hong Kong? Macau? Outer Manchuria? Etc? And thats just modern history. Chinas history is arguably the most bloody country on this planet. More people died in China due to war than any country in the world.
But nevertheless, whats worse? Dying from war? Or split between 2 countries knowing theyre still alive and well?
"Well people from Tibet also do not care about your opinion who want/wanted to be independent. It's just about power,if they had been powerful and forced back Chinese forces and remained independent, nobody in the world would have questioned it"
Correct. Opinions do not matter. And "might is right" prior to international laws existence. That was how the world was run in the past.
1
-
"long before Brits,there had been connection and history btwn people of laddhak, arunachal and people living in up,bihar,Andhra etc"
"Connections" mean nothing. India never ruled the disputed part of Laddahk nor the disputed part of AR till the British came along. It was never part of Indian history prior to the British.
"Nanda ruled from south Afghanistan to some parts of mayanmar"
Nanda? No. Not according the the maps available online.
"Pala also ruled most of NE and east India"
No. Not "most". Pala barely touched NE India. And it was only for a few decades in the grand scale of all of Indias history.
"Kashmir and laddhak had been under local rulers way more than try had been under Tibet"
Sovereignty was still Qings. If you insist that sovereignty was theirs. Then where is the treaty where Qing ceded sovereignty to them?
"I was referring to 15 provinces which declared themselves independent including Tibet when Qing collapsed"
Illegally that is. Just like if Sikhistan suddenly declared independence, would that be legal?
And that happened after the new president declared himself the new "emperor". So if he didnt do that unconstitutional move, then there there also wouldnt be any unconstitutional declaration of independence from these provinces as well.
"That's how it used to happen when empires collapsed before the advent of modern nation and it has happened with many empires"
As mentioned earlier, when Qing collapsed, their royal family remained alive, and an imperial edict was issued to notify the formal transfer of sovereignty over all their territory to Republic of China. When empires collapsed in the past, did their kings/emperor live? Qings emperor did. Thats the difference.
"No single Empire ruled over all the territories at the same time,it's true for Qing and china too"
Thats why the term "rule" is not used in international law nowadays. Its too ambiguous. Thats why the term "sovereignty" is used instead.
"Those different regions I mentioned were under 1 king with varying geography at different period of time"
And thats my point. India was never the "India" that you have today. They were all seperate countries/kingdoms for most of Indias history. It was only after the British that India was unified as it was today. Especially NE and Southern India which none of the largest Indian empires ever had control over.
"People speaking same language, same local culture,same written script had to get divided btwn 2 countries...Families were torn...Chinese never had to face this,so they will never understand"
Really? You sure? Didnt they experience that with AR (South Tibet)? Whereby Chinese citizens of Tibet were split between 2 countries? And what about Taiwan? Hong Kong? Macau? Outer Manchuria? Etc? And thats just modern history. Chinas history is arguably the most bloody country on this planet. More people died in China due to war than any country in the world.
But nevertheless, whats worse? Dying from war? Or split between 2 countries knowing theyre still alive and well?
"Well people from Tibet also do not care about your opinion who want/wanted to be independent. It's just about power,if they had been powerful and forced back Chinese forces and remained independent, nobody in the world would have questioned it"
Correct. Opinions do not matter. And "might is right" prior to international laws existence. That was how the world was run in the past.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zei33 My comments there. Probably got censored due to some keywords triggered from Yts algorithm.
Negative opinion on China doesnt equate to the thinking China will invade us. We need to discern the difference.
The negative opinion is mostly due to government propaganda within the country. Only reporting negative things on China, while hiding the real reason behind their actions. Just like Chinas "attack" on protesters in the UK embassy recently. The media skewed it to make Chinas look bad and that theyre the ones at fault. But once you delve deep into it, it was actually the protesters that assaulted the Chinese embassy workers first, second, and third. Ive looked into this with video evidence, so I know. Most dont care and just take the medias word for it. I for one dont believe anything without verification. And neither should anyone. Thats how one falls victim propaganda and brainwashing.
And yes, many forces want to contain Chinas rise. Thats nothing new. They want the publics support in containing China so they spread anti-China propaganda painting China negatively at every opportunity they can. The US and Uk rain also did many terrible things throughout the years. Where were those reports? Have a think about why the media also isnt painting the US and Uk rain in a negatively light. Why the double standards? Food for thought.
There would be no military threat to AU if AU doesnt meddle with literally everything China does. Even if they want to do that, they need to be able to hold off China like how the US can. AU has no such power. The AU government are fools by being USs guinea pig. Theres a saying that the US will contain China at all costs, and that "cost" is Australia.
The word you used here was "threat". Such a vague word that could mean anything. Even China increasing their military spending "threat", something that literally every single country on this planet does. But when China does it its a "threat". Where are the fear mongering "threats" of other countries increasing their military spending? Heres a fact, China is spending less on their military than AUS, US, UK and India in terms of GDP ratio. But the media doesnt tell you that. They say Chinas military spending is 300% what they were 10 years ago. Well no shit. Their GDP also grew 300% in the past 10 years. It sounds more "threatening". See the pattern?
So the word you used here was "threat". The word I used was "invasion". Theres a difference. Go find another survey asking if people think China would invade us. Youll get an astounding figure close to zero. So dont say the stats dont match what I am saying. Youre literally misrepresenting my words here. I specifically used the word invasion, and you used the word "threat" - a term so vague it could mean anything. This is how misinformation and propaganda is spread. There is literally zero evidence that China will invade AU. Zero.
1
-
1
-
@Zei33 Well it goes to say that YTs censoring algorithm is extremely flawed. Even your last 2 comments were censored. Its not shown publicly but I can see it in notifications. Youve said nothing worthy of censoring, and neither have I. So much for "free speech" Youtube...
And yes, if AU joins the US in war with China, if it happens, then yes, AU would be in danger.
Thats why in a situation like this, being neutral is best, not joining with the US. We can "support" the US, but joining them is another story. Just like all these countries are supporting Rain UK , but none have "joined" them. If they do "join" in, then their country will also be in danger. Its simple as that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goodshipkaraboudjan Whether you think its "reckless" or "strange", its an appropriate response to Australias provocative military display near China.
Australians are alarmed and on high alert just from the mere presence of Chinese warships coming "near" Australia, even without the live fire drill.
Now just imagine how the Chinese mustve felt all this time with the US bringing all its allies (inc AU) near China for live drills and for "surveillance" aka spying there all the time.
Every single time theres a live drill near China, thousands, not dozens or hundreds, but thousands of civilian aircraft/ships need to be rerouted, because its as you said it "its not right to put civilians at risk". Right? Wheres your criticism on the US and its allies then? Does that mean you also dont think the US and its allies shouldnt hold live fire drills all around the world, because "its not right to put civilian lives at risk"? I wouldnt want to think you have double standards. Right? Its also "reckless" and "strange" when the US does it, right?
And you keep saying Australia never put Chinese civilian lives at risk. As oot007 has said, Australia was part of an alliance that invaded China around 1900. Doesnt matter if it was 100 years ago. You said Australia "NEVER" put Chinese civilians at risk, we are just pointing out AU indeed has. They committed crimes on Chinese soil. Worst than just merely "put civilians at risk". It was straight up murder.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dyu999 You mean like the whataboutism you did when you brought up Afghanistan, and the military, when that had nothing to do with the conversation?
And what about whataboutism? You didnt make any point nor ask me anything.
You asked yourself a question and answered it yourself.
Ill say your words right back at you, "go home study whataboutism" and learn what it means before using words you dont fully understand.
You need to learn to read more. No wonder you dont understand ROCs constitution. Read more and youll be less confused.
TW isnt a country. TWs government, ROChina, claims to be a country called CN, and that TW is a province of that CN. This is not something that you nor I can have a say nor chang. Until "TWs" constitution and official name changes to Republic of TW, it will forever be Republic of CHINA, the same Chinese state that succeeded the Qing Dynasty, aka China. Until that happens, provincial TW being a "country" will forever be a dream.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@samuelluria4744 '"Flaws", like say, the fact that fire produces smoke. Leftist zombies have been programmed to believe that the world can function without any "flaws"'
Im not sure what youre on about here? You assuming Im a "leftist zombie"? Whatever that means.
And where is the "fire" in non-energy related tyre recycling? (What Im actually talking about)
"Which begs the question, why the recycling hoax industry needs subsidies"
New industries always have incentives like tax breaks or subsidies to help them compete in the initial phase. And Im also not sure what your point is here? You saying we shouldnt have subsidies altogether? Or just no subsidies specifically for recycling? Because the coal industry is being heavily subsidised. Whats your take on that?
"The truth is, that everything in life seeks it's actual value; be it education, resources, ignorance - whatever"
Thats only half true. It really depends on the market. For example, Australian/NZ wool is cheap in Aus/NZ, but is much more expensive in other parts of the world. Even if we factor in shipping, it still costs more that what its worth in other parts of the world.
"I actually have very close contact with a very successful tire recycling plant in the U.S"
Youre really confusing me lol. You seemed to go from being critical of recycling, to pro-recycling...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@UVGardener The Jewish God, Christian God, Muslim God, are all the same God. The creator of this world and all of us.
As for reincarnation, reincarnation never "claimed" to create humans. Reincarnation explains what happens after a being dies. And based on that beings conduct in that life, this being will be reincarnated into an appropriate position for their next life, whether itd be an insect, a bird, a human, etc. And even among humans, there are those that are fortunate, and those that are less fortunate. Reincarnation explains this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1