Mao's Murders

[gambit]

I did not imply the book was a lie. Simply I told you the author could not have possibly have macro and meta data needed to support the numbers, and was relying on patchy estimate based on what he can find. He concluded 70 million population was wiped off by the famine, a figure which he included those that were never born. That was retarded beyond measure. Obviously the government finds the work offensive and banned it. However, just because it was banned does not validate its truthfulness. You seem to be unable to understand this basic concept.

Here is your ill-logic at work:
1. Chinese government bans publications which may or may not be truthful.
2. Tombstone is banned
3. Therefore, tombstone is truth.

Falun Gong is also banned in China. Their spiritual publications stated there is a magical Buddhist wheel within the human body. Since it is banned, therefore the wheel must exist. You see how retarded your logic is? Being banned is not evidence, but merely a reaction. Mein Kampf is banned in Germany, does that mean everything Hitler wrote was true? How's the ride on the stupid wagon?

No...That is YOUR interpretation of what I said. But it is no surprise to the rest of us. You guys have a history of doing this.

The main reason why any book is banned is because the local government, 'local' meaning within confined borders where it exercises a certain degree of authority, fears the DEBATE AND CONTROVERSY the book would produce. When you control facts and access thereof, you control what constitutes 'truth'.

Look at your own words: Being banned is not evidence, but merely a reaction.

Fact and truth are not the same. If you want to know the difference, here is an example...

logic - What is the difference between Fact and Truth? - Philosophy Stack Exchange

If the Chinese government controls -- reaction -- access to the facts of the causes of the famine and the consequential deaths it begs the question of why. What 'truths' are the Chinese government have been and are still trying to formulate? Yang Jisheng, who was a communist party member and still an active participant of the society class call 'journalist' asked that question. What happened could not be contained but the facts that are available, meaning not stashed away, hinted at the scale of the tragedy, and he investigated to find as best as possible that scale.

The irony could not be more delicious. We have mainland Chinese who presently cannot have access to books written about the famine but strenuously defends their governmental directive of exclusion of those books from the Chinese people. Brainwashed is the best and only word to describe the lot of you.

 

[shuttler]

Then why is Tombstone banned in China? Surely the mature ones outnumber the few so easily brainwashed, no? But of course, the fact that you persists in this line of argument means you are of those few, along with your fellow Chinese here.


Because they are children and they do not know any better.

So here is something for you, child...

Grow up soon...

next are you quoting Gordon Chang as you bibilical authority?

you appear to have taken excessive pills for ebbing adrenlin!

 

[gambit]

What is a lie? What is the truth? His information may be some what true, it's accuracy debatable, due to the way information was kept and scope of the subject, to go with a lot of other factors.

Here you go...

logic - What is the difference between Fact and Truth? - Philosophy Stack Exchange

Give thinking a try...Remove the Party chains...

But his intent or at least impact is a lie.

How can you declare that when the Chinese people have no access to it?

China is behind America, and not by a little, our people shouldn't think anything else, when you are hungry and poor, maybe you let any grudges and previous issues go, and just focus on improving your situation, people that stay on things are rich or bums, and since we don't want to be bums, guess what we should do.

Right...So you support the Party's belief that the Chinese people is too stupid and emotionally immature to handle the 21st century. This is from the crowd who consistently touts China's intellectual accomplishments, from technology to societal. Basically, to you, the Chinese people is conveniently mature and immature, depending on the subject under discussion.

Did the government screw up all those years? Nobody would think otherwise, but that is in the past. It contributes nothing to today's world. It's not a lesson, because those years are just stupid, no sane person would do it.

And yet the Chinese members here have no problems bringing up the past to justify China's aggression in Asia.

As to your previous assessment that we think Chinese are too emotional to handle something like this, no, we think common idiots are. Obama's middle name is Hassan and there are accusations that he's Muslim, a terrorist, not born in the country, a communist, and all that. These are "news" published on major publications. IS there any truth to this?

No...That was my assessment of how the Chinese GOVERNMENT thinks about the Chinese people.

I have no illusion of what the common man will think and do for the stupidest reasons, but you seem to harbor this illusion that somehow Chinese and Americans are different, when in fact, stupid and irrational is the same everywhere. Chinese is no better or worse than Americans.

Fine...Then un-ban all books about the famine. Americans have no restrictions about their Founding Fathers' flaws. You do know that those men are slave owners, right? So if Americans and Chinese are the same...Why not allow the Chinese people to debate any and all facts about Mao the way Americans are about their past leaders? What are you afraid of? Facts and truths, as it seems.

 

[ViXuyen]

Now you're going the full retard route. Like I said, plenty of things are banned in China that are works of fiction, lies, imagination and half-truths. Although I don't agree with them being banned, just because it carries the "banned" label doesn't make it the truth. It's funny how you lumped me together with things others said. I suppose I should lump you in with the rest of retard Viet monkeys too?

You dogs are funny, like any Viet would give a xhit about how many dogs died (we even laugh at it)

 

[Fsjal]

The more rich people, and shills hate Mao, the more I love him, because shills will always represent the rich, who will always try to exploit the poor.

I see you have good respect for Mao.

Anyway, welcome to PDF.

 

[Genesis]

Here you go...

logic - What is the difference between Fact and Truth? - Philosophy Stack Exchange

Give thinking a try...Remove the Party chains...


How can you declare that when the Chinese people have no access to it?


Right...So you support the Party's belief that the Chinese people is too stupid and emotionally immature to handle the 21st century. This is from the crowd who consistently touts China's intellectual accomplishments, from technology to societal. Basically, to you, the Chinese people is conveniently mature and immature, depending on the subject under discussion.


And yet the Chinese members here have no problems bringing up the past to justify China's aggression in Asia.


No...That was my assessment of how the Chinese GOVERNMENT thinks about the Chinese people.


Fine...Then un-ban all books about the famine. Americans have no restrictions about their Founding Fathers' flaws. You do know that those men are slave owners, right? So if Americans and Chinese are the same...Why not allow the Chinese people to debate any and all facts about Mao the way Americans are about their past leaders? What are you afraid of? Facts and truths, as it seems.

I think people know what his intent was, why else would he write this book in CHINA. The least offensive motive he can have is that he's an idiot and just wants his book published and this is the only one he can write, and he has no agenda. Even then the impact isn't positive.


You keep saying Chinese, but in fact it is all, you don't need me to show more American stupidity on this forum do I.

The government is outdated, I think that much is true, but in a country of 1.3 billion no one can be completely sure what a move would do, so things need to be careful.


As to unban the books, I don't oppose it, it's like teenage drinking, it's fine the first few times, because it is forbidden, but soon it's just another day.

As to American leaders, the most American people are delusional as to what the founding fathers actually are. The Tea party's protest and their message is a clear example, the founding fathers are non of what they want and certainly not like them in anyway.

 

[JSCh]

For those who do not understand Chinese language.

This is a screen capture of baidu search(popular search engine in China) of the book "Tombstone" written by Yang Jisheng. It list some server in China that you can download the book in pdf or electronic form.

This is google search for the same.

Search term "杨继绳墓碑pdf下载 site:cn", in case some want to try themselves.

 

[gambit]

I think people know what his intent was, why else would he write this book in CHINA. The least offensive motive he can have is that he's an idiot and just wants his book published and this is the only one he can write, and he has no agenda. Even then the impact isn't positive.

No...You think you do, but you do not. You can only insinuate and probably something of malice from Yang. By this argument, anything critical of China must be construed as evil in intent. We already know that from you guys here.

As to American leaders, the most American people are delusional as to what the founding fathers actually are. The Tea party's protest and their message is a clear example, the founding fathers are non of what they want and certainly not like them in anyway.

That is a laugh. Americans probably know more about their past leaders, the ones they put on the currency, than you Chinese know about yours. You cannot even stand to think objectively about Tombstone and Yang Jisheng so how can legitimately criticize Americans about their knowledge and understanding of their leaders.

 

[BeyondHeretic]

That's why it is called the great leap forward because all the farmers in china were busy catching frogs and grasshoppers.

 

[Kyle Sun]

Does Anyone here who condemn Mao have tried to find this book from china network or book shop?

 

[S10]

No...That is YOUR interpretation of what I said. But it is no surprise to the rest of us. You guys have a history of doing this.

The main reason why any book is banned is because the local government, 'local' meaning within confined borders where it exercises a certain degree of authority, fears the DEBATE AND CONTROVERSY the book would produce. When you control facts and access thereof, you control what constitutes 'truth'.

Look at your own words: Being banned is not evidence, but merely a reaction.

Fact and truth are not the same. If you want to know the difference, here is an example...

logic - What is the difference between Fact and Truth? - Philosophy Stack Exchange

If the Chinese government controls -- reaction -- access to the facts of the causes of the famine and the consequential deaths it begs the question of why. What 'truths' are the Chinese government have been and are still trying to formulate? Yang Jisheng, who was a communist party member and still an active participant of the society class call 'journalist' asked that question. What happened could not be contained but the facts that are available, meaning not stashed away, hinted at the scale of the tragedy, and he investigated to find as best as possible that scale.

The irony could not be more delicious. We have mainland Chinese who presently cannot have access to books written about the famine but strenuously defends their governmental directive of exclusion of those books from the Chinese people. Brainwashed is the best and only word to describe the lot of you.

There you go again with the generalization. "You guys have a history of doing this". I'm going to keep this as simple as possible, so your meager brain can understand.

1. The author, Yang Ji Sheng, was a journalist employed by Xinhua. He was not a government official, and certainly had no clearance to access the statistics kept by Beijing. He arrived at his conclusions mostly through interviewing witnesses in about a dozen hardest hit provinces. The actual statistics he used was limited to three provinces and half a dozen counties. From that, he concluded the figure was 36 million, and 70 million counting unborn. The problem is that he used the most devastated regions to generalize to the rest of China, like you have a habit of doing, It's like going to New Orleans and worst hit areas in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, then declaring the rest of United States east coast must be just as bad, thus deaths are in the tens of thousands when less than 2000 died.

2. Being banned does not make something factual, truthful or authoritative. Otherwise Mein Kampf would be a masterpiece everybody in Germany should read. It could be banned because the information paints the government in a bad light, but that's a possibility, not evidence. Get this through your thick skull.

3. Despite being "banned", the book is readily available for download and online view through Chinese internet. Even Baidu, a search site that performs self-censoring, does not block the viewing or downloading of the book. So much for your theory that Chinese people could not access it.

You dogs are funny, like any Viet would give a xhit about how many dogs died (we even laugh at it)

I laughed real hard to when Americans spray your monkey caves full of agent orange, and that time when we sent a boat full of your fellow monkeys into the sea. I better not talk about it anymore. I don't want animal protection society to give me a hard time regarding laughing about your species.

 

[gambit]

There you go again with the generalization. "You guys have a history of doing this". I'm going to keep this as simple as possible, so your meager brain can understand.

1. The author, Yang Ji Sheng, was a journalist employed by Xinhua. He was not a government official, and certainly had no clearance to access the statistics kept by Beijing. He arrived at his conclusions mostly through interviewing witnesses in about a dozen hardest hit provinces. The actual statistics he used was limited to three provinces and half a dozen counties. From that, he concluded the figure was 36 million, and 70 million counting unborn. The problem is that he used the most devastated regions to generalize to the rest of China, like you have a habit of doing, It's like going to New Orleans and worst hit areas in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, then declaring the rest of United States east coast must be just as bad, thus deaths are in the tens of thousands when less than 2000 died.

Bad analogy. As usual from the Chinese crowd. It is appropriate only if there were hurricanes of the same intensity within a timeframe.

2. Being banned does not make something factual, truthful or authoritative. Otherwise Mein Kampf would be a masterpiece everybody in Germany should read. It could be banned because the information paints the government in a bad light, but that's a possibility, not evidence. Get this through your thick skull.

Neither does it automatically be false, especially when the author claimed he got his sources from the government. If anything, precisely because the author claimed to have his sources to be from the government, his book should not be banned. Why is that so difficult to understand? Skull too thick?

3. Despite being "banned", the book is readily available for download and online view through Chinese internet. Even Baidu, a search site that performs self-censoring, does not block the viewing or downloading of the book. So much for your theory that Chinese people could not access it.

Then all the more reason to un-ban the book and support it, correct?

You are absolutely terrified of the book. The best argument against the book you can come up with lies in the abstract, not credible point by point technical rebuttals.

 

[S10]

Bad analogy. As usual from the Chinese crowd. It is appropriate only if there were hurricanes of the same intensity within a timeframe.

The analogy is perfect. It's just you that cannot grasp it. In statistics, you do not take samples from outlier brackets then generalize that the extreme numbers must be the mean or median. You also do not go to the few hardest hit provinces and counties to collect data, then publish it as if the rest of the country was also in that state. It's both dishonest and faulty generalizing logic, both of which you seem to be attracted to.

Neither does it automatically be false, especially when the author claimed he got his sources from the government. If anything, precisely because the author claimed to have his sources to be from the government, his book should not be banned. Why is that so difficult to understand? Skull too thick?

No, it does not make it false or truthful just based on the ban itself. However, the onus is on the author to justify his outrageous numbers (36 million dead, 70 million total) and methodology in which he arrived at them. In this case, it is heavily flawed. The Chinese government ban a wide range of publications, justified or not. It is the reality of things, but that does not automatically make the book accurate to the fact. You just don't get it through your skull do you? It's not the ban we're debating here, it's the content of the book.

Then all the more reason to un-ban the book and support it, correct?

You are absolutely terrified of the book. The best argument against the book you can come up with lies in the abstract, not credible point by point technical rebuttals.

The book should be unbanned along with other forms of expressions. You seem hell bent on misrepresenting my position, whether purposely or due to your stupidity. I am certainly not afraid of the book and do not advocate its banning. On the other hand, you are terrified of simple logic. The premise of the book was faulty to begin with thanks to its flawed methodology. You do not throw a hasty conclusion, then expect others to refute you. It's called fallacy of reverse onus.

 

[Genesis]

No...You think you do, but you do not. You can only insinuate and probably something of malice from Yang. By this argument, anything critical of China must be construed as evil in intent. We already know that from you guys here.


That is a laugh. Americans probably know more about their past leaders, the ones they put on the currency, than you Chinese know about yours. You cannot even stand to think objectively about Tombstone and Yang Jisheng so how can legitimately criticize Americans about their knowledge and understanding of their leaders.

I know this is a joke btw, but some of it is true, especially of Hamilton, and Adams. These tea party nuts are super religious and super anti government, while the founding fathers are enlightened and pro government. Especially Hamilton.

What do you want me to say about Tombstone? I never read it, it's probably not too far from the truth, so what? What is it that you are trying to say? Why don't you lay it on the table. How should I look at this book that is the second coming of the bible. Are we just suppose to do what the egyptians are doing? Halt the country's economy and plunge into chaos? That's the take away of the book?

Because other than ignoring it or reading it objectively which you are not, one should come to the conclusion, that was a crazy revolutionary time and never to repeat it.

Also China did learn from it hence no man shall hold office for longer than 10 years, so no cult of personality will ever be created again.

 

[gambit]

The analogy is perfect. It's just you that cannot grasp it. In statistics, you do not take samples from outlier brackets then generalize that the extreme numbers must be the mean or median. You also do not go to the few hardest hit provinces and counties to collect data, then publish it as if the rest of the country was also in that state. It's both dishonest and faulty generalizing logic, both of which you seem to be attracted to.

You tried to use Katrina and talk about statistics?

Hurricane Katrina was a one-off event, so yes, it would be ridiculous to use that one-off event to estimate the damages to the rest of the US.

No, it does not make it false or truthful just based on the ban itself. However, the onus is on the author to justify his outrageous numbers (36 million dead, 70 million total) and methodology in which he arrived at them. In this case, it is heavily flawed. The Chinese government ban a wide range of publications, justified or not. It is the reality of things, but that does not automatically make the book accurate to the fact. You just don't get it through your skull do you? It's not the ban we're debating here, it's the content of the book.

How can YOU debate the contents of the book when you have not read it? But if the death figures are outrageous, then what is the point of banning it?

The book should be unbanned along with other forms of expressions. You seem hell bent on misrepresenting my position, whether purposely or due to your stupidity. I am certainly not afraid of the book and do not advocate its banning. On the other hand, you are terrified of simple logic. The premise of the book was faulty to begin with thanks to its flawed methodology. You do not throw a hasty conclusion, then expect others to refute you. It's called fallacy of reverse onus.

Yes you are. You tried to equate a serious issue with **** in a feeble attempt to downplay its intellectual and emotional impact Tombstone WILL produce among the Chinese people. You declared that Yang and his sources, most of them from local Party sources, have nothing but deceitful motives. You may, in public, support Yang and his book for face value, but I am confident that behind the Great Chinese Firewall, you would wholeheartedly support banning the book and the execution of Yang.