Obama demands halt to South China Sea island building

[William Hung]

William Hung, I only made it in my previous post because you didn't get it from the start, and wanted me to explain. Your thinking is really lacking here because you asked me to explain, I then explained, and then you said I only mentioned it in my previous post.

I was not questioning why you did not use the “China’s non-attendence” argument earlier, thats not my point. My point was, earlier you have only posted a handful of articles and the UK vs. Albania case as “evidences” to support your speculations that the judges have ulterior motives against China and dont want her to benefit. You claimed that from those articles and case, you could make postulations and extrapolations to support your speculations. I asked you how thos postulations could be made from those articles (which included an article written by an Israeli complaining that the ICJ is biased against Israel) to speculate about the “ulterior motives and bias” against China. You then tried to explain it by saying that “China is not attending the court case” but ignored the fact that I was challenging you to explain how you could make tgose postulations from those original articles and case, which you insisted that you could.

I still maintain that peer reviewed articles and past cases are evidences for the larger paradigm that I was discussing of impartiality issues in the international courts, unfair rulings and pandering to Western nations.

So you have only managed to find one case that fits your narrative (UK vs. Albania) out of a hundred or so other cases that the ICJ have adjudicated? and from that one single case (and other articles questioning the fairless in general), you have constructed a “larger paradigm” showing the International courts issuing unfair rulings and pandering to Western nations?

What a nice paradigm lol. You could only posted one case to support this paradigm, but what about the other cases where a western nation loses out to a non-western one? From the top of my head: UK vs. Iran over oil, US vs. Nicaragua, Belgium vs. Congo...

Oh, lets ignore all of those cases and just focus on one single case to construct that paradigm. lol

I cited this only in my previous post because you asked me to elaboate. You have to think more abstractly, which often means seeing things in generality where it can be applied to multiple situations.

Again as I have said, I was asking you to explain how your extrapolations/postulations could be made from those articles/case you first cited. But then you tried to explain your postulations/extrapolations by saying that China is not attending, which is something new and not part of those original articles/case. What does China’s non-attendance got to do with an article arguing that the ICJ is biased against Israel? Or the case between UK vs. Albania?? I was asking how the case and articles like those could be used to postulate that the judges has ulterior motives against China.

You see, the funny thing with you is this, you make statements and arguments that are flawed, and when I point out those flaws, you then either modify your statements or add additional things to your original statements to salvage your arguments and save face (and avoid admitting the flaws).

Second, it's petty that you want someone to explain to you the mechanisms for an unfair ruling. It's a basic court process that you should already know, and I'm not going to walk that through with you, you need to look it up yourself.

Earlier, you said that an interlocutor asking for sources and references is disrespectful to other posters/readers. Now, you also think that asking for explanations are petty lol.

I asked you for explanations because some of the things you said is absurd. Like one article you cited, written by an Israeli complaining that the ICJ is biased against Israel, how can such article be considered as “evidences” to support your specualtion that the judges have “ulterior motives” against China? you could use it to argue that the ICJ can be biased in general, but not “evidence” that they are biased specifically against China. Its just absurd and an explanation is warranted.

Listen friend, when you have realized that your arguments are flawed and can no longer debate and support your arguments, then just admit it. No need to make those funny excuses like asking for explanations is petty or requesting for sources is being disrespectful to other readers.

You are not getting it; you are thinking in such a concrete and shallow-minded way. I am showing you that an international court has made an unfair ruling against a non-Western country before and favoured a Western country, so it is entirely possible it can happen again. And to be fair, I have already said that such an idea is not without its criticisms.

This only shows that there is a possibility that the judges may rule unfairly against the non-western China, not that it will likely be so. And you priginally said it was likely so, not just only possibly so. Why soften and modify your rhetorics now?

A possibility worth mentioning that touches on a point I talked about before, was that when a situation is so subjective such that the arbitrators cannot make an "objective" ruling, they tend to rely on their subjective feelings instead. In the case of Nicaragua vs USA, they might have saw that USA is "clearly in the wrong", compared to say Albania vs UK, which might have been more subjective in nature.

This just looks like some really really desperate speculations. Have you analyzed the Nicaragua vs. US case yet before you made that speculation? All the documents for that case are on the public domain. So you have the necessary data to prove yourself that what you have said is indeed true, you wouldnt then have to speculate on it. Can you do that? Or are you going to use the excuse that it is petty and disrepectful to the readers to ask such a thing lol.

This reminds me again, that you also have data available to you to analyse whether the PHL vs. CN judges are biased ulterior motives against China. As I have said before, the judges name, profiles and their preliminary jurisdictional rulings are all made public. So why don’t you bring it here, analyse them and prove that your speculations are correct? Why just keep speculating when there are data available to you to prove your speculations correct? or are you going to use those excuses? lol

Yes of course I know that there have been rulings against Western counties. But you have not abstracted from these rulings. Here, I will explain.

The Albania v UK incidents took place during the early Cold War era (note that tensions between the Soviet Union and the West already began prior to WWII). Albania was allied to the Warsaw Pact.

In contrast, Nicaragua was not really "allied" to any sort of threat to Western hegemony. In the Nicaraguan revolution, it is not a clear cut case of Soviet vs USA, given that Sweden and France both supported the FSLN (with the Soviet Union) whereas the USA supported the Somozan government (which was a dictatorship).

In China v Philippines we are seeing a clear cut case of a "Western aligned country" v "threat to Western hegemony" happening. It's a possibility, not a guarantee.

Oh here we go again, you modifying your original argument when you’ve realized that it was flawed. You originally said (read your post #86) it was a bias against “non-western aligned” power, but now you have changed it into a bias against a country “allied to a threat against western hegemony”. Didnt I say you have a habit of changing rhetorics to save face and avoid admitting flaws? lol

Anyway, your modified version is still flawed because I could still give you another counter example. The court was biased against Albania because she was allied to the WP you say? Well let me introduce to you another counter-example from a country that were once also part of the Eastern Bloc: Bulgaria, who once shot down an Israeli civilian aircraft. And in 1957, Israel, the UK and US went to the ICJ to sue Bulgaria over that incident. The ICJ agreed with Bulgaria’s objection and rejected Israel’s case, the US and UK also then dropped their lawsuit.

So the ICJ ruled in favour of socialist Bulgaria. And is Bulgaria being part of the Eastern Bloc “clear cut” enough for you? So maybe now I will wait for you to make some additional changes to your argument? lol. You are getting more and more desperate with your reasoning but I will still have faith in you in explaining to me how you could “abstract” ideas and paradigms from this single UK vs. Albania ruling. Or better yet, just get straight to the available data on the PHL vs. CN case that I have mentioned earlier and prove your speculations are correct, instead of just trying desperately to “abstract” ideas from a UK vs. Albania case that is over 60 years old.

 

[Wolfwind]

I was not questioning why you did not use the “China’s non-attendence” argument earlier, thats not my point. My point was, earlier you have only posted a handful of articles and the UK vs. Albania case as “evidences” to support your speculations that the judges have ulterior motives against China and dont want her to benefit.

And? That doesn't even make a difference. It's not just those specific examples, there is such a thing called intuition. I think I've realised why you don't "get" what I have been posting. It's just a clash on the approach in thoughts and discussion: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/d2/3c/84d23cb5846c05e0ce0e416a984e9e20.jpg

I am trying to understand your concrete thinking, and I think get it. When you read this statement: "the judges have ulterior motives against China" you take such statements literally rather than abstractly. So you don't even consider the judges as a collective entity, or that "judges" can be conceptually abstracted to mean the court in general.

You see, the funny thing with you is this, you make statements and arguments that are flawed, and when I point out those flaws, you then either modify your statements or add additional things to your original statements to salvage your arguments and save face (and avoid admitting the flaws).

So not only are you concrete minded, but you're also a liar. I have never modified my statements to change the crux of any ideas I have put forth. I have only clarified what I meant when I noticed I used ambiguous terms, for your personal benefit, since you are so easily confused. You need to be careful with your wording.

Importantly, pointing out flaws doesn't mean those arguments are wrong. Many, many theories have "flaws" e.g. seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result; but such flaws doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. There are "flaws" in quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, atomic and molecular sciences, and so on. It doesn't mean they are wrong, you are operating under the assumption that a flaw in a theory means that it's wrong.

Earlier, you said that an interlocutor asking for sources and references is disrespectful to other posters/readers. Now, you also think that asking for explanations are petty lol.

Well yes, because you're assuming that people can't research themselves. Everybody here has an internet connection so if they were really interested in something they can look that up themselves. If they find something that contradicts what somebody has said then they can post that if they want. So really you were just being pretentious. And what you asked was petty (how do court rulings work), go google it. It's not even a complex question requiring any deep insight.

And I'm not explaining to you how a court rulings work because that's like explaining to you how to book a dentist appointment. I think you need to think for yourself sometimes. Asking how a court makes an unfair ruling is actually ridiculous.

This only shows that there is a possibility that the judges may rule unfairly against the non-western China, not that it will likely be so. And you priginally said it was likely so, not just only possibly so. Why soften and modify your rhetorics now?

Up until now, there have been no cases where China has been involved, so we can draw from past examples of threat against Western hegemony v Western nation, and the example that was obvious to me was Albania v UK, but that case was interesting because it also includes a model of unfair ruling. Importantly, cases that involve a threat against Western hegemony are often rejected.

This just looks like some really really desperate speculations. Have you analyzed the Nicaragua vs. US case yet before you made that speculation? All the documents for that case are on the public domain. So you have the necessary data to prove yourself that what you have said is indeed true, you wouldnt then have to speculate on it. Can you do that? Or are you going to use the excuse that it is petty and disrepectful to the readers to ask such a thing lol.

That's because you didn't even understand what I posted. USA was clearly in the wrong by supporting a dictatorship and violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua. So the court ruled against USA. The FLSN might have had the Soviet Union on its side, but also Sweden and France. Nicaragua is not inherently a threat against Western hegemony.

And why are you downplaying the importance of analytic speculation, which is an important part of discussion? Knowing facts is actually useless, because google has all the answers. What's valuable is how to apply facts to form your own ideas and analyses, which also includes analytical speculations. Those are what I look for in forum discussion.

This reminds me again, that you also have data available to you to analyse whether the PHL vs. CN judges are biased ulterior motives against China. As I have said before, the judges name, profiles and their preliminary jurisdictional rulings are all made public. So why don’t you bring it here, analyse them and prove that your speculations are correct? Why just keep speculating when there are data available to you to prove your speculations correct? or are you going to use those excuses? lol

I think you have memory problems because I already told you that is your own idea and I am not going to claim credit for something you thought of yourself. I am not stopping you from posting that if you feel it's more appropriate. But I find this idea quite questionable because an individual's choices and decisions when he is alone is different from when he is in the company of others (i.e. collectively), and that's dependent on the person(s) present that he may be influenced by. So showing the individual profiles and cases they have been involved in would actually yield little value. I certainly don't think you should claim superiority with your approach in thought or debate, I actually find your approach to be limiting.

Oh here we go again, you modifying your original argument when you’ve realized that it was flawed. You originally said (read your post #86) it was a bias against “non-western aligned” power, but now you have changed it into a bias against a country “allied to a threat against western hegemony”. Didnt I say you have a habit of changing rhetorics to save face and avoid admitting flaws? lol

You just repeat yourself constantly, so I am just going to copy and paste what I said earlier in quotation marks: "So not only are you concrete minded, but you're also a liar. I have never modified my statements to change the crux of any ideas I have put forth. I have only clarified what I meant when I noticed I used ambiguous terms, for your personal benefit, since you are so easily confused. You need to be careful with your wording".

And you're clearly muddling yourself up. Nicaragua is non-Western aligned, but was not a threat to Western hegemony. China is both non-Western aligned and a threat to Western hegemony.

Further, if you thought I was talking about neutral countries when I used the term "non-Western aligned" then I think you might be cognitively impaired. If that was the case I would have simply used "neutral countries" instead. Again, your concrete mind is showing itself again.

Anyway, your modified version is still flawed because I could still give you another counter example. The court was biased against Albania because she was allied to the WP you say? Well let me introduce to you another counter-example from a country that were once also part of the Eastern Bloc: Bulgaria, who once shot down an Israeli civilian aircraft. And in 1957, Israel, the UK and US went to the ICJ to sue Bulgaria over that incident. The ICJ agreed with Bulgaria’s objection and rejected Israel’s case, the US and UK also then dropped their lawsuit.

That is the most ridiculous example ever. The ICJ did not even make a ruling against Israel, but rejected the case because they legally had no jurisdiction over that incident. It turned out that Bulgaria avoided any rulings against it by virtue of a legal loophole, and NOT because they were in favour of Bulgaria.

I.e. while Bulgaria accepted jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Justice (the "old" international court, which is attached to the League of Nations), it never accepted any jurisdiction from the International Court of Justice.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=dlj

So the ICJ ruled in favour of socialist Bulgaria. And is Bulgaria being part of the Eastern Bloc “clear cut” enough for you? So maybe now I will wait for you to make some additional changes to your argument? lol. You are getting more and more desperate with your reasoning but I will still have faith in you in explaining to me how you could “abstract” ideas and paradigms from this single UK vs. Albania ruling. Or better yet, just get straight to the available data on the PHL vs. CN case that I have mentioned earlier and prove your speculations are correct, instead of just trying desperately to “abstract” ideas from a UK vs. Albania case that is over 60 years old.

There were no additional changes at all. It's because you don't understand how to abstract ideas, you don't do your research properly like in the Israel / UK / USA vs Bulgaria case, and you're concrete minded. Someone explains something to you after you ask for more information and explanations, or clarifies something to avoid ambiguity, and then you make out that they are changing their entire stance. I find that extraordinarily disrespectful.

Besides, I don't see the problem in changing one's standpoint. If there is more reason, evidence, or convincing information that suggests another paradigm to be the more likely case, then I am going to believe that.

 

[name]

"Take you to court"

every day in court waiting ducks

Go eat rock, Obama. LOL Demanding us to stop building on our territorial right, what is he thinking? LOL

ie Việt Nam bitter young buffalo for not capturing the whole east sea

 

[William Hung]

And? That doesn't even make a difference. It's not just those specific examples, there is such a thing called intuition. I think I've realised why you don't "get" what I have been posting. It's just a clash on the approach in thoughts...

Sorry friend but haven’t even shown how your articles could be used to justify your speculations. For example, how can an article arguing that the ICJ is biased against Israel (an ally of the US) be viewed as an evidence to support your speculation that the ICJ is biased against China? or worst, be evidence to support your paradigm of US/western aligned country being favoured over those other countries against it? (isnt this even a contradiction given that Israel is an ally of the US?).

I will give you credit for trying to explain this using the UK vs. Albania, regardles of how flawed that attempt was.

So not only are you concrete minded, but you're also a liar. I have never modified my statements to change the crux of any ideas I have put forth.

No, I’ve already gave an example. Read your argument again in post #86:

...It can be argued that scenario (1) may be more likely given that a "Western" power (UK) was favoured over a "non-Western aligned" power (Albania)...

...and have also pandered to Western aligned nations before...

Then later in post #89, you changed it into:

...In contrast, Nicaragua was not really "allied" to any sort of threat to Western hegemony...

...In China v Philippines we are seeing a clear cut case of a "Western aligned country" v "threat to Western hegemony" happening...

So you changed your wordings from “non-western aligned” countries into countries that “threaten western hegemony”. Ins’t this a modification? Why did you call me a liar?

You could use the excuse that you have only made a clarification, but its pretty easy to see you need to made those modification because I gave counter examples against what you have originally said.

I have only clarified what I meant when I noticed I used ambiguous terms, for your personal benefit, since you are so easily confused. You need to be careful with your wording.

You are saying you have noticed that you used “ambiguous terms”, but under the same breath, you are telling me to becareful with my wording.

Importantly, pointing out flaws doesn't mean those arguments are wrong. Many, many theories have "flaws" e.g. seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result; but such flaws doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. There are "flaws" in quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, atomic and molecular sciences, and so on. It doesn't mean they are wrong, you are operating under the assumption that a flaw in a theory means that it's wrong.

Is this a subtle admission that there are flaws in your argument?

Well yes, because you're assuming that people can't research themselves. Everybody here has an internet connection so if they were really interested in something they can look that up themselves. If they find something that contradicts what somebody has said then they can post that if they want. So really you were just being pretentious. And what you asked was petty (how do court rulings work), go google it. It's not even a complex question requiring any deep insight.

And I'm not explaining to you how a court rulings work because that's like explaining to you how to book a dentist appointment. I think you need to think for yourself sometimes. Asking how a court makes an unfair ruling is actually ridiculous.

I wasn’t asking you to explain how court rulings work, where did you get that from?

I was asking you to explain how you could make speculations and postulations about an ulterior motive against China from those articles that you posted. Don’t try to steer this into a different direction.

Up until now, there have been no cases where China has been involved, so we can draw from past examples of threat against Western hegemony v Western nation, and the example that was obvious to me was Albania v UK, but that case was interesting because it also includes a model of unfair ruling. Importantly, cases that involve a threat against Western hegemony are often rejected.

First correction: you have only managed to bring up one case to support your speculations and “paradigm”. Dont use “cases” and “examples” in the plural. If you know more cases, then I welcome you to post them, but I doubt that you could since you have now narrowed your paradigm.

Second correction: you may not have realized it but your “paradigm” has been adjusted in such a way that it now contradicted one of the articles you posted to construct your socalled “paradigm”. You seems to have now constructed a paradigm arguing that the international courts “pandered” to western aligned countries and biased against those who threaten it. Well, one of your original articles included one written by an Israeli lawyer claiming the ICJ being biased against Israel (who happen to be an ally of the US).

And yes, there have been no past cases that involved China, I have been telling you that. And you can use a past case to try to draw inferences about the IC favouring western aligned countries against threat to western hegemony to support your speculations about a motive against China. But I have also been saying all along, why have you been ignoring the currently available data on the PHL vs. CN case to validate your speculations, while keep insisting and going to great length to draw inferences from a 60 years old case on UK vs. Albania to justify your speculations for the PHL vs. CN case? Why analyse a 60 years old UK vs. Albania case but don’t dare to analyse the available data for the PHL vs. CN case?? That pretty much says it all.

You can continue to use funny excuses like, readers can do their own research on the current data for PHL vs. CN case, or that its rude to ask you to do so, or that you want to focus on the conceptualised and abstract paradigm and not the concrete. Um hello, aren’t we supposed to deal with the concrete case of PHL vs. CN in this thread? Atleast that was what Zsari and I was dealing with before you hijacked this thread. You keep talking about the abstract paradigm vs. the concrete. But how did you came up with this paradigm in the first place? by analysing the concrete case of UK vs. Albania dispute. And its funny for you to claim to have constructed a “larger paradigm” while you have only managed to come up with one past case that is over 60 years old. And what are you trying to do with your “abstract paradigm”? To justify your speculations of a concrete scenario that the court has motives against China. Dont you see how absurd and desperate your reasoning is?

That's because you didn't even understand what I posted. USA was clearly in the wrong by supporting a dictatorship and violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua. So the court ruled against USA. The FLSN might have had the Soviet Union on its side, but also Sweden and France. Nicaragua is not inherently a threat against Western hegemony

I like your change of rhetotics again. In post #89, you said:

“A possibility worth mentioning...

...In the case of Nicaragua vs USA, they might have saw that USA is "clearly in the wrong",...”

Now after I have pointed out some flaws in your reasoning, you have changed your wording into:

“USA was clearly in the wrong by supporting a dictatorship and violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua. So the court ruled against USA.”

So you are no longer suggesting that this might be the case, but you are now confident that this really was the reason why the court ruled against the US. See your constantly changing rhetorics? or did you just forgot to include the word “might” in this quote? lol

And can you still recall what you have originally said? in post #53, you said:

But in this case the court here has ulterior motives because they don't want the accused to benefit so what we get is a circle jerk of argumentum ad populum pandering to US interests

So now you conceded that the court can/have ruled against US interests. But then you changed your paradigm so that the bias is specifically against those that “threatens” western hegemony. But this paradigm of yours is so narrow that you have only managed to raise one court case to support it.

And why are you downplaying the importance of analytic speculation, which is an important part of discussion? Knowing facts is actually useless, because google has all the answers. What's valuable is how to apply facts to form your own ideas and analyses, which also includes analytical speculations. Those are what I look for in forum discussion.

Knowing facts is actually useless? lol I just love reading these excuses gems that you keep churning out. This is why I enjoy carrying on with this debate, eventhough you are not bringing anything of substance to the table. You however keep churning out these gems, that keeps me grinning.

And no, I’m not downplaying “analytic” speculation, nor am I downplaying the importance of drawing inferences from facts to hypothesize, to construct paradigms or to speculate. But bringing up concrete counter examples is a legitimate way to counter your hypothesis/speculation/paradigm. This is standard in academia. And when I have done so, you cried about me having a narrow concrete way of thinking while your abstract way is better lol.

But of course, you could possibly say that the handful of concrete counter examples I raised are only outliers and wont affect your “greater paradigm”. But the problem here is that you have only managed to find one, and I repeat, one past court case to support that so-called “greater” paradigm of yours.

And let me remind you again that you first made a concrete claim. Then you later said it was only a speculation, but it nevertheless still is concrete in nature:

“But in this case the court here has ulterior motives because they don't want the accused to benefit so what we get is a circle jerk of argumentum ad populum pandering to US interests”

But I find this idea quite questionable because an individual's choices and decisions when he is alone is different from when he is in the company of others (i.e. collectively), and that's dependent on the person(s) present that he may be influenced by. So showing the individual profiles and cases they have been involved in would actually yield little value. I certainly don't think you should claim superiority with your approach in thought or debate, I actually find your approach to be limiting.

Not just analysing the judges identity and profiles, but also their issued jurisdictional rulings.

So your logic is this: to find out the reality of the PHL vs. CN case, we should just ignore the available data on the PHL vs. CN case. Rather, we should analyse the data on the UK vs. Albania case that happened over 60 years ago, and make extrapolations from that case.

And you're clearly muddling yourself up. Nicaragua is non-Western aligned, but was not a threat to Western hegemony. China is both non-Western aligned and a threat to Western hegemony.

Further, if you thought I was talking about neutral countries when I used the term "non-Western aligned" then I think you might be cognitively impaired. If that was the case I would have simply used "neutral countries" instead. Again, your concrete mind is showing itself again.

So you are only talking about a specific bias against countries that are a threat against western/US hegemony, this is your paradigm, I get it. But can you then explain to me why you originally included an article from an Israeli complaining about the ICJ being biased against Israel to support your paradigm? Israel is an ally of the US.

That is the most ridiculous example ever. The ICJ did not even make a ruling against Israel, but rejected the case because they legally had no jurisdiction over that incident. It turned out that Bulgaria avoided any rulings against it by virtue of a legal loophole, and NOT because they were in favour of Bulgaria.

I.e. while Bulgaria accepted jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of Justice (the "old" international court, which is attached to the League of Nations), it never accepted any jurisdiction from the International Court of Justice.

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=dlj

The ICJ did made a ruling and judgment against what Israel was filing for. You are not really familiar with international law aren’t you? In every international court case, there are two rulings. The first is the ruling on the jurisdiction, to rule and judge whether they have jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the case. This phase is itself part of the court proceeding, it involves the plaintiff filing its case and the defender filing its objections, and the court making a judgement on it. The second rulings is on the merits, to judge the complaints and any defences. If the court judged and ruled that they don’t have jurisdiction, then this second phase will be dissmissed.

Israel needed to first present their case that the court has jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the lawsuit. Bulgaria presented its objections against Israel’s arguments. The ICJ examined both Israel’s arguments and Bulgaria’s objections, and then issued its judgments in favour of Bulgaria that the dispute is beyond their jurisdiction. When I said “favour” I dont mean a “bias” towards Bulgaria, but “favour” in a legal context meaning that the ICJ issued a judgment that Bulgaria wanted to argue for and against what Israel wanted.

You can read more in detailed about this proceedings here, and yes, it was a Judgment, with a capital J, made by the ICJ:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=154&p1=3&p2=3&case=35&p3=5

There were no additional changes at all. It's because you don't understand how to abstract ideas,

lol do you want me to make a summary of what you were arguing for and how you have twisted and turned along the process?

Let me just quote again your original claim in post #53 and let people see for themselves how much additional changes you have made along the way:

“But in this case the court here has ulterior motives because they don't want the accused to benefit so what we get is a circle jerk of argumentum ad populum pandering to US interests”

 

[Wolfwind]

Sorry friend but haven’t even shown how your articles could be used to justify your speculations. For example, how can an article arguing that the ICJ is biased against Israel (an ally of the US) be viewed as an evidence to support your speculation that the ICJ is biased against China? or worst, be evidence to support your paradigm of US/western aligned country being favoured over those other countries against it? (isnt this even a contradiction given that Israel is an ally of the US?).

That's because you applied the wrong example to the wrong paradigm due to your concrete nature. Your lack of ability to make inferences is concerning. The Israel source was showing that (a) there is an existing notion that the international courts are biased and (b) accusations of the ICJ being unfair is not my own novel idea that I made up. Further, that was chosen because it's coming from a Western-allied source so you cannot really claim bias when approaching this in terms of Western allied v threat to Western hegemony.

I will give you credit for trying to explain this using the UK vs. Albania, regardles of how flawed that attempt was.

You can nitpick any postulation in existence so it really doesn't bother me if someone desperately nitpicks any suggestions I made, and likewise I expect that other people aren't bothered if I find faults in their suggestions either. To me that's what discussion is all about.

No, I’ve already gave an example. Read your argument again in post #86:

Then later in post #89, you changed it into:

Excuse me but did that modify the crux of my stance? It clarified any ambiguity for your benefit. I did not flip / flop into a different point of view, which is what you seem to be insinuating.

So you changed your wordings from “non-western aligned” countries into countries that “threaten western hegemony”. Ins’t this a modification? Why did you call me a liar?

You're a liar because you're insinuating that I went back and modified my post from early on to something completely different. I use those terms interchangeably. If you think about the "Non-Western aligned" countries as a general concept then that's virtually Russia and China. ISIS is non-aligned to either side so they don't really count in that category. But more importantly, I already stated that for Nicaragua v USA, it is not a clear cut example of a "non-Western aligned" country receiving a favourable ruling over a Western power because Sweden and France supported the FSLN.

You could use the excuse that you have only made a clarification, but its pretty easy to see you need to made those modification because I gave counter examples against what you have originally said.

No you just nitpicked on ambiguous terms, you did not even give any putative counter examples. See my explanation on Nicaragua above. See my explanation on Bulgaria in my previous post, which I will repeat later on since you probably didn't understand it, yet again.

You are saying you have noticed that you used “ambiguous terms”, but under the same breath, you are telling me to becareful with my wording.

Because your wordings are not ambiguous, but downright deceptive.

Is this a subtle admission that there are flaws in your argument?

A "flaw" in a theory doesn't mean it's wrong. Go claim that quantum physics is wrong then.

I was asking you to explain how you could make speculations and postulations about an ulterior motive against China from those articles that you posted.

What I did was abstract and make inferences from a set of generalised information, which included past legal cases, existing notions, and academic papers. It's not just those things I posted. It's also intuition. Google the term intuition if you aren't sure what that means.

First correction: you have only managed to bring up one case to support your speculations and “paradigm”. Dont use “cases” and “examples” in the plural. If you know more cases, then I welcome you to post them, but I doubt that you could since you have now narrowed your paradigm.

Cases and examples in plural is definitely appropriate given that many non-Western aligned countries had their cases rejected by the court, when they were up against a Western country. You can show exceptions but there are exceptions to every model so it's just nitpicking and pointless. If I said "cats have four legs" and you showed a picture of a cat with three legs it doesn't mean that "cats have four legs" is a wrong statement.

Second correction: you may not have realized it but your “paradigm” has been adjusted in such a way that it now contradicted one of the articles you posted to construct your socalled “paradigm”. You seems to have now constructed a paradigm arguing that the international courts “pandered” to western aligned countries and biased against those who threaten it. Well, one of your original articles included one written by an Israeli lawyer claiming the ICJ being biased against Israel (who happen to be an ally of the US).

I don't know why you keep repeating what you already said earlier in your posts. It's unnecessary and you're just waffling. I think it might be because you don't understand what I am posting. So I am just going to copy and paste what I posted earlier on in hopes you will get it:
That's because you applied the wrong example to the wrong paradigm due to your concrete nature. Your lack of ability to make inferences is concerning. The Israel source was showing that (a) there is an existing notion that the international courts are biased and (b) accusations of the ICJ being unfair is not my own novel idea that I made up. Further, that was chosen because it's coming from a Western-allied source so you cannot really claim bias when approaching this in terms of Western allied v threat to Western hegemony.

And yes, there have been no past cases that involved China, I have been telling you that. And you can use a past case to try to draw inferences about the IC favouring western aligned countries against threat to western hegemony to support your speculations about a motive against China. But I have also been saying all along, why have you been ignoring the currently available data on the PHL vs. CN case to validate your speculations, while keep insisting and going to great length to draw inferences from a 60 years old case on UK vs. Albania to justify your speculations for the PHL vs. CN case? Why analyse a 60 years old UK vs. Albania case but don’t dare to analyse the available data for the PHL vs. CN case?? That pretty much says it all.

You can do it if you want, that's your own idea. IMO using the profiles of judges involved doesn't prove anything because it's not possible to extrapolate anything from that. Because you'll just find that you will be talking about the rulings of international courts again.

You can continue to use funny excuses like, readers can do their own research on the current data for PHL vs. CN case, or that its rude to ask you to do so, or that you want to focus on the conceptualised and abstract paradigm and not the concrete. Um hello, aren’t we supposed to deal with the concrete case of PHL vs. CN in this thread? Atleast that was what Zsari and I was dealing with before you hijacked this thread. You keep talking about the abstract paradigm vs. the concrete. But how did you came up with this paradigm in the first place? by analysing the concrete case of UK vs. Albania dispute. And its funny for you to claim to have constructed a “larger paradigm” while you have only managed to come up with one past case that is over 60 years old. And what are you trying to do with your “abstract paradigm”? To justify your speculations of a concrete scenario that the court has motives against China. Dont you see how absurd and desperate your reasoning is?

Well I didn't see any rules that said post in only concrete terms. You are asking me how I came to conclusions that I make, well that's a ridiculous question because intuitive thoughts are inherently non-linear.

I like your change of rhetotics again. In post #89, you said:

“A possibility worth mentioning...

...In the case of Nicaragua vs USA, they might have saw that USA is "clearly in the wrong",...”

Now after I have pointed out some flaws in your reasoning, you have changed your wording into:

“USA was clearly in the wrong by supporting a dictatorship and violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua. So the court ruled against USA.”

So you are no longer suggesting that this might be the case, but you are now confident that this really was the reason why the court ruled against the US. See your constantly changing rhetorics? or did you just forgot to include the word “might” in this quote? lol

That is not a change in rhetorics at all, but change in tone. The first is more suggestive in nature, the second is more assertive in nature, but they essentially say the same thing, it is dealing with the issue of USA being clearly in the wrong. I think the problem here is that you have been erroneously assuming that everybody is like you and assumes a position of an arbiter, so to you anything posted is an automatic declaration rather than a possibility.

So now you conceded that the court can/have ruled against US interests. But then you changed your paradigm so that the bias is specifically against those that “threatens” western hegemony. But this paradigm of yours is so narrow that you have only managed to raise one court case to support it.

No, I have never changed any paradigms, because there are many paradigms that come into effect and interact with each other. You have been operating under the assumption that only one paradigm exists.

Knowing facts is actually useless? lol I just love reading these excuses gems that you keep churning out. This is why I enjoy carrying on with this debate, eventhough you are not bringing anything of substance to the table. You however keep churning out these gems, that keeps me grinning.

It's true. Knowledge is useless because google has all the answers. And you know it. It's the application of knowledge to form independent and thought provoking ideas is what's important. And I think you love carrying on this debate because I am broadening your horizons. You have been stuck in your narrow concrete mind for too long and my responses are thought provoking rather than just regurgitating "facts" you just copy and paste like a call centre employee or something. No individual or novel thoughts, just a slave to "facts", no thoughts of your own.

And no, I’m not downplaying “analytic” speculation, nor am I downplaying the importance of drawing inferences from facts to hypothesize, to construct paradigms or to speculate. But bringing up concrete counter examples is a legitimate way to counter your hypothesis/speculation/paradigm. This is standard in academia. And when I have done so, you cried about me having a narrow concrete way of thinking while your abstract way is better lol.

Excuse me but your example wasn't even a counter example.

And let me remind you again that you first made a concrete claim. Then you later said it was only a speculation, but it nevertheless still is concrete in nature:

“But in this case the court here has ulterior motives because they don't want the accused to benefit so what we get is a circle jerk of argumentum ad populum pandering to US interests”

Oh dear, I think you're beyond help. No matter how specific and concrete a statement seems, it can be abstracted. I can talk about "this" red wooden door that creaks and has paintings of dinosaurs on it. But to abstract from that I am still talking about doors in general.

Not just analysing the judges identity and profiles, but also their issued jurisdictional rulings.

So your logic is this: to find out the reality of the PHL vs. CN case, we should just ignore the available data on the PHL vs. CN case. Rather, we should analyse the data on the UK vs. Albania case that happened over 60 years ago, and make extrapolations from that case.

No, it's not just that. There are lots of other information you can make inferences from, not all are linear in nature.

The ICJ did made a ruling and judgment against what Israel was filing for. You are not really familiar with international law aren’t you? In every international court case, there are two rulings. The first is the ruling on the jurisdiction, to rule and judge whether they have jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the case. This phase is itself part of the court proceeding, it involves the plaintiff filing its case and the defender filing its objections, and the court making a judgement on it. The second rulings is on the merits, to judge the complaints and any defences. If the court judged and ruled that they don’t have jurisdiction, then this second phase will be dismissed.

Israel needed to first present their case that the court has jurisdiction and authority to adjudicate the lawsuit. Bulgaria presented its objections against Israel’s arguments. The ICJ examined both Israel’s arguments and Bulgaria’s objections, and then issued its judgments in favour of Bulgaria that the dispute is beyond their jurisdiction. When I said “favour” I dont mean a “bias” towards Bulgaria, but “favour” in a legal context meaning that the ICJ issued a judgment that Bulgaria wanted to argue for and against what Israel wanted.

Okay you're clearly just trying to save face here. Because you said you showed a counter example of the Albania v UK case, which would mean an analogue of what I posted. But the ICJ did not rule that Bulgaria acted in accordance to self defence (which would be a bias for Bulgaria), but rather the ICJ realised they had not jurisdiction of that case since Bulgaria never agreed to the terms of the ICJ, they had only agreed to jurisdiction from the former court. So that example was not an analogue of the Albania v UK case, and thus is inappropriate, what you needed to show is an analogue for a counter example.

lol do you want me to make a summary of what you were arguing for and how you have twisted and turned along the process? Let me just quote again your original claim in post #53 and let people see for themselves how much additional changes you have made along the way:

The massive flaw in any summary that you make is that it is concrete minded in nature and is thus going to be incompatible with non-linear, generalised, and abstract approaches in thought. You can post what you want, but you take things extremely literally rather than as subsets of greater paradigms, it shows you're simple minded; you have very basic thinking.

Let me just quote again your original claim in post #53 and let people see for themselves how much additional changes you have made along the way:

If you are basic-minded and can't think abstractly enough then you will miss the value of the statement that I posted.

 

[William Hung]

That's because you applied the wrong example to the wrong paradigm due to your concrete nature. Your lack of ability to make inferences is concerning.

I am applying it to your paradigm, the paradigm that says the IC panders to western aligned countries and have a bias against countries that threaten western hegemony. The Israeli article contradict this paradigm of yours. It doesn’t matter that the article support other paradigms, the point was that it contradict yours.

Excuse me but did that modify the crux of my stance? It clarified any ambiguity for your benefit. I did not flip / flop into a different point of view, which is what you seem to be insinuating.

There is indeed a huge difference between “non-western aligned countries” and “countries that threaten western hegemony“. If there weren’t, you wouldn’t need to change it nor make any “clarifications”.

You're a liar because you're insinuating that I went back and modified my post from early on to something completely different. I use those terms interchangeably. If you think about the "Non-Western aligned" countries as a general concept then that's virtually Russia and China. ISIS is non-aligned to either side so they don't really count in that category. But more importantly, I already stated that for Nicaragua v USA, it is not a clear cut example of a "non-Western aligned" country receiving a favourable ruling over a Western power because Sweden and France supported the FSLN

“Non-western aligned countries” means countries that are not aligned to the west. If you were using it to specifically refer to only Russia and China, or a country that threaten western hegemony, then it means that you have your own definition of those words, not the definition used by the general population.

What I did was abstract and make inferences from a set of generalised information, which included past legal cases, existing notions, and academic papers. It's not just those things I posted. It's also intuition. Google the term intuition if you aren't sure what that means.

Past legal cases? Again you are using “case” deceptively in the plural. I’ll repeat this again, you have only managed to come up with ONE past legal case that fits your paradigm. I have previously asked you to list more cases but you keep ignoring this request and just continue to declared that there are many cases but refused to reference them.

Here is a handy list of all the ICJ cases. I dont see any other cases that fits your paradigm:
List of International Court of Justice cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you tell which other cases that fits your paradigm?

Cases and examples in plural is definitely appropriate given that many non-Western aligned countries had their cases rejected by the court, when they were up against a Western country. You can show exceptions but there are exceptions to every model so it's just nitpicking and pointless. If I said "cats have four legs" and you showed a picture of a cat with three legs it doesn't mean that "cats have four legs" is a wrong statement.

Again, you have only managed to bring up ONE past legal case and refused to reference these many other so-called cases and examples.

You are trying to say it is no big deal if I show exceptions because there are exceptions to every model. But the funny thing is, your “model” only has one past legal case that fits it, then you say its no big deal if it has exceptions.

I don't know why you keep repeating what you already said earlier in your posts. It's unnecessary and you're just waffling. I think it might be because you don't understand what I am posting. So I am just going to copy and paste what I posted earlier on in hopes you will get it:
That's because you applied the wrong example to the wrong paradigm due to your concrete nature. Your lack of ability to make inferences is concerning. The Israel source was showing that (a) there is an existing notion that the international courts are biased and (b) accusations of the ICJ being unfair is not my own novel idea that I made up. Further, that was chosen because it's coming from a Western-allied source so you cannot really claim bias when approaching this in terms of Western allied v threat to Western hegemony.

I keep repeating it because it is funny, you posted an article that contradict your so-called “greater paradigm”.

You can do it if you want, that's your own idea. IMO using the profiles of judges involved doesn't prove anything because it's not possible to extrapolate anything from that. Because you'll just find that you will be talking about the rulings of international courts again.

LOL isn’t this what we wanted to talk about? We want to talk about the PHL-CN court case, whether the judges are biased or fair, whether their rulings are fair.

You speculated that they are biased against China. Now we have some data about the PHL-CN case made public to us. Yet you refused to cite and analyse those data to verify your speculations about the PHL-CN case. Instead, you insist on only analysing data for the UK-Albania case that happened over 60 years ago, to make extrapolations to support your PHL-CN speculations. How funny and absurd

I think the problem here is that you have been erroneously assuming that everybody is like you and assumes a position of an arbiter, so to you anything posted is an automatic declaration rather than possibilities.

Again, stop trying to side-track this with the “arbiter” issue.

As for the declaration/possibility issue: Yes if you structured your sentence as a declarative sentence, then it is automatically a declaration. If you write “abc is xyz” then that is automatically a declaration. If you want it to be regarded as a possibility, then you need to rephrase so, like “it is possible that abc is xyz” or “abc is likely xyz”. Your original statement about the court have ulterior motives clearly belong to the declarative structure, which you later changed and said it was only a speculation. So it either means you either backtracked on what you said, or you didn’t know how to phrase your sentence properly,so the problem is you.

It's true. Knowledge is useless because google has all the answers. And you know it. It's the application of knowledge to form independent and thought provoking ideas is what's important. And I think you love carrying on this debate because I am broadening your horizons. You have been stuck in your narrow concrete mind for too long and my responses are thought provoking rather than just regurgitating "facts" you just copy and paste like a call centre employee or something. No individual or novel thoughts, just a slave to "facts", no thoughts of your own.

You made speculations about the PHL-CN case. We now have some facts on the ground regarding the PHL-CN case so it is logical for me to ask you to analyse those facts to verify your speculation. But you consistently refuse to do so and instead keep rambling about something else on a completely different tangent and coming with these funny excuses. Keep them gems coming!

“Knowledge is useless” you say?

Oh dear, I think you're beyond help. No matter how specific and concrete a statement seems, it can be abstracted. I can talk about "this" red wooden door that creaks and has paintings of dinosaurs on it. But to abstract from that I am still talking about doors in general.

But you later acknowledged you are arguing that it is likely that the judges on the PHL-CN case has ulterior motives against China. So no matter how you want to spin it, at one point in time, you were talking about a concrete case (i.e. the PHL-CN case) and not just the international court case in general.

Okay you're clearly just trying to save face here. Because you said you showed a counter example of the Albania v UK case, which would mean an analogue of what I posted. But the ICJ did not rule that Bulgaria acted in accordance to self defence (which would be a bias for Bulgaria), but rather the ICJ realised they had not jurisdiction of that case since Bulgaria never agreed to the terms of the ICJ, they had only agreed to jurisdiction from the former court. So that example was not an analogue of the Albania v UK case, and thus is inappropriate, what you needed to show is an analogue for a counter example

Did you read the link I have given? Its straight from the ICJ website. The jurisdictional ruling was issued as part of a court proceedings. The juridicitional ruling was a Judgment from the ICJ, those documents clearly refer to it as an official Judgment made by the judges. It even explicitly said the court “upheld Bulgaria’s objections”. Those are the official words used in the ICJ documents. You made up your own expression in saying that the court “realized” that it has no jurisdiction while the truth is that the court issued a Judgment and ruling for that in a court proceedings. You are being decptive and dishonest. Read the documents from the link I gave you.

So yes, the Israel vs. Bulgaria case is a proper counter example.

The massive flaw in any summary that you make is that it is concrete minded in nature and is thus going to be incompatible with non-linear, generalised, and abstract approaches in thought. You can post what you want, but you take things extremely literally rather than as subsets of greater paradigms, it shows you're simple minded; you have very basic thinking.

You have only managed to give ONE past court case that fits your “larger paradigm”. So in other words, your “larger paradigm” is nothing more than a concrete example.

Can you prove to me that there are other past legal cases that fits your “larger paradigm”? reference them here please. Why you keep avoiding this request????

 

[Wolfwind]

I am applying it to your paradigm, the paradigm that says the IC panders to western aligned countries and have a bias against countries that threaten western hegemony. The Israeli article contradict this paradigm of yours. It doesn’t matter that the article support other paradigms, the point was that it contradict yours.




There is indeed a huge difference between “non-western aligned countries” and “countries that threaten western hegemony“. If there weren’t, you wouldn’t need to change it nor make any “clarifications”.




“Non-western aligned countries” means countries that are not aligned to the west. If you were using it to specifically refer to only Russia and China, or a country that threaten western hegemony, then it means that you have your own definition of those words, not the definition used by the general population.




Past legal cases? Again you are using “case” deceptively in the plural. I’ll repeat this again, you have only managed to come up with ONE past legal case that fits your paradigm. I have previously asked you to list more cases but you keep ignoring this request and just continue to declared that there are many cases but refused to reference them.

Here is a handy list of all the ICJ cases. I dont see any other cases that fits your paradigm:
List of International Court of Justice cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you tell which other cases that fits your paradigm?




Again, you have only managed to bring up ONE past legal case and refused to reference these many other so-called cases and examples.

You are trying to say it is no big deal if I show exceptions because there are exceptions to every model. But the funny thing is, your “model” only has one past legal case that fits it, then you say its no big deal if it has exceptions.




I keep repeating it because it is funny, you posted an article that contradict your so-called “greater paradigm”.




LOL isn’t this what we wanted to talk about? We want to talk about the PHL-CN court case, whether the judges are biased or fair, whether their rulings are fair.

You speculated that they are biased against China. Now we have some data about the PHL-CN case made public to us. Yet you refused to cite and analyse those data to verify your speculations about the PHL-CN case. Instead, you insist on only analysing data for the UK-Albania case that happened over 60 years ago, to make extrapolations to support your PHL-CN speculations. How funny and absurd




Again, stop trying to side-track this with the “arbiter” issue.

As for the declaration/possibility issue: Yes if you structured your sentence as a declarative sentence, then it is automatically a declaration. If you write “abc is xyz” then that is automatically a declaration. If you want it to be regarded as a possibility, then you need to rephrase so, like “it is possible that abc is xyz” or “abc is likely xyz”. Your original statement about the court have ulterior motives clearly belong to the declarative structure, which you later changed and said it was only a speculation. So it either means you either backtracked on what you said, or you didn’t know how to phrase your sentence properly,so the problem is you.




You made speculations about the PHL-CN case. We now have some facts on the ground regarding the PHL-CN case so it is logical for me to ask you to analyse those facts to verify your speculation. But you consistently refuse to do so and instead keep rambling about something else on a completely different tangent and coming with these funny excuses. Keep them gems coming!

“Knowledge is useless” you say?





But you later acknowledged you are arguing that it is likely that the judges on the PHL-CN case has ulterior motives against China. So no matter how you want to spin it, at one point in time, you were talking about a concrete case (i.e. the PHL-CN case) and not just the international court case in general.





Did you read the link I have given? Its straight from the ICJ website. The jurisdictional ruling was issued as part of a court proceedings. The juridicitional ruling was a Judgment from the ICJ, those documents clearly refer to it as an official Judgment made by the judges. It even explicitly said the court “upheld Bulgaria’s objections”. Those are the official words used in the ICJ documents. You made up your own expression in saying that the court “realized” that it has no jurisdiction while the truth is that the court issued a Judgment and ruling for that in a court proceedings. You are being decptive and dishonest. Read the documents from the link I gave you.

So yes, the Israel vs. Bulgaria case is a proper counter example.




You have only managed to give ONE past court case that fits your “larger paradigm”. So in other words, your “larger paradigm” is nothing more than a concrete example.

Can you prove to me that there are other past legal cases that fits your “larger paradigm”? reference them here please. Why you keep avoiding this request????

Sigh. This is all just your concrete mind speaking again. I don't think you're ever going to understand the value of what I posted. There will be 20 pages of you confusing yourself and nitpicking in your rigidly concrete and basic mindset, because you just don't know how to think in an abstract way.

Anything that I postulated is not based on one example. There are many derivations to which I form the basis of anything I post. Most are non-linear in nature.

And no matter how you spin it, your Bulgaria case is NOT a counter example of what I posted. It is not an analogue of the Albania v UK case, because the court did not decide that Bulgaria acted in self defense (which would have been an appropriate counter example). They had no jurisdiction over it. You probably don't get it, but I'm giving up on explaining it to you. And why would I even read your link when I already posted a link that fully documented the case.

I just feel I am wasting my time repeating myself over and over again. The bottom line is that no matter how much I explain, you're never going to get it because you're trying to understand abstract concepts with a concrete mind.

 

[William Hung]

Sigh. This is all just your concrete mind speaking again. I don't think you're ever going to understand the value of what I posted. There will be 20 pages of you confusing yourself and nitpicking in your rigidly concrete and basic mindset, because you just don't know how to think in an abstract way.

The Israeli article contradicted your “greater paradigm”. It doesn’t matter if it support your other points like “you are not the only guy to talk about biasedness in the IC”, the funny thing is it contradict your “greater paradigm”.

Anything that I postulated is not based on one example. There are many derivations to which I form the basis of anything I post. Most are non-linear in nature.

Then answer my challenge: what other past legal cases fit your “greater paradigm”?? Out of over 100 legal cases filed to the ICJ, you have only managed to find one case that fits your paradigm, yet you keep insisting that you have abstracted a “greater paradigm” regarding the ICJ...lol

Here is a handy list again: List of International Court of Justice cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I have said, you have adjusted and modified your paradigm to avoid my objections and counter-examples, but in doing so, you have modified and narrowed your paradigm to such an extend that only ONE past legal case fits your “greater paradigm”. Why do you keep ignoring this very simple request? If there are indeed “many other cases” supporting your paradigm, then prove me wrong and list them!

And no matter how you spin it, your Bulgaria case is NOT a counter example of what I posted. It is not an analogue of the Albania v UK case, because the court did not decide that Bulgaria acted in self defense (which would have been an appropriate counter example). They had no jurisdiction over it. You probably don't get it, but I'm giving up on explaining it to you. And why would I even read your link when I already posted a link that fully documented the case.

I didn’t say the Israel vs. Bulgaria was analogue to the UK vs. Albania case, stop spinning. I said the Israel vs. Bulgaria case was a counter-example to your paradigm. And yes, the court did make a ruling and judgment for the case, specifically the jurisdictional judgment. My link documented this court proceedings and the judgment order specifically said they “upheld Bulgaria’s objections”. My link contains all the legal documents straight from the ICJ website. Thats the exact words they used. While your source is only a secondary commentary on the case which you misused because you made up your own expression “the court realised it has no jurisdiction” to suits your narrative while the ICJ documents explained that the court have actually issued its Judgment and upheld Bulgaria’s objections after deliberating both party’s arguments and objections in the court proceedings.

Now you don’t even dare to read my link (or you are just pretending you didnt read it).

I just feel I am wasting my time repeating myself over and over again. The bottom line is that no matter how much I explain, you're never going to get it because you're trying to understand abstract concepts with a concrete mind.

You really are repeating the same thing again and again...but on irrelevant issues only, like how you have a superior way of thinking lol. However, you keep dodging my challenges that are relevant to the debate. Why can’t you list the other legal cases that fits your paradigm if you insist that there are “many” cases that do?? The “debate” has always been like this with you, when you cannot back up what you say, you start rambling on a completely different tangent about your superior way of abstract thinking, etc. LOL

I’ll give you the last chance to salvage your own credential: You have claimed that there are many legal cases that fits your paradigm, so please list those many other legal cases that fits your “greater” paradigm. This should be an easy task for you to fulfill, all you need to do is list them. Why have you been avoiding this simple request???

 

[Wolfwind]

The Israeli article contradicted your “greater paradigm”. It doesn’t matter if it support your other points like “you are not the only guy to talk about biasedness in the IC”, the funny thing is it contradict your “greater paradigm”.




Then answer my challenge: what other past legal cases fit your “greater paradigm”?? Out of over 100 legal cases filed to the ICJ, you have only managed to find one case that fits your paradigm, yet you keep insisting that you have abstracted a “greater paradigm” regarding the ICJ...lol

Here is a handy list again: List of International Court of Justice cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As I have said, you have adjusted and modified your paradigm to avoid my objections and counter-examples, but in doing so, you have modified and narrowed your paradigm to such an extend that only ONE past legal case fits your “greater paradigm”. Why do you keep ignoring this very simple request? If there are indeed “many other cases” supporting your paradigm, then prove me wrong and list them!




I didn’t say the Israel vs. Bulgaria was analogue to the UK vs. Albania case, stop spinning. I said the Israel vs. Bulgaria case was a counter-example to your paradigm. And yes, the court did make a ruling and judgment for the case, specifically the jurisdictional judgment. My link documented this court proceedings and the judgment order specifically said they “upheld Bulgaria’s objections”. My link contains all the legal documents straight from the ICJ website. Thats the exact words they used. While your source is only a secondary commentary on the case which you misused because you made up your own expression “the court realised it has no jurisdiction” to suits your narrative while the ICJ documents explained that the court have actually issued its Judgment and upheld Bulgaria’s objections after deliberating both party’s arguments and objections in the court proceedings.

Now you don’t even dare to read my link (or you are just pretending you didnt read it).




You really are repeating the same thing again and again...but on irrelevant issues only, like how you have a superior way of thinking lol. However, you keep dodging my challenges that are relevant to the debate. Why can’t you list the other legal cases that fits your paradigm if you insist that there are “many” cases that do?? The “debate” has always been like this with you, when you cannot back up what you say, you start rambling on a completely different tangent about your superior way of abstract thinking, etc. LOL

I’ll give you the last chance to salvage your own credential: You have claimed that there are many legal cases that fits your paradigm, so please list those many other legal cases that fits your “greater” paradigm. This should be an easy task for you to fulfill, all you need to do is list them. Why have you been avoiding this simple request???

It's funny that you say you're giving me a last chance, when I've already given up on any chances with you.

You're never going to get anything I post because you are concrete minded, and can only think in a linear fashion, and you know it. This is just what you need to accept. It is just how you are wired.

No, your Bulgaria "counter example" is inappropriate and you're nitpicking on semantics. The bottom line is that they had no jurisdiction over that case, they did not rule that Bulgaria was acting in self defense. You probably don't even get what I'm saying, but by this point, I don't expect you to.

And for the billionth time, t's not just one case that supports any postulations that I have put forward, but many derivations are non-linear in nature. Your understanding and thought process is basic.

 

[William Hung]

It's funny that you say you're giving me a last chance, when I've already given up on any chances with you.

You're never going to get anything I post because you are concrete minded, and can only think in a linear fashion, and you know it. This is just what you need to accept. It is just how you are wired.

LOL you are the funniest poster I’ve come across on PDF. The extent you would go just to avoid admitting you cannot back up what you said, is very entertaining.

No, your Bulgaria "counter example" is inappropriate and you're nitpicking on semantics. The bottom line is that they had no jurisdiction over that case, they did not rule that Bulgaria was acting in self defense. You probably don't even get what I'm saying, but by this point, I don't expect you to.

No, you are the one that is nitpicking and trying to use your own deceptive words like “the court “realized”....” when the fact is that the court issued a Judgment uphelding Bulgaria’s objections against Israel’s arguments. And go to the ICJ link for that case, they still have that transcribed Judgment order made by the court:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=35&code=ib&p3=4

The bottom line is, the ICJ issued a Judgment on the jurisdictional debate, uphelding Bulgaria’s objections and rejecting Israel’s arguments.

And “Judgment” with a capital J has a precise technical definition in Law, no one can play semantic here. Judgment means an official ruling made by the court. And in this case, the court issued a Judgment that they will upheld Bulgaria’s objections and won’t accept jusrisdiction over the case, going against the claims of Israel and against what Israel (and the US/UK) wanted. So it is a counter-example to your “greater paradigm” because your paradigm says that the court should be biased against Bulgaria and favour Israel, but the court didn’t.

In fact, read again the israeli article you posted. One of the reason the Israeli attorney argue the ICJ is biased is because in the Israel vs. Palestine case, the Israeli attorney argued that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, but the court accepted jurisdiction and continued with the court proceedings, which he argued was unfair to Israel:

Heideman says that although Israel and other countries argued that the court didn’t have jurisdiction over the issue, “its judges decided they could move forward with it.”


'ICJ treatment of Israel biased, as seen in Syria' | The Times of Israel

And in the Bulgarian case, it was the opposite to this. The court issued its Judgment that it doesn’t have jurisdiction over the case, upheld Bulgaria’s objections, and dismissed the case, against the wish of Israel. So for this case, the court did not make any Judgment biased against Bulgaria and favouring Israel. This is a perfect counter-example against your “greater paradigm”.

And for the billionth time, t's not just one case that supports any postulations that I have put forward, but many derivations are non-linear in nature. Your understanding and thought process is basic.

Hahaha and this socalled “many non-linear derivations” included an Israeli article that contradict your derived paradigm.

Anyway, your refusal to respond to my challenge to back up your claims are telling.

You are quite a funny character, the way you dodge challenges, change rhetorics, rambling on offtopic issues, just to avoid admitting your flaws, is entertaining. Let me quickly summarise your whole postings to bring back the grin on my face again:

- the thread was discussing about the PHL-CN court case.

- You then jumped in and made claims about the court/judges, that they have ulterior motives, don’t want China to benefit, etc.

- I challenged you to validate your claims with sources and references.

- You responded to that by posting some articles, including the Israeli article, arguing impartiality issue in international courts. You said those can get me started.

- I pointed out that they still don’t validate your claims that the court will specifically be biased against China, and favour the Philippines.

- You then referenced the UK vs. Albania case and analysed the data for that case to validate your claims about the bias against China.

- I said WTF that case is over 60 years old and don’t even involved the PHL or CN, why don’t you analyse the data that is available for the PHL-CN case and validate your claims about the PHL-CN case from that?

- You replied that it is rude and condescending to ask that, because asking that is assuming that the other readers cannot do their own research on it.

- Then I asked how is the UK vs. Albania case related to the PHL-CN case and how would it validate your claims about the PHL-CN case?

- You then backtracked and said you didn’t make any “claims”, that they were “obviously” only speculations. But you ignored the fact that you had no issue when I first challenged you to validate your “claims” (I specifically said “claims) and until then you never said it was only speculations and tried for several pages to meet my challenge.

- Then I said even if your claims were only speculations, you still need supports and evidences to argue that that speculated scenario is likely the case to be true.

- You replied that the UK vs. Albania case can be examined to draw inferences and construct a “greater paradigm”, that your “greater paradigm” will be validated by many past legal cases, and so from that greater paradigm you can postulate and make those speculations about the PHL-CN case.

- I said WTF, why don’t you just examine the available data for the PHL-CN case directly to validate your claims about it.

-You still refused to do so and replied that I’m too “concrete minded” by wanting to focus on the PHL-CN case. That your way of focussing on the abstract “larger paradigm” is superior. (comment: Hey buddy Wolfwind, have you forgotten that we were originally talking about the “concrete” PHL-CN case and the reason why you constructed your paradigm in the first place was to try to validate your speculations on that concrete case? why change your rhetoric and talk about the superiority of focussing on the abstract over the “concrete”? )

- I then argued that your “paradigm” was flawed and have counter-examples against it.

- You then modified and narrowed your paradigm, but narrowed it to such an extent that only one past court case now fits it, and you have modified it in such a way that it now contradicted one of the article that you originally posted.

- Then you tried to cover your flaws by using some fancy phrase, that your derivations for that paradigm is non-linear, and I’m being linear.

- Then I ask why is this “greater paradigm” now only fit one past legal case? can you list the “many” past legal cases that you earlier claimed to have existed that fits your paradigm? and can you examine the PHL-CN case and apply your “greater paradigm” onto it to validate the paradigm and to validate your speculations on the PHL-CN?

- You then still refuse to do any of those and can only start rambling on about focussing on the abstract and not to focus on the PHL-CN case because that would just be too “concrete minded” and too “narrow” a way of thinking and that now, too linear.

See how you have deviated from the topic that we were discussing? We were talking about the PHL-CN case and you made claims/specualtions about that court case. After a series of twists and turns, you are basically now saying that we should not talk about the specific PHL-CN case. In other words, you are using a series of excuses to avoid the original topic because you cannot back up what you said. The funny think is that you have being trying to masquerade your excuses as some kind of intellectual characteristic by using words like “greater paradigm”, abstraction, non-linear derivations, etc. Everytime I challenged and exposed you for not being able to back up your claims, you start rambling on about abstraction, non-linear, concrete, etc.

All this time it is clear to see, you just want to avoid talking about the PHL-CN case, the topic that we were both originally talking about, because you have made comments about it that you cannot back up. Oh such a great length you are willing to go just to avoid admitting your flaws.

Case closed.

 

[rott]

LOL you are the funniest poster I’ve come across on PDF. The extent you would go just to avoid admitting you cannot back up what you said, is very entertaining.




No, you are the one that is nitpicking and trying to use your own deceptive words like “the court “realized”....” when the fact is that the court issued a Judgment uphelding Bulgaria’s objections against Israel’s arguments. And go to the ICJ link for that case, they still have that transcribed Judgment order made by the court:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=35&code=ib&p3=4

The bottom line is, the ICJ issued a Judgment on the jurisdictional debate, uphelding Bulgaria’s objections and rejecting Israel’s arguments.

And “Judgment” with a capital J has a precise technical definition in Law, no one can play semantic here. Judgment means an official ruling made by the court. And in this case, the court issued a Judgment that they will upheld Bulgaria’s objections and won’t accept jusrisdiction over the case, going against the claims of Israel and against what Israel (and the US/UK) wanted. So it is a counter-example to your “greater paradigm” because your paradigm says that the court should be biased against Bulgaria and favour Israel, but the court didn’t.

In fact, read again the israeli article you posted. One of the reason the Israeli attorney argue the ICJ is biased is because in the Israel vs. Palestine case, the Israeli attorney argued that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, but the court accepted jurisdiction and continued with the court proceedings, which he argued was unfair to Israel:




And in the Bulgarian case, it was the opposite to this. The court issued its Judgment that it doesn’t have jurisdiction over the case, upheld Bulgaria’s objections, and dismissed the case, against the wish of Israel. So for this case, the court did not make any Judgment biased against Bulgaria and favouring Israel. This is a perfect counter-example against your “greater paradigm”.




Hahaha and this socalled “many non-linear derivations” included an Israeli article that contradict your derived paradigm.

Anyway, your refusal to respond to my challenge to back up your claims are telling.

You are quite a funny character, the way you dodge challenges, change rhetorics, rambling on offtopic issues, just to avoid admitting your flaws, is entertaining. Let me quickly summarise your whole postings to bring back the grin on my face again:

- the thread was discussing about the PHL-CN court case.

- You then jumped in and made claims about the court/judges, that they have ulterior motives, don’t want China to benefit, etc.

- I challenged you to validate your claims with sources and references.

- You responded to that by posting some articles, including the Israeli article, arguing impartiality issue in international courts. You said those can get me started.

- I pointed out that they still don’t validate your claims that the court will specifically be biased against China, and favour the Philippines.

- You then referenced the UK vs. Albania case and analysed the data for that case to validate your claims about the bias against China.

- I said WTF that case is over 60 years old and don’t even involved the PHL or CN, why don’t you analyse the data that is available for the PHL-CN case and validate your claims about the PHL-CN case from that?

- You replied that it is rude and condescending to ask that, because asking that is assuming that the other readers cannot do their own research on it.

- Then I asked how is the UK vs. Albania case related to the PHL-CN case and how would it validate your claims about the PHL-CN case?

- You then backtracked and said you didn’t make any “claims”, that they were “obviously” only speculations. But you ignored the fact that you had no issue when I first challenged you to validate your “claims” (I specifically said “claims) and until then you never said it was only speculations and tried for several pages to meet my challenge.

- Then I said even if your claims were only speculations, you still need supports and evidences to argue that that speculated scenario is likely the case to be true.

- You replied that the UK vs. Albania case can be examined to draw inferences and construct a “greater paradigm”, that your “greater paradigm” will be validated by many past legal cases, and so from that greater paradigm you can postulate and make those speculations about the PHL-CN case.

- I said WTF, why don’t you just examine the available data for the PHL-CN case directly to validate your claims about it.

-You still refused to do so and replied that I’m too “concrete minded” by wanting to focus on the PHL-CN case. That your way of focussing on the abstract “larger paradigm” is superior. (comment: Hey buddy Wolfwind, have you forgotten that we were originally talking about the “concrete” PHL-CN case and the reason why you constructed your paradigm in the first place was to try to validate your speculations on that concrete case? why change your rhetoric and talk about the superiority of focussing on the abstract over the “concrete”? )

- I then argued that your “paradigm” was flawed and have counter-examples against it.

- You then modified and narrowed your paradigm, but narrowed it to such an extent that only one past court case now fits it, and you have modified it in such a way that it now contradicted one of the article that you originally posted.

- Then you tried to cover your flaws by using some fancy phrase, that your derivations for that paradigm is non-linear, and I’m being linear.

- Then I ask why is this “greater paradigm” now only fit one past legal case? can you list the “many” past legal cases that you earlier claimed to have existed that fits your paradigm? and can you examine the PHL-CN case and apply your “greater paradigm” onto it to validate the paradigm and to validate your speculations on the PHL-CN?

- You then still refuse to do any of those and can only start rambling on about focussing on the abstract and not to focus on the PHL-CN case because that would just be too “concrete minded” and too “narrow” a way of thinking and that now, too linear.

See how you have deviated from the topic that we were discussing? We were talking about the PHL-CN case and you made claims/specualtions about that court case. After a series of twists and turns, you are basically now saying that we should not talk about the specific PHL-CN case. In other words, you are using a series of excuses to avoid the original topic because you cannot back up what you said. The funny think is that you have being trying to masquerade your excuses as some kind of intellectual characteristic by using words like “greater paradigm”, abstraction, non-linear derivations, etc. Everytime I challenged and exposed you for not being able to back up your claims, you start rambling on about abstraction, non-linear, concrete, etc.

All this time it is clear to see, you just want to avoid talking about the PHL-CN case, the topic that we were both originally talking about, because you have made comments about it that you cannot back up. Oh such a great length you are willing to go just to avoid admitting your flaws.

Case closed.

Case closed? All you have been doing was grabbing at straws while sinking. Funny, they allow posters like you spewing biased posts one after the other.
You should start to apply for the town circus. Reading your posts is nothing but BS.

 

[William Hung]

Case closed? All you have been doing was grabbing at straws while sinking. Funny, they allow posters like you spewing biased posts one after the other.
You should start to apply for the town circus. Reading your posts is nothing but BS.

LOL you mad bro?

People can read this whole “debate” from the beginning for themselves. Or just skip to post #59 and see his respond to my challenge to provide sources and references for his claims.

We were both initially talking about the PHL-CN case, he initially tried to defend his claims and even himself wanted to discuss with me about the legal consequences of the “concrete” PHL-CN case. After pages of failing to defend his claims about the PHL-CN case, he is now basically telling me not to focus on the PHL-CN case (becos thats too “concrete minded” lol). Basically trying to steer away from the original topic that he can no longer defend. Thats the gist of this whole “debate”, people can read it for themselve (if they bother to, cos 80% of the postings are just rambling excuses to steer away from the topic).

Don’t get mad bro I’m just telling it as it is. I don’t usually use this much smiley on anyone but this is just too amusing to not smile.

 

[Wolfwind]

LOL you are the funniest poster I’ve come across on PDF. The extent you would go just to avoid admitting you cannot back up what you said, is very entertaining.




No, you are the one that is nitpicking and trying to use your own deceptive words like “the court “realized”....” when the fact is that the court issued a Judgment uphelding Bulgaria’s objections against Israel’s arguments. And go to the ICJ link for that case, they still have that transcribed Judgment order made by the court:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=35&code=ib&p3=4

The bottom line is, the ICJ issued a Judgment on the jurisdictional debate, uphelding Bulgaria’s objections and rejecting Israel’s arguments.

And “Judgment” with a capital J has a precise technical definition in Law, no one can play semantic here. Judgment means an official ruling made by the court. And in this case, the court issued a Judgment that they will upheld Bulgaria’s objections and won’t accept jusrisdiction over the case, going against the claims of Israel and against what Israel (and the US/UK) wanted. So it is a counter-example to your “greater paradigm” because your paradigm says that the court should be biased against Bulgaria and favour Israel, but the court didn’t.

In fact, read again the israeli article you posted. One of the reason the Israeli attorney argue the ICJ is biased is because in the Israel vs. Palestine case, the Israeli attorney argued that the court does not have jurisdiction over the case, but the court accepted jurisdiction and continued with the court proceedings, which he argued was unfair to Israel:




And in the Bulgarian case, it was the opposite to this. The court issued its Judgment that it doesn’t have jurisdiction over the case, upheld Bulgaria’s objections, and dismissed the case, against the wish of Israel. So for this case, the court did not make any Judgment biased against Bulgaria and favouring Israel. This is a perfect counter-example against your “greater paradigm”.




Hahaha and this socalled “many non-linear derivations” included an Israeli article that contradict your derived paradigm.

Anyway, your refusal to respond to my challenge to back up your claims are telling.

You are quite a funny character, the way you dodge challenges, change rhetorics, rambling on offtopic issues, just to avoid admitting your flaws, is entertaining. Let me quickly summarise your whole postings to bring back the grin on my face again:

- the thread was discussing about the PHL-CN court case.

- You then jumped in and made claims about the court/judges, that they have ulterior motives, don’t want China to benefit, etc.

- I challenged you to validate your claims with sources and references.

- You responded to that by posting some articles, including the Israeli article, arguing impartiality issue in international courts. You said those can get me started.

- I pointed out that they still don’t validate your claims that the court will specifically be biased against China, and favour the Philippines.

- You then referenced the UK vs. Albania case and analysed the data for that case to validate your claims about the bias against China.

- I said WTF that case is over 60 years old and don’t even involved the PHL or CN, why don’t you analyse the data that is available for the PHL-CN case and validate your claims about the PHL-CN case from that?

- You replied that it is rude and condescending to ask that, because asking that is assuming that the other readers cannot do their own research on it.

- Then I asked how is the UK vs. Albania case related to the PHL-CN case and how would it validate your claims about the PHL-CN case?

- You then backtracked and said you didn’t make any “claims”, that they were “obviously” only speculations. But you ignored the fact that you had no issue when I first challenged you to validate your “claims” (I specifically said “claims) and until then you never said it was only speculations and tried for several pages to meet my challenge.

- Then I said even if your claims were only speculations, you still need supports and evidences to argue that that speculated scenario is likely the case to be true.

- You replied that the UK vs. Albania case can be examined to draw inferences and construct a “greater paradigm”, that your “greater paradigm” will be validated by many past legal cases, and so from that greater paradigm you can postulate and make those speculations about the PHL-CN case.

- I said WTF, why don’t you just examine the available data for the PHL-CN case directly to validate your claims about it.

-You still refused to do so and replied that I’m too “concrete minded” by wanting to focus on the PHL-CN case. That your way of focussing on the abstract “larger paradigm” is superior. (comment: Hey buddy Wolfwind, have you forgotten that we were originally talking about the “concrete” PHL-CN case and the reason why you constructed your paradigm in the first place was to try to validate your speculations on that concrete case? why change your rhetoric and talk about the superiority of focussing on the abstract over the “concrete”? )

- I then argued that your “paradigm” was flawed and have counter-examples against it.

- You then modified and narrowed your paradigm, but narrowed it to such an extent that only one past court case now fits it, and you have modified it in such a way that it now contradicted one of the article that you originally posted.

- Then you tried to cover your flaws by using some fancy phrase, that your derivations for that paradigm is non-linear, and I’m being linear.

- Then I ask why is this “greater paradigm” now only fit one past legal case? can you list the “many” past legal cases that you earlier claimed to have existed that fits your paradigm? and can you examine the PHL-CN case and apply your “greater paradigm” onto it to validate the paradigm and to validate your speculations on the PHL-CN?

- You then still refuse to do any of those and can only start rambling on about focussing on the abstract and not to focus on the PHL-CN case because that would just be too “concrete minded” and too “narrow” a way of thinking and that now, too linear.

See how you have deviated from the topic that we were discussing? We were talking about the PHL-CN case and you made claims/specualtions about that court case. After a series of twists and turns, you are basically now saying that we should not talk about the specific PHL-CN case. In other words, you are using a series of excuses to avoid the original topic because you cannot back up what you said. The funny think is that you have being trying to masquerade your excuses as some kind of intellectual characteristic by using words like “greater paradigm”, abstraction, non-linear derivations, etc. Everytime I challenged and exposed you for not being able to back up your claims, you start rambling on about abstraction, non-linear, concrete, etc.

All this time it is clear to see, you just want to avoid talking about the PHL-CN case, the topic that we were both originally talking about, because you have made comments about it that you cannot back up. Oh such a great length you are willing to go just to avoid admitting your flaws.

Case closed.

Why are you acting like you are correct, when you're not?

No matter how you spin it, the Bulgaria case is NOT a counter example to the Albania case. The court did not decide that Bulgaria was acting in accordance with self defence and so favoured Bulgaria. And no, I am not nitpicking, you are nitpicking on semantics. You seem to have a problem with the term "realise" for some reason. I think you should look up the term "realise" because you have a very concrete and rigid mind. Here, I will help you
Realise | Define Realise at Dictionary.com

The term realise is completely acceptable here. But it doesn't even matter because that's just another one of your red herrings to distract from the main point, which is that that case is definitely NOT a counter example. You probably don't get it even though I explained a billion times, and you never will. You're just going to shove your fingers in your ears and announce you're correct, like usual.

On your Israel v Palestine argument, Palestine is not a threat to Western hegemony. So again you're not even thinking properly. There are lots of factors that will interact with each other and affect an outcome. Again you probably don't even understand what I'm saying, and that's okay.

Here is what actually happened throughout your display of red herrings:

(Background)
1. In post #52, you claimed that someone will only face "legal problems" if what they are doing are wrong. I responded that they will still face legal problems if someone disputes something because it will get brought to court. Later on, it seemed like you agreed that the more appropriate term was "legal repercussions" or "legal consequences" instead. I then proceeded to ask you "what sort of legal repercussions do you think China might face", many, many times, but you still haven't answered my question properly.

2. I made a postulation based on peer reviewed papers, past cases (including discontinued cases), existing notions, the fact China is not attending, and nonlinear information to suggest what we might expect. There are existing notions that international courts have issues in partiality. There have been past cases where international courts have pandered to Western countries. Countries that threaten Western dominance are often deemed the "violators" by Western media. There have been unfair rulings to threats to Western hegemony in the past. There are also plenty of other nonlinear information you can draw from. But when we take all these together, we can start to form an idea of how things will go down. So what I posted was not "unfounded" at all. If you are an abstract thinker you would have understood immediately that what I posted made perfect sense.

3. You read in a very literal sense so when someone talks about "this" or "that" you are unable to think of any meaning between the lines. Could he be talking about the international court in general, rather than individual judges? Could he be making social commentary about the treatment of Chinese issues and demonisation by the West?

4. Going back to point 1, rather than answering my question of what sort of legal repercussions China might face, you produced a red herring to distract from the crux of the matter, and threw a tantrum about the above speculation (which is not unfounded at all). You threw a massive tantrum due to your inability to abstract information.

5. You have been (incorrectly) requesting for linear information for abstract and non-linear paradigms, which is logically inappropriate in itself, and shows your level of intellect and understanding.

6. You have proceeded to use a concrete approach to nitpick abstract reason derived models. You have a habit of nitpicking.

7. Nothing I posted was modified, but clarified since you are unable to abstract information. It's just that you are concrete minded and see things in very simplistic ways. I have been showing you how there will be other variables that interact and thus will produce a different outcome.

8. You have made many incorrect assumptions. You assumed that ad hominem attacks were fallacious, when that is not always the case. You have assumed that flaws in a theory means it's wrong, when that is not the case (see quantum physics). You are trying to deconstruct an abstract model with the assumption that such derivations and variables will be directly proportional to linear information. You seem to compartmentalise information in black and white. Very basic minded.

9. Your previous comment is the nail in the coffin that shows your level of understanding. You have not exposed anything, apart from how you are a concrete mind. You have been operating under the assumption that this is about "backing up claims" but your complete approach is wrong (and very simplistic). It's about the process in which my initial idea has been constructed, which I have already shown. It's not just from one case, it's a product of a network of information, some linear, others nonlinear, which interact. Your entire thinking and approach in deconstructing what I have posted is inappropriate, since most systems are inherently nonlinear in nature.


So the root of the problem is your thinking.
Case closed.

LOL you mad bro?

People can read this whole “debate” from the beginning for themselves. Or just skip to post #59 and see his respond to my challenge to provide sources and references for his claims.

We were both initially talking about the PHL-CN case, he initially tried to defend his claims and even himself wanted to discuss with me about the legal consequences of the “concrete” PHL-CN case. After pages of failing to defend his claims about the PHL-CN case, he is now basically telling me not to focus on the PHL-CN case (becos thats too “concrete minded” lol). Basically trying to steer away from the original topic that he can no longer defend. Thats the gist of this whole “debate”, people can read it for themselve (if they bother to, cos 80% of the postings are just rambling excuses to steer away from the topic).

Don’t get mad bro I’m just telling it as it is. I don’t usually use this much smiley on anyone but this is just too amusing to not smile.

Yes I hope people do skip to post #59 to see some of the many errors in your approach.

You lied again, I have never said not to focus on the PHL vs CHN case. I still stand by everything I post. I have said that you need to think more abstractly, but you seem to not understand what that means, as expected.

There is a serious malfunctioning in your thought process, and you go to great lengths to save face; it's no wonder that people already warned about you early on.

 

[William Hung]

Case re-opened.

Why are you acting like you are correct, when you're not?

No matter how you spin it, the Bulgaria case is NOT a counter example to the Albania case. The court did not decide that Bulgaria was acting in accordance with self defence and so favoured Bulgaria. And no, I am not nitpicking, you are nitpicking on semantics. You seem to have a problem with the term "realise" for some reason. I think you should look up the term "realise" because you have a very concrete and rigid mind. Here, I will help you
Realise | Define Realise at Dictionary.com

The term realise is completely acceptable here. But it doesn't even matter because that's just another one of your red herrings to distract from the main point, which is that that case is definitely NOT a counter example. You probably don't get it even though I explained a billion times, and you never will. You're just going to shove your fingers in your ears and announce you're correct, like usual.

The court made a Judgment on jurisdiction for that case, meaning they examined both arguments and objections of Israel and Bulgaria before issuing the Judgment on jurisdiction, and the Judgment was that they wont accept jurisdiction, agreeing with Bulgaria. You dont want to admit that the court has issued a Judgment in agreement with Bulgaria so you only say they “realised” they dont have jurisdiction.

On your Israel v Palestine argument, Palestine is not a threat to Western hegemony. So again you're not even thinking properly. There are lots of factors that will interact with each other and affect an outcome. Again you probably don't even understand what I'm saying, and that's okay.

The Israel vs. Palestine case was not used by me as a counter-example to your paradigm. I mentioned that case to show that the court’s Judgment on jurisdiction can be biased or fair. In the Israel vs. Palestine case, the Israeli said the jurisdictional ruling was unfair. In the Israel vs. Bulgaria case, the jusrisdiction ruling can also be biased or fair, and we know it was not biased against Bulgaria because the court issued a Judgment agreeing with Bulgaria, exactly what Bulgaria wanted....and this goes aganst your “larger paradigm” hence its a counter-example.

Here is what actually happened throughout your display of red herrings:

(Background)
1. In post #52, you claimed that someone will only face "legal problems" if what they are doing are wrong. I responded that they will still face legal problems if someone disputes something because it will get brought to court. Later on, it seemed like you agreed that the more appropriate term was "legal repercussions" or "legal consequences" instead. I then proceeded to ask you "what sort of legal repercussions do you think China might face", many, many times, but you still haven't answered my question properly.

Dont you see my point? That you yourself don’t mind bringing up the PHL-CN case and even tried to initiate a discussion on it with me. But when I raised the PHl-CN case to challenge your paradigm/speculations, you acussed me of being concreted minded and somehow I should not focus on this single “concrete” case.

As for the legal consequences, like I said before, I will discuss the legal consequences once the court issued its final judgment.

2. I made a postulation based on peer reviewed papers, past cases (including discontinued cases), existing notions, and non-linear information what we might expect. There are existing notions that international courts have issues in partiality. There have been past cases where international courts have pandered to Western countries. Countries that threaten Western dominance are often deemed the "violators" by Western media. There have been unfair rulings to threats to Western hegemony in the past. There are also plenty of other non-linear information you can draw from. But when we take all these together, we can start to form an idea of how things will go down. So what I posted was not "unfounded" at all. If you are an abstract thinker you would have understood immediately that what I posted made perfect sense.

3. You read in a very literal sense so when someone talks about "this" or "that" you are unable to think of any meaning between the lines. Could he be talking about the international court in general, rather than individual judges? Could he be making social commentary about the treatment of Chinese issues and demonisation by the West?

4. Going back to point 1, rather than answering my question of what sort of legal repercussions China might face, you produced a red herring to distract from the crux of the matter, and threw a tantrum about the above speculation (which is not unfounded at all). You threw a massive tantrum due to your inability to abstract information.

5. You have been (incorrectly) requesting for linear information for abstract and non-linear paradigms, which is logically inappropriate in itself, and shows your level of intellect and understanding.

6. You have proceeded to use a concrete approach to nitpick abstract reason derived models.

7. Nothing I posted was modified, it's just that you are concrete minded and see things in very simplistic ways. I have been showing you how there will be other variables that interact and thus will produce a different outcome.

8. You have made many incorrect assumptions. You assumed that ad hominem attacks were fallacious, when that is not always the case. You have assumed that flaws in a theory means it's wrong, when that is not the case (see quantum physics). You seem to compartmentalise information in black and white. Very basic minded.

9. Your previous comment is the nail in the coffin that shows your level of understanding. You have not exposed anything, apart from how you are a concrete mind. You have been operating under the assumption that this is about "backing up claims" but your complete approach is wrong. It's about the process in which the basis of ideas have been constructed, which I have already shown. It's not just from one case, it's a product of a network of information information, some linear, others nonlinear, which interact. Your entire thinking in deconstructing what I have posted is inherently inappropriate.

So the root of the problem is your thinking.
Case closed.

This rambling just re-confirm what I said earlier. Still you make claims that you cannot back up. You continue to claim that there are “many” legal cases but repetitively refuse to list them when I asked you for over 5-6 times. Now trying to introduce additional issue like “the Western media being biased against China” when this was not the topic discussed in tgis thread. Then you continue to go on the same rambling about me without addressing the content and challenge that I raised.

If you had this much time rambling on side topics, then why didn’t you use those times to address the main issue of this debate? Some of your hideous excuses was “the readers can do the research for themselves”,etc. For the longest time, since the beginning, I have been asking you to:

- Analyse the data available for the PHL-CN case to validate/verify your claims/speculations about it. But you keep ignoring this until now.

- You then talk/bragged about your abstracted “larger paradigm”. I then challenged you to list the many past legal “cases” you’ve claimed to exist that support your paradigm (you have only managed to mention one so far). And I have repetitively asked you to apply this paradigm onto the PHL-CN case to validate/verify your paradigm and speculations, which is the main issue of this “debate”. Yet you have continually refused to do this and just start rambling on irrelevant things, just as you were doing in your previous post.

That says it all, you are just dodging the main issues of this “debate” (the socalled biasedness against China in the PHL-CN legal case).

You lied again, I have never said not to focus on the PHL vs CHN case. I still stand by everything I post. I have said that you need to think more abstractly, but you seem to not understand what that means, as expected.

Read the whole “debate” again, everytime I asked you to analyse the data available for the PHL-CN case to validate/verify your paradigm and speculations, you keep ranting about me being concrete minded and how your way of focussing on abstraction is better, etc. So yes, you are “basically” telling me not to focus on the PHL-CN case when I made those challenge. Note I didnt say you “literally” said “not to focus on it”, but that you were “basically” telling me that, meaning the way you replied basically tells me that. Thats the gist of what I said, if I phrased it as if you have said it literally, then yes, I phrased it wrong...the gist of it is that you want to avoid the concrete PHL-CN case and talk about your abstract paradigm. And thats what you have been doing isnt it? And thats the biggest issue and your biggest flaw here, you started out by making some claims/speculations about the PHL-CN court/judges, but then ended up trying to avoid talking about it when asked to validate/verify your claims/speculations.


Case closed.

 

[rott]

LOL you mad bro?

People can read this whole “debate” from the beginning for themselves. Or just skip to post #59 and see his respond to my challenge to provide sources and references for his claims.

We were both initially talking about the PHL-CN case, he initially tried to defend his claims and even himself wanted to discuss with me about the legal consequences of the “concrete” PHL-CN case. After pages of failing to defend his claims about the PHL-CN case, he is now basically telling me not to focus on the PHL-CN case (becos thats too “concrete minded” lol). Basically trying to steer away from the original topic that he can no longer defend. Thats the gist of this whole “debate”, people can read it for themselve (if they bother to, cos 80% of the postings are just rambling excuses to steer away from the topic).

Don’t get mad bro I’m just telling it as it is. I don’t usually use this much smiley on anyone but this is just too amusing to not smile.

Me mad? Now you're trying to put words in my mouth.
In the start, yes, I used to read what was in the discussion. But then I stop reading what you post. You wanna know why? I just read the first few lines and laugh in your face. Tell you what, BRO! this forum isn't for the likes like you. You are already beginning to sound like a dying puppy. Know what a puppy do when it's about to die? It whines! That's exactly what you're doing here.
You should just find a forum more subtle to your taste. Good luck with your whining.

P. S. - The amount of BS you wrote made me to stop reading and taking you seriously. My friendly advice to you is, stop making a joke of yourself anymore. The more you post the more you look stupid.