No you don't need to say it, you're acting like you're an impartial arbiter on SCS issues. I don't think you should act like such because you're Vietnamese. That's a dangerous conflict of interest.
So you admit that I’ve never called myself one, only that I act like one. But what do you mean? that my actions and behaviour in this thread looks as though I’m an impartial arbiter? But isn’t this a good thing? lol. Secondly, in what way have I “acted” like an impartial arbiter? By telling you that I only want to make claims where I can back up with facts or sources and that you should do the same? But isn’t this the standard etiquette in debating?
No, your understanding is poor. I am setting a framework for this discussion so that we can appreciate that anybody touting pretentious displays of "I'm neutral so you should listen to me” is pointless, and also repulsive. It's not an attack on character, but serves to elaborate on the mindset and dynamics of this discourse which influences the content that you post.
Again, how am I making that pretension? I have never claimed myself here that “I’m neutral so you should listen to me”, so why do you keep attributing that to me? lol
If they are that interested in ICJ judges then they can research it themselves. It's a bit condescending to assume that other people are unable to do their own research.
Who are “they”? You’ve made some specific claims about the judges on the PHL vs. CN court case so I have asked you to provide evidences and sources to validate your claims. Again, this is just standard debating etiquette, its normal (and should be expected) to be asked to provide evidences/sources to support your claims. I don’t know why you think this is a case of being “condescending to assume that other people are unable to do their own research”. You are not familiar with debates or academic discourses before? or is this just an excuse when you can’t provide sources?
If you can't see the blatant biases in many, many cases of ICJ rulings then I think there is a problem with your ability to think independently. The point here is that the perspectives of events is always going to be different and a group of people agreeing with each other is just an appeal to argumentum ad populum.
Corfu Channel Incident (Albania ordered to pay for reparations)
Corfu Channel incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. UK sailed in such proximity to Albania's border and trespassed into Albanian territorial waters. Albania fired on the ships. In my view, they should have notified Albania or Greece beforehand that they were going to sail pass these areas which were already hazardous due to ongoing conflicts from the Greek civil war.
In fact, UK was allied to Greece so they could sail in Greek territorial waters without any problems, but they chose to sail in Albanian territorial waters.
(Greek Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. UK ships hit mines that Albania requested Yugoslavia to place. Knowing the volatility of the previous incident, UK should have sailed closely to Greek shores, but instead chose to sail close to Albania's shores to "test the waters". That's asking for trouble. I think UK cannot complain here because they deliberately sailed in Albania's territorial waters, knowing the hostile circumstances.
3. UK conducted a minesweeping operation in Albanian territorial waters. This was not authorised by the Albanian government. Well again, they shouldn't be in Albanian territorial waters anyway.
Despite this, Albania was ordered by the ICJ to pay UK £844,000, which is equivalent to £26.6 million (or $40.1 million) in 2015.
Again, what you have pasted does not validate your specific claims, that the PHL vs. CN court case and judges have ulterior motives, dont want the accused/China to benefit, etc. I think it is you that lacks the ability to think through your arguments, so let me break it down for you step by step:
1. You said the PHL-CN court case judges are biased, have ulterior motives and don’t want the accused/China to benefit.
2. You then tried to validate those claims by showing a handful of articles arguing how the structure of the international courts are problematic or a few previous examples of biased/unfair rulings.
-but to justify (1), you would first need to either prove that
all of the rulings of the international courts are unfair/biased, or accept that they can sometime be fair but prove that in this specific PHL vs. CN case, they are not so. But so far, your examples in (2) does not prove either of them.
- And more importantly, even if we assume and accept that all rulings from the international courts are biased and unfair, you would still need to prove or give evidences to show how the judges on the PHL-CN court case are biased
against China rather than biased against the Philippines, you would need to show evidences that the judges has ulterior motives against China and that they don’t want the accused China to benefit. And the articles and examples you have given in (2) does not prove any of this (none of them involved China at all). For example, to justify your claims, you would need to show that the judges on the PHL-CN case are the same judges in your examples, then you may have a point, but unfortunately they are not the same judges.
So I have only asked you to provide evidences and sources to validate your claims made in (1), but what you have provided so far does not validate any of your claims.
I think you have a problem distinguishing things that are objective and subjective. 1+1=2 is objective. The distance between this tree and and that streetlamp is objective. The interpretation of events is going to subjective.
The point was, the judges do have the ability and possibility of saying things that are objective, and to figure out whether the things they say are objective or subjective, you would need to analyse the
contents of what they say, not just their character or job position. And so far, you have not analysed the contents of what they said. You have claimed they are biased, but refused to explain their jurisdictional rulings and making an analysis proving it was biased.
Unless, you are going to generalise all judges and jurors as being biased when interpreting events in a court proceedings, but in this case, why bother having courts, judges and jurors at all? are you going to tell your country to shut down all its courts and dismiss all the judges because they are inherently biased when interpreting events? lol
Unfortunately I think you have a lack of ability to abstract ideas from general concepts and postulate paradigms. Instead you're asking for specific examples, which shows that you're a concrete rather than abstract thinker. This is not an attack on character, this is explaining why you fail to understand and "connect the dots" to what I have posted.
Tutorial: Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking
No, it is you who lacks abstract thinking ability to make inferences and “connecting the dots” to construct a proper argument. As I have explained earlier, the argument you have tried to present is not logically valid, you have failed to justify your conclusion from your premises, there is no connection between your claims and the examples/articles you have provide.
Why did I asked you for specific/concrete evidences? because you have made some specific/concrete claims. It would be logical for you to provide specific/concrete evidences to validate your specific/concrete claims.
You have specifically claimed that the PHL-CN court case judges have
ulterior motives and that they are biased against China and
don’t want the accused/China to benefit. But there are no connections between your examples/articles and your specific contention that the PHL-CN court case judges have
ulterior motives against China and don’t want China to benefit. If the “general concept” you wanted to present is that the IC rulings are generally biased and unfair, then I don’t see how could draw from it your specific ideas that “the judges have ulterior motives against China and dont want it to benefit”.
And the reason why its reaching 10-12 posts is because you
still haven’t been able to validate those specific claims of yours.
William Hung re-read everything I posted and abstract from it, if you are able to do that. I think there's no point if there's just going to be 10 pages of you confusing yourself. Understand the basic paradigms first before requesting for more information.
As explained above, it is you who have issue with abstract thoughts. What is the basic paradigm that you have constructed? That the international courts have ulterior motives against China and dont want it to benefit? I dont know how you have managed to construct that paradigm out of examples like the UK vs. Albanian court cases that dont even involve China, unless you use some kind of voodoo abstract inferences.
On the other hand, if your basic paradigm is that all judges are generally biased, then I dont know how you could draw specific ideas from that such as “judges have ulterior motives against
China and dont want it to benefit.” There are no connections, because it is still possible that it is the Philippines that they are biased against, and your “basic paradigms” doesn’t indicate which side they are biased against, if they are biased at all. Also, your basic paradigm, concept and examples still does not specify the so-called “ulterior motives” that you claim the judges to possess.
By contrast, what I am alluding to is "William Hung like everybody else is clouded by bias, but pretends that he's not, so we should be careful in interpreting anything he posts". Such comments serves to understand the dynamics of this discourse which influences the content that you post. I'm also explaining why you fail to understand content that I have posted which is relevant to this discussion.
And I have already told you, many times now, if you think my comments are wrong, then point it out and explain it so. Why do you keep babbling about humans being inherently biased, etc?
