Obama demands halt to South China Sea island building

[William Hung]

Oh shut up you sinophile freak! You spew more nonsense BS more than anyone here, save for the PDF China Platoon.

What they are doing is trying for a character assassination attempt. If they cant argue, then they would just resort to tarnishing our reputation. I can see 3 different guys here trying to do it already.

 

[terranMarine]

William hung and yoruzuya is the same person right? Both are spewing nonsense continuously.

correct

 

[Wolfwind]

This is getting too wordy so I am just going to cut to the main points.

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?

First, the term "admit" is insanely inappropriate here, because it implies that I am confessing a wrongdoing. I never that said you called yourself an impartial arbiter, I said that you acted and touted yourself like one. You were trying to sell yourself as an impartial voice of reason that everybody should listen to.

So can you admit that I never said you called yourself an impartial arbiter?

And yes, your "listen to me" rhetoric was pretentious and cringeworthy. It's not a good thing because it's repulsive and deceptive.

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

William Hung you have been masquerading as an impartial arbiter but the content that you post is ultimately biased and influenced by personal grievances, so you should stop acting like you're neutral because it's deceptive and therefore repulsive. I think your inability to connect the dots and abstract from a general statement is rearing its ugly head again and explains why you seem to be so confused.

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?

"They" as in other posters, that is obvious.

I think you are getting confused. What I posted was obviously speculation. I thought that was obvious. It is possible to extrapolate from past cases and academic papers and apply such paradigms onto a current case in order to put forth postulations. It seems that you don't understand that. I have posted extremely interesting and relevant sources for you to read, you either didn't read them or you were unable to abstract anything from it and apply it onto the PHL vs CN case.

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

Excuse me but you seem to be unable to differentiate between someone speculating (based on peer reviewed and published academic papers, and past ICJ cases) and laying down a fundamental truth. I think that is your own personal problem that you need to deal with. One thing that's certain is that the ICJ has partiality issues, and that the ICJ has made unfair rulings in the past. There's no need to provide specific examples unless you have the thinking ability of a 5 year old.

And you are absolutely wrong. What I have posted might not "validate" my speculations, but provides evidence for the speculations that I have put forth. You also seem to be confusing evidence with facts. Yes, I have provided evidence, but not facts. You requested evidence, but not specifically facts.

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.

No. Everything is subjective. Apart from distance from x to y, the mass of a ship, speed of missile, those are objective. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

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

William Hung it's a complex issue that requires a lot of thinking. Someone can clearly be in the wrong, like if I just went up to someone and knifed them in the neck. But when it comes to cases like the SCS we're dealing with very murky waters with conflicting claims and interpretations of events, and "his words against mine". I think people want a shortcut to rest the case so they go with their feelings.

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.

What we know is that you do not understand the difference between the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. You do not understand the difference between someone speculating and stating a fundamental truth. You do not understand how to abstract from general ideas (and thus connecting the dots). You are easily confused because you lack the ability to think in an abstract way, which is why you fail to see the relevance of what I posted earlier. You do not know what to do when presented with a group of general ideas and how to form a conceptual abstraction.

These are not ad hominem attacks, they serve to explain why this discussion has gone on for so long i.e. why you don't understand how the things I posted tie in to the crux of the issue. It's your lack of competency in thinking.

What they are doing is trying for a character assassination attempt. If they cant argue, then they would just resort to tarnishing our reputation. I can see 3 different guys here trying to do it already.

On top of that, you don't even seem to understand that an ad hominem is not necessarily a fallacy, but only a fallacy if the "attack" is irrelevant i.e. "William Hung listens to Justin Bieber, so he is wrong". That's a fallacy. People are calling into question your honesty, partiality, and credibility with your multiple accounts, since you want to act like an impartial arbiter.

So "William Hung has multiple accounts and is a notorious troll" is not an ad hominem attack because it's relevant to this discourse and the extent to which we should be wary of anything you post.

 

[William Hung]

This is getting too wordy so I am just going to cut to the main points.

First, the term "admit" is insanely inappropriate here, because it implies that I am confessing a wrongdoing. I never that said you called yourself an impartial arbiter, I said that you acted and touted yourself like one. You were trying to sell yourself as an impartial voice of reason that everybody should listen to.

So can you admit that I never said you called yourself an impartial arbiter?

And yes, your "listen to me" rhetoric was pretentious and cringeworthy. It's not a good thing because it's repulsive and deceptive.

William Hung you have been masquerading as an impartial arbiter but the content that you post is ultimately biased and influenced by personal grievances, so you should stop acting like you're neutral because it's deceptive and therefore repulsive. I think your inability to connect the dots and abstract from a general statement is rearing its ugly head again and explains why you seem to be so confused.

lol again, you are attributing things onto me that I have never claimed myself to be here, as you have already admitted. And it looks as though you are deliberately using these trivial topic about “neitral arbiter thing” to distract and side-track from the main issue, that is you not being able to validate claims that you have made. So let me end this trivial side topic by saying, as I have said before, I do not care if you think I’m biased or not, or whether you think I’m trying to be a neutral arbiter, etc. All I care are the contents of the debate. I make comments or claims, and I welcome you to dispute it if you disagree with it, and I will use evidences or sources to back up my claims, as Zsari and I have originally done. So I am expecting you to do the same, provide evidences or sources to validate your claims. That is all.

So we can stop bickering on side issues like whether I think you think I think I’m neutral or not neutral, etc lol. Just focus on the contents of the debate. If you think my comments are wrong due to my biasedness, then analyse my comments and explain how they are wrong.

"They" as in other posters, that is obvious.

So that’s pretty much your excuse to cover the fact that you can’t provide sources to back up your claims. Let’s be clear, you made specific claims about the judges, so I have asked you to provide sources or evidences to validate your claims. Your reply was, “the readers and other posters can find those sources/evidences themselves, asking for sources is being condescending in thinking other posters cant find those sources.” That is such a big excuse, and a big joke. lol

Maybe you should ask the admins to change the forum rules to ban people asking for sources or evidences, because asking for sources or evidences is soooo “condescending” and disrespectful to other posters.

I think you are getting confused. What I posted was obviously speculation. I thought that was obvious. It is possible to extrapolate from past cases and academic papers and apply such paradigms onto a current case in order to put forth postulations. It seems that you don't understand that. I have posted extremely interesting and relevant sources for you to read, you either didn't read them or you were unable to abstract anything from it and apply it onto the PHL vs CN case.

So you have finally acknowledged that your claims was just speculations. You could have just admit it from the beginning when I first challenged your claims and would have saved all these posts, instead of trying to validate it with articles. But look, you still try to desperately salvage your arguments, which only continue to show your fallacious reasoning skills.

Lets see, you acknowledged that your previous claims were only speculations. That would means you were only postulating the possibility of those judges having ulterior motives against China, etc.

I won’t deny that there is a possibility that the judges are/will be biased against China, etc. But possibility and speculations means that it could be true or it could be false as well. Yes, it is possible that the judges have/will have “ulterior motives against China”, or it could be possible that the judges have ulterior motives against the Philippines instead, or it could be possible for this specific case that the judges decide not to be biased against anyone and be neutral. These are still all three possible scenarios because you have only given speculations so far.

Since you have speculated that it is the first scenario, that the judges are biased against China, the burden is on you to show how it is more likely to be this first scenario, rather than the second or third scenario where the judges are biased against the philippines or biased to neither.

And the articles or past cases that you have mentioned does not support in any way that the current judges for the PHL-CN case have ulterior motives against China. Those articles and cases you have cited does not even involved China nor the Philippines, and they don’t even involve any of the current judges on the PHL-CN case, so how could you “extrapolate” from those past cases and “put forth postulations” that the judges for the PHL-CN case have ulterior motives against China? A Filipino too can postulate that the judges will be biased against the Philippines. Or a Dutch guy can postulate that the judges will be biased against neither (or be against both). These two other “extrapolations” are just as good as yours, meaning, not really good at all since those articles and past cases doesn’t indicate that the court favours PHL over CN or vice versa.

This is what I have been trying to explain to you all this time. It is you who lack understanding. Your “extrapolations“ and “postulations” are very weak, still a possibility but very weak since you have failed to show the “connections”. You have failed to demonstrate how you have made a valid inference from those past cases and articles to support your speculations that the judges have “ulterior motives against China.” So at this point, your speculations are just blind guesses. And if you insist on putting forth your blind guesses and speculations without presenting any proper evidences for them, I was right to have originally accused it of being conspiracy theories.

Excuse me but you seem to be unable to differentiate between someone speculating (based on peer reviewed and published academic papers, and past ICJ cases) and laying down a fundamental truth. I think that is your own personal problem that you need to deal with. One thing that's certain is that the ICJ has partiality issues, and that the ICJ has made unfair rulings in the past. There's no need to provide specific examples unless you have the thinking ability of a 5 year old.

And you are absolutely wrong. What I have posted might not "validate" my speculations, but provides evidence for the speculations that I have put forth. You also seem to be confusing evidence with facts. Yes, I have provided evidence, but not facts. You requested evidence, but not specifically facts.

No, as explained above, you still have not provided any evidences for your speculations that the judges specifically have ulterior motives against China, that they dont want the accused China to benefit, etc. Those articles and past cases does not indicate in any form or manner that the current PHL-CN case judges will have ulterior motive to favor the PHL over China. At best, your speculations are only a possibilty, just as it is also a possibility that the judges will have ulterior motives against the Philippines and favour China.

No. Everything is subjective. Apart from distance from x to y, the mass of a ship, speed of missile, those are objective. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

William Hung it's a complex issue that requires a lot of thinking. Someone can clearly be in the wrong, like if I just went up to someone and knifed them in the neck. But when it comes to cases like the SCS we're dealing with very murky waters with conflicting claims and interpretations of events, and "his words against mine". I think people want a shortcut to rest the case so they go with their feelings.

What we know is that you do not understand the difference between the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. You do not understand the difference between someone speculating and stating a fundamental truth. You do not understand how to abstract from general ideas (and thus connecting the dots). You are easily confused because you lack the ability to think in an abstract way, which is why you fail to see the relevance of what I posted earlier. You do not know what to do when presented with a group of general ideas and how to form a conceptual abstraction.

Again, the point was, even a biased person will still have the capability to say objective truths and facts, example, when he mention mathematical truths like 1+1=2 or when he mentioned some verifiable empirical facts, it will still be true. And the main point was this, how can we tell when he is telling truths and when he is telling falsehoods? Or when he is telling a fair subjective statement or unfair subjective statement? By examining the contents of his words.

That is the main issue here, you have refused to analyse the contents and rulings of the judges. At least Zsari and I were discussing specific legal clauses of the UNCLOS and whether it applies to the PHL-CN case. You have not done any of that here, to analyse the contents and rulings of the judges.

Yet, you were the one that made speculations that the judges have ulterior motives and biased against the accused China. But as explained above, you have not shown any evidences to support this speculations over the other possible speculations. At best, you have only demonstrated the possibility that your speculations can be true.

And here is the funny thing, the names and profiles of the PHL vs. CN case judges are made public, their preliminary jurisdictional rulings has also being made public, so the logically thing to do to present evidences and proves your speculations are true is to post the profiles and background of the judges here, if there are evidences that they have been anti-China or something similar in the past, then post them because that would be good evidences to support your speculations. You can also bring up their jurisdictional rulings for the PHL vs. CN case. Analyse it and show how their decisions might have been unfair and biased against China. These kind of things, the judges’ identity and the jurisdictional ruling documents are all made public. These would be the legititmate evidences to support your speculations, and they would be far stronger evidences than your articles and past cases which doesnt even involve the PHL, China or the current judge panel. Yet, when I challenged you to do so, to discuss the profiles of the current judges and their jurisdictional rulings, your reply was, it is rude to ask for those evidences/sources and “condescending to think other posters cannot find those sources for themselves.”

So "William Hung has multiple accounts and is a notorious troll" is not an ad hominem attack because it's relevant to this discourse and the extent to which we should be wary of anything you post.

lol, I knew you would join your countrymen to engage in an character assassination attempt. It is expected when one can no longer debate in a legitimate manner. And no, I don’t have multiple accounts. I have one single account but have permission from admins to change my account name. I was also expecting that you would evetually accuse me of being a “notorious” troll in your desperate character assassination attempt.

 

[TaiShang]

Exactly sir.

If they REALLY want us to stop building, they're either going to have to do something about it directly, or persuade us in some other way.

And even then it will only delay the island-building.

I do not know why anyone would anticipate China's government, which represents the people of Greater China, would give heed to what Obama says, who represents a different group of people. LOL.

Chinese people want the development to continue and the leadership agrees with that. Then, what is there to stop this from becoming an actual policy?

China has always been a fiercely sovereign nation. This kind of empty threats will only harden the resolve of the nation.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I do not know why anyone would anticipate China's government, which represents the people of Greater China, would give heed to what Obama says, who represents a different group of people. LOL.

Chinese people want the development to continue and the leadership agrees with that. Then, what is there to stop this from becoming an actual policy?

China has always been a fiercely sovereign nation. This kind of empty threats will only harden the resolve of the nation.

Exactly.

In fact the Americans know this. The people who pull the strings in the American government are highly intelligent individuals.

They know if they publicly tell us to "stop building" the result will be -> more building.

They know that, as sure as anything. In fact it benefits them, since it forces their weak allies to become even more desperately dependent on them. Same way they benefited from Russia taking Crimea, the pawns (like Ukraine and the Philippines) lose territory, and they are forced to become more dependent on America.

 

[TaiShang]

Exactly.

In fact the Americans know this. The people who pull the strings in the American government are highly intelligent individuals.

They know if they publicly tell us to "stop building" the result will be -> more building.

They know that, as sure as anything. In fact it benefits them, since it forces their weak allies to become even more desperately dependent on them. Same way they benefited from Russia taking Crimea, the pawns (like Ukraine and the Philippines) lose territory, and they are forced to become more dependent on America.

And I guess they are doing a similar thing now with Turkey's confusion-riddled downing of Russian aircraft, which makes absolutely no sense from strategic perspective.

The US seems to be cutting Turkey's regional ties from neighbors one by one, attaching it to the Atlantic alliance as a bridgehead more firmly then they did in the 1950s.

This incident is also loaded with irony with Thanksgiving just celebrated.

I am afraid of a Saddamization of Turkish President.

I am not sure US would be more magnanimous to Vietnam or Philippines when it comes to endangering its own citizens or sacrificing some not so valuable assets (regional allies) in the SCS. I would say, they would go for option two.

That's why countries like VN and PH should never trust the US beyond their value as sacrificial lambs.

US can do dirty business with you regardless of your regime. But never sympathizes with you.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

And I guess they are doing a similar thing now with Turkey's confusion-riddled downing of Russian aircraft, which makes absolutely no sense from strategic perspective.

The US seems to be cutting Turkey's regional ties from neighbors one by one, attaching it to the Atlantic alliance as a bridgehead more firmly then they did in the 1950s.

This incident is also loaded with irony with Thanksgiving just celebrated.

I am not sure US would be more magnanimous to Vietnam or Philippines when it comes to endangering its own citizens or sacrificing some not so valuable assets (regional allies) in the SCS. I would say, they would go for option two.

That's why countries like VN and PH should never trust the US beyond their value as a sacrificial lamb.

Well look at what happened to Georgia in 2008, the Philippines in 2012, and Ukraine in 2014. ALL of them lost territory, ALL of them were "American allies" against either Russia or China.

China and Russia gained territory, US gained because their allies became even more dependent on them. The only ones who lost were the pawns, who lost their territory.

Did you know that Sun Tzu's Art of War is REQUIRED reading for all US CIA officers and US Military intelligence?

The Art of War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Art of War is listed on the Marine Corps Professional Reading Program (formerly known as the Commandant's Reading List). It is recommended reading for all United States Military Intelligence personnel and is required reading for all CIA officers.

Even Sun Tzu himself would be shocked to see how the Americans are playing this game. We have to stay one step ahead of them, at least when it comes to guarding our own sovereignty.

 

[Wolfwind]

lol again, you are attributing things onto me that I have never claimed myself to be here, as you have already admitted. And it looks as though you are deliberately using these trivial topic about “neitral arbiter thing” to distract and side-track from the main issue, that is you not being able to validate claims that you have made. So let me end this trivial side topic by saying, as I have said before, I do not care if you think I’m biased or not, or whether you think I’m trying to be a neutral arbiter, etc. All I care are the contents of the debate. I make comments or claims, and I welcome you to dispute it if you disagree with it, and I will use evidences or sources to back up my claims, as Zsari and I have originally done. So I am expecting you to do the same, provide evidences or sources to validate your claims. That is all.

William Hung I have already explained in detail to you but your level of thinking prohibits you from understanding how the evidence I have posted ties into the crux of this matter. You requested evidence that supports my speculations, which I have done. You did not request putative facts, because if facts were shown then it wouldn't even be speculation but a matter of inherent truth. So the pitfall here is that you confused yourself by assuming what I posted was an inherent truth, rather than speculation. Thus I think your misinterpretations of my posts is the problem. Like I said, you fail to distinguish when someone is speculating and when someone is declaring a fact.

I have always maintained that you acted and touted yourself like an impartial arbiter. You are the one that came up with the idea of calling yourself one. Because nobody said that, you did. You have poor comprehension.

So we can stop bickering on side issues like whether I think you think I think I’m neutral or not neutral, etc lol. Just focus on the contents of the debate. If you think my comments are wrong due to my biasedness, then analyse my comments and explain how they are wrong.

It's impossible to focus on the content of the debate when you are constantly misinterpreting other peoples posts, which causes frustration for everybody.

So that’s pretty much your excuse to cover the fact that you can’t provide sources to back up your claims. Let’s be clear, you made specific claims about the judges, so I have asked you to provide sources or evidences to validate your claims. Your reply was, “the readers and other posters can find those sources/evidences themselves, asking for sources is being condescending in thinking other posters cant find those sources.” That is such a big excuse, and a big joke. lol

First, they are not claims. They are speculations which I thought was obvious. Second, I have provided putative evidence to support my speculations. And I still maintain that other people can do their own research, not sure why you're having a laugh about that.

Maybe you should ask the admins to change the forum rules to ban people asking for sources or evidences, because asking for sources or evidences is soooo “condescending” and disrespectful to other posters.

It's inappropriate to ask for a "source" when someone puts forth a speculation, because some people actually think for themselves and form their own ideas, rather than just regurgitating and copy and pasting "facts". But what can be posted are pieces of information and existing evidence that together form a basis of that speculation, which is what I have done.

So you have finally acknowledged that your claims was just speculations. You could have just admit it from the beginning when I first challenged your claims and would have saved all these posts, instead of trying to validate it with articles. But look, you still try to desperately salvage your arguments, which only continue to show your fallacious reasoning skills.

It is not I that has finally acknowledged that I was speculating, but rather it is you that have finally realised, after I had to walk through it with you, that I was speculating. Speculations (not random guesses) are important, I don't know why you are trying to downplay it. There are not just random, ridiculous guesses with zero basis that I have pulled out of thin air, it is based on peer reviewed academic papers and past ICJ cases.

I thought this was obvious which is why I didn't feel the need to walk through it with you, but it seems like I am speaking to someone without very little knowledge on scientific writing and discussion.

I won’t deny that there is a possibility that the judges are/will be biased against China, etc. But possibility and speculations means that it could be true or it could be false as well. Yes, it is possible that the judges have/will have “ulterior motives against China”, or it could be possible that the judges have ulterior motives against the Philippines instead, or it could be possible for this specific case that the judges decide not to be biased against anyone and be neutral. These are still all three possible scenarios because you have only given speculations so far.

It could be true, it could be false. Those scenarios are possible too, yes. I think the most likely subsequent scenario though is that China is going to ignore any rulings from the Hague, which is not unprecedented given that rulings have been ignored before. This also reminds me of a question that you haven't answered yet, do you know what possible legal repercussions that China might face?

Since you have speculated that it is the first scenario, that the judges are biased against China, the burden is on you to show how it is more likely to be this first scenario, rather than the second or third scenario where the judges are biased against the philippines or biased to neither.

Well there are a number of information that you can draw from that forms the basis. I don't understand why I have to draw out such simple explanations for you. The most obvious one is that since the countries select their own arbitrators in the PCA and China is not attending, the entire court is very likely biased against China. I don't think you would select an arbitrator that would likely go against you.

And the articles or past cases that you have mentioned does not support in any way that the current judges for the PHL-CN case have ulterior motives against China. Those articles and cases you have cited does not even involved China nor the Philippines, and they don’t even involve any of the current judges on the PHL-CN case, so how could you “extrapolate” from those past cases and “put forth postulations” that the judges for the PHL-CN case have ulterior motives against China? A Filipino too can postulate that the judges will be biased against the Philippines. Or a Dutch guy can postulate that the judges will be biased against neither (or be against both). These two other “extrapolations” are just as good as yours, meaning, not really good at all since those articles and past cases doesn’t indicate that the court favours PHL over CN or vice versa.

It doesn't matter. It shows that any form of "legal" international justice is ultimately biased and not always fair. Learn how to abstract ideas.

This is what I have been trying to explain to you all this time. It is you who lack understanding. Your “extrapolations“ and “postulations” are very weak, still a possibility but very weak since you have failed to show the “connections”. You have failed to demonstrate how you have made a valid inference from those past cases and articles to support your speculations that the judges have “ulterior motives against China.” So at this point, your speculations are just blind guesses. And if you insist on putting forth your blind guesses and speculations without presenting any proper evidences for them, I was right to have originally accused it of being conspiracy theories.

No they are not blind guesses, but speculation deserving serious consideration based on peer reviewed papers, past ICJ cases, and the fact that attending countries select their arbitrators in the PCA (and China is not attending). I can't believe something so simple has to be explained to you.

Again, the point was, even a biased person will still have the capability to say objective truths and facts, example, when he mention mathematical truths like 1+1=2 or when he mentioned some verifiable empirical facts, it will still be true. And the main point was this, how can we tell when he is telling truths and when he is telling falsehoods? Or when he is telling a fair subjective statement or unfair subjective statement? By examining the contents of his words.

But when it is presented in such a way that the overall impression is a biased rhetoric rather than an impartial objective statement like 1+1=2, then you need to accept that what has been posted is littered with subjective interpretations and bias, so we should be wary of the content that they are posting, and especially their motives. Someone with a lot of time could individually deconstruct everything that is posted to analyse any merits (and demerits), but I don't think anybody has the patience to do that. They want a shortcut to make a quick decision: should we believe this person or not?

That is the main issue here, you have refused to analyse the contents and rulings of the judges. At least Zsari and I were discussing specific legal clauses of the UNCLOS and whether it applies to the PHL-CN case. You have not done any of that here, to analyse the contents and rulings of the judges.

I have attempted to reframe this discussion into the possible legal repercussions for China multiple times, but you seem more interested in talking about nonsense. You just keep repeating the same things even though I have gone over it more than enough times with you. It shows you have poor understanding and that you will never learn, so my time is actually wasted on you.

And here is the funny thing, the names and profiles of the PHL vs. CN case judges are made public, their preliminary jurisdictional rulings has also being made public, so the logically thing to do to present evidences and proves your speculations are true is to post the profiles and background of the judges here, if there are evidences that they have been anti-China or something similar in the past, then post them because that would be good evidences to support your speculations. You can also bring up their jurisdictional rulings for the PHL vs. CN case. Analyse it and show how their decisions might have been unfair and biased against China. These kind of things, the judges’ identity and the jurisdictional ruling documents are all made public. These would be the legititmate evidences to support your speculations, and they would be far stronger evidences than your articles and past cases which doesnt even involve the PHL, China or the current judge panel. Yet, when I challenged you to do so, to discuss the profiles of the current judges and their jurisdictional rulings, your reply was, it is rude to ask for those evidences/sources and “condescending to think other posters cannot find those sources for themselves.”

Well that is your own idea so you should post it. I am not going to claim credit for your ideas and act like I thought of that first. I am not stopping you from contributing toward this discussion in the direction that you would like it to pan out. If you feel that what I posted was "not good enough" then that's your own subjective opinion, but in my view, what I posted was relevant and ties in to the larger paradigm of partiality issues in international courts and unfair rulings.

lol, I knew you would join your countrymen to engage in an character assassination attempt. It is expected when one can no longer debate in a legitimate manner. And no, I don’t have multiple accounts. I have one single account but have permission from admins to change my account name. I was also expecting that you would evetually accuse me of being a “notorious” troll in your desperate character assassination attempt.

Like I said a billion times, an ad hominem is not always a fallacy, but only a fallacy if it's irrelevant. Reread the last part of post #77 for more information.

 

[William Hung]

William Hung I have already explained in detail to you but your level of thinking prohibits you from understanding how the evidence I have posted ties into the crux of this matter. You requested evidence that supports my speculations, which I have done.

You haven’t explained anything in details my friend, nor have you provided any proper evidences. Let’s cut to the chase and get to the crux of it. You first said the PH vs. CN court case judges have “ulterior motives” against China and dont want the accused China to benefit.

You later acknowledged that it was just speculations. So lets list all the main possible scenario:

1. The judges have ulterior motives against China and dont want CN to benefit, etc.

2. The judges have ulterior motives against the Philippines and dont want the PHL to benefit.

3. The judges have no ulterior motives against China or the Philippines.

You speculated that it is scenario number (1). Then later you acknowledged that the other scenario possible too. And I repeat, the burden is on you to explain how it is most likely scenario (1) rather than the other two scenario. Up until now, you have refused to explain how.

You have only posted some articles questioning how the ICJ were administered. Then you posted some past court cases between UK, Albania, etc. Then you argued that these are evidences for your speculations. But as I have explained, and its easy to see, these articles and cases do not support your speculations it is likely scenario (1) over the other possible scenario. From those articles and cases, you could also argue it is scenario (2) where the motive is against the Philippines, or other scenario.

So, I’ll repeat again for the 4th or 5th time, can you explain how you could draw from those articles and cases your statement that that it is likely that the judges have ulterior motives against China and dont want China to benefit, rather than having ulterior motives against the Philippines, or no motives at all. In more simple words, from those articles, how could we speculate that its more likely scenario (1) rather than the other scenarios?

Please explain.

It doesn't matter. It shows that any form of "legal" international justice is ultimately biased and not always fair. Learn how to abstract ideas.

Even if we assume this is true, the articles and past cases does not indicate that the bias is against China and have “ulterior motives” against her rather than against the Philippines. How did you abstract this idea from those articles and cases? again, please explain how those articles and past cases could support this speculation of yours.

First, they are not claims. They are speculations which I thought was obvious. Second, I have provided putative evidence to support my speculations. And I still maintain that other people can do their own research, not sure why you're having a laugh about that...

... But what can be posted are pieces of information and existing evidence that together form a basis of that speculation, which is what I have done...

...They are not just random, ridiculous guesses with zero basis that I have pulled out of thin air, it is based on peer reviewed academic papers and past ICJ cases...

...No they are not blind guesses, but speculation deserving serious consideration based on peer reviewed papers, past ICJ cases...

Again, you have not shown how those articles and cases are evidences that support your speculation that the judges have “ulterior motives” against China rather than against the Philippines.

Repeating those same line again and again won’t make it come true. If you want respect and to be taken seriously in a debate, then explain your arguments rather than dodging it when challenged.

As for your new comments about selecting judges or China not attending court, they also have flawed reasoning and I will expand on that later. But first, explain to me how those articles and cases you have posted could be seen as evidences for your speculations of scenario (1), stop avoiding this and explain it.

 

[Wolfwind]

You haven’t explained anything in details my friend, nor have you provided any proper evidences. Let’s cut to the chase and get to the crux of it. You first said the PH vs. CN court case judges have “ulterior motives” against China and dont want the accused China to benefit.

Yes I have. I know what I posted, I am the one who posted it. You are misinterpreting what I am posting. And you are not reading my posts properly because I have explained it in my previous comment.

"Since the countries select their own arbitrators in the PCA and China is not attending, the entire court is very likely biased against China. I don't think you would select an arbitrator that would likely go against you".

You have only posted some articles questioning how the ICJ were administered. Then you posted some past court cases between UK, Albania, etc. Then you argued that these are evidences for your speculations. But as I have explained, and its easy to see, these articles and cases do not support your speculations it is likely scenario (1) over the other possible scenario. From those articles and cases, you could also argue it is scenario (2) where the motive is against the Philippines, or other scenario.

That's because you cannot abstract from general ideas. 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 despite the issues I raised in my previous posts, the ruling was made against Albania. But like nearly every idea put forth, this is obviously not without its criticisms.

Therefore, we know that the court has partiality issues, can make unfair rulings, and have also pandered to Western aligned nations before, despite in my view they were not "innocent". It could happen again. I'm rather surprised you want this to be explained to you. You can critique this speculation as much as you want, but it's not a random guess, but the basis for this speculation is constructed from past cases and peer reviewed academic papers.

 

[William Hung]

Yes I have. I know what I posted, I am the one who posted it. You are misinterpreting what I am posting. And you are not reading my posts properly because I have explained it in my previous comment.

"Since the countries select their own arbitrators in the PCA and China is not attending, the entire court is very likely biased against China. I don't think you would select an arbitrator that would likely go against you".

I have already mentioned that your comment about China’s non-attendance is new and I can (and will) address it later because it is also flawed. But you have only made this comment about China’s non-attendence in your previous post. Before your previous post, you have been declaring in your numreous postings that those “peer reviewed articles” and past cases were evidences for the scenario that you were speculating. You said you can make extrapolations from those articles and those past cases to postulate the scenario that you were speculating. So explain how this could be done using the articles and cases that you have posted. You haven’t made any explanation on how this extrapolations and postulations can be done, and its easy to see that its not possible, which is why you have until now avoided my challenge to explain how it is possible.

Making justifications from China’s non-attendance is very flawed and I will expand on this later, you have only begin to use this justification in your previous post. But I want you to first explain how you could make an extrapolation from those articles and past cases you posted to postulate and speculate that the judges have ulterior motives and don’t want China to benefit. How did you do this using those articles and past cases? You have only declared that this could be done but avoided explaining how it could be done. So please explain, stop avoiding this.

That's because you cannot abstract from general ideas. 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 despite the issues I raised in my previous posts, the ruling was made against Albania. But like nearly every idea put forth, this is obviously not without its criticisms.

Therefore, we know that the court has partiality issues, can make unfair rulings, and have also pandered to Western aligned nations before, despite in my view they were not "innocent". It could happen again. I'm rather surprised you want this to be explained to you. You can critique this speculation as much as you want, but it's not a random guess, but the basis for this speculation is constructed from past cases and peer reviewed academic papers.

So this is your logic and explanations???

You saying that UK win over Albania was biased, that UK is a western power while Albanian not western-aligned power, therefore you made an extrapolation to say that the international courts have a bias and ulterior motives against China because she is also a non-western aligned power.

This is such flawed and juvenile logic. There are easy counter examples against your reasoning and “extrapolations”. Don’t you know that there have been many cases ruled against a western country in favour of a non-western country?? In fact, the Philippines’ lawyer Paul Reichler have previously won a case for Nicaragua against the US.

So give me proper explanations on how you could make extrapolations from those past cases (or your mentioned articles) to claim evidences for your speculations. Don’t tell me this “UK=west/Albania=non-western/China=non-west=China will lose” logic was your only explanation. lol. So much for touting your abstract thinking ability and my lack of it and that I could only see things in black and white. Seems like its the opposite. So please give me other explanations, if you can, otherwise I will just keep smiling.

 

[Genesis]

Interesting thread. It's interesting because after some thought I came to the conclusion that the only reason people like to give a thousand reasons is that they have no actual solution.

I seen pople say, China MUST leave, China will be defeated, people will hate China, China will this and that. Never had I seen anyone have anything specific on HOW they plan to achieve any of that, I mean in the world we live in, not Disney world.

It's a straight forward problem. When China had a problem with transportation, it didn't wait and discuss. We realized the problem, got the funds together and made the HSR happen. Some other countries will take their sweet time, even though they have far worse problems.

If you have no solution, just say that. No shame in it, China is more than 10 times your size, only natural we should have more power.

China only needs one answer and it's the same as the Americans. Join us or die. Saddam chose wrong.

 

[Wolfwind]

I have already mentioned that your comment about China’s non-attendance is new and I can (and will) address it later because it is also flawed. But you have only made this comment about China’s non-attendence in your previous post. Before your previous post, you have been declaring in your numreous postings that those “peer reviewed articles” and past cases were evidences for the scenario that you were speculating. You said you can make extrapolations from those articles and those past cases to postulate the scenario that you were speculating. So explain how this could be done using the articles and cases that you have posted. You haven’t made any explanation on how this extrapolations and postulations can be done, and its easy to see that its not possible, which is why you have until now avoided my challenge to explain how it is possible.

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 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.

Making justifications from China’s non-attendance is very flawed and I will expand on this later, you have only begin to use this justification in your previous post. But I want you to first explain how you could make an extrapolation from those articles and past cases you posted to postulate and speculate that the judges have ulterior motives and don’t want China to benefit. How did you do this using those articles and past cases? You have only declared that this could be done but avoided explaining how it could be done. So please explain, stop avoiding this.

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. I think this is why you're missing out on the value of what I posted, you're not looking at it abstractly enough. You are a concrete mind.

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.

You saying that UK win over Albania was biased, that UK is a western power while Albanian not western-aligned power, therefore you made an extrapolation to say that the international courts have a bias and ulterior motives against China because she is also a non-western aligned power.

This is such flawed and juvenile logic. There are easy counter examples against your reasoning and “extrapolations”. Don’t you know that there have been many cases ruled against a western country in favour of a non-western country?? In fact, the Philippines’ lawyer Paul Reichler have previously won a case for Nicaragua against the US.

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.

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.

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.

So yes, rulings have been made against non-Western countries, but there may confounding factors that you have not considered.

So much for touting your abstract thinking ability and my lack of it and that I could only see things in black and white. Seems like its the opposite. So please give me other explanations, if you can, otherwise I will just keep smiling.

No William Hung, you really are unable to form conceptual abstractions from a set of general principles to understand a serious speculation (formed on the basis of past ICJ cases and peer reviewed academic papers). You really do think in black and white and you are stubbornly concrete minded. Keep smiling all you want, because your concrete mind only limits you in your own thinking.

 

[biendong]

This demand is no joke.