Wolfwind
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 217
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
First of all, your "case opened" and "case closed" phrases clearly don't mean anything, because I know you will continue to respond to me. So you can't even abide by your own rules that you make, which to me is actually hilarious given the topic of discussion and given that you were previously accused of acting like a self-entitled arbiter.
The petty fussing over semantics is a blatant red herring. You're also starting to resort to straw man arguments (actually that was basically all your summary of this discourse you posted earlier). I think you might have missed it but here is the link again:
Realise | Define Realise at Dictionary.com
Importantly, Bulgaria is not a counter example. I can't be bothered to argue this issue with you any further because you don't even get it. I will post it one last time, but after that you are just going to have to agree to disagree. The court found / realised / brought to fruition / concluded (or whatever nitpicking concrete minded term you prefer) that they had no jurisdiction on it. If you wanted to show a counter example then that would include Bulgaria receiving a ruling it acted in accordance to self defence. It is inappropriate because it is not an analogue of the Albania case.
Palestine is not a threat to Western hegemony so you can't really use that as any sort of example for whatever you were trying to disprove.
Your point is actually wrong though. While I don't mind talking about it, you were being dramatic when confronted with rationale (rather than regurgitating), which was completely unnecessary. There are many paradigms that interact. I said you should not focus on a concrete case to understand an abstract model. That doesn't work. Your application was erroneous.
But I'm asking you what we might expect. What do you think we might expect? Or you're unable to even come up with any possibilities of your own? You can't even think for yourself but must wait for the final judgement to be made for you to talk about it. Are you that much of a concrete mind?
That's why your approach is not even desirable for discourse. No thoughts, no concepts of your own, or anything. Just regurgitating copypastas and commentary on the final judgement. Any comments you make about the judgements aren't going to be very fascinating or inspiring.
It's not about "backing up claims" (which is simplistic and concrete minded), but the rationale and how I arrived to form my postulations. I am continuously addressing the content but you are continuously confusing yourself; I have explained many times why its fruitless to apply linear reasoning on a nonlinear paradigm
It's clear you are getting confused. How many times do I have to repeat myself? What I have been posting is not just the basis of my rationale. You are operating under the assumption that what I have posted is finite; most systems are nonlinear in nature.
I have not been ignoring it. You just have trouble understanding how what I've posted answers your question. Your reasoning skill is haywire since you're assuming components derived from linear information are going to fit into a paradigm that is nonlinear in nature.
No you just don't get it. I have been answering everything but you don't understand how what I've posted ties into the crux of the issue, due to your concrete mindset.
No I haven't dodged anything, ever. It's just your failure to understand the content of what I posted. And the case is never going to be closed because you can't even stick by your own rules. You will keep "reopening" and "reclosing" the case like some crazy, controlling, self-entitled arbiter
Case re-opened.
The court made a Judgment of jurisdiction for that case, meaning they examined both arguments and objections of Israel and Bulgaria before issuing the Judgment, 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.
The petty fussing over semantics is a blatant red herring. You're also starting to resort to straw man arguments (actually that was basically all your summary of this discourse you posted earlier). I think you might have missed it but here is the link again:
Realise | Define Realise at Dictionary.com
Importantly, Bulgaria is not a counter example. I can't be bothered to argue this issue with you any further because you don't even get it. I will post it one last time, but after that you are just going to have to agree to disagree. The court found / realised / brought to fruition / concluded (or whatever nitpicking concrete minded term you prefer) that they had no jurisdiction on it. If you wanted to show a counter example then that would include Bulgaria receiving a ruling it acted in accordance to self defence. It is inappropriate because it is not an analogue of the Albania case.
Case re-opened.
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 it was unfair.
Palestine is not a threat to Western hegemony so you can't really use that as any sort of example for whatever you were trying to disprove.
Case re-opened.
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.
Your point is actually wrong though. While I don't mind talking about it, you were being dramatic when confronted with rationale (rather than regurgitating), which was completely unnecessary. There are many paradigms that interact. I said you should not focus on a concrete case to understand an abstract model. That doesn't work. Your application was erroneous.
As for the legal consequences, like I said before, I will discuss the legal consequences once the court issued its final judgment.
But I'm asking you what we might expect. What do you think we might expect? Or you're unable to even come up with any possibilities of your own? You can't even think for yourself but must wait for the final judgement to be made for you to talk about it. Are you that much of a concrete mind?
That's why your approach is not even desirable for discourse. No thoughts, no concepts of your own, or anything. Just regurgitating copypastas and commentary on the final judgement. Any comments you make about the judgements aren't going to be very fascinating or inspiring.
This rambling just re-confirm what I said earlier. Still 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.
It's not about "backing up claims" (which is simplistic and concrete minded), but the rationale and how I arrived to form my postulations. I am continuously addressing the content but you are continuously confusing yourself; I have explained many times why its fruitless to apply linear reasoning on a nonlinear paradigm
Now trying to introduce additional issue like “the Western media being biased against China” when this was not the topic discussed in tgis thread.
It's clear you are getting confused. How many times do I have to repeat myself? What I have been posting is not just the basis of my rationale. You are operating under the assumption that what I have posted is finite; most systems are nonlinear in nature.
If you had this much time rambling on side topic, then why not use that time to address the main issue of this debate? For the longest, 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.
I have not been ignoring it. You just have trouble understanding how what I've posted answers your question. Your reasoning skill is haywire since you're assuming components derived from linear information are going to fit into a paradigm that is nonlinear in nature.
- You then talk/bragged about your abstracted “larger paradigm”. I then challenge you to list the many “cases” you’ve claimed you have used to 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 are doing in your previous post.
No you just don't get it. I have been answering everything but you don't understand how what I've posted ties into the crux of the issue, due to your concrete mindset.
That says it all, you are just dodging the main issue of this “debate”.
Case closed.
No I haven't dodged anything, ever. It's just your failure to understand the content of what I posted. And the case is never going to be closed because you can't even stick by your own rules. You will keep "reopening" and "reclosing" the case like some crazy, controlling, self-entitled arbiter
Last edited: