Welcome to China.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2013, 03:08 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 03:04 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 02:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is the mark of a totalitarian government - it cannot bear criticism.

Hey, party and government, I think the way you guys handle the 1989 Tiananmen Square thing is quite bad, and I have said similar things on this forum quite a few times. --- HU.Junyuan, a communist member and a citizen.

Look, that's a public criticism.

Let's see whether you are wrong again, Chas ...

No, real criticism. Not pissant criticism.

Real criticism - demonstrations, petitions, etc.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 03:15 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 02:34 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 01:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  He was breaking the law by disclosing what he disclosed. That is why he didn't do it in Washington.

He signed a contract that required him to keep quiet about the work he was doing.

Is this too sophisticated for your mental capabilities ?

Such good free speech environment so that Snowden didn't want to try any legal solution first ? Is he determined to break the law even if he apparently has other means to reach his goal ?

It's so funny that you stopped talking about free speech, freedom and human right, and started to talk about law.

Then why do you support this Nobel Peace Prize Winner broke the law and was sentenced guilty ? Isn't it too hypocritical of you to do so ? Are your legally qualified to judge which law is law and which law isn't law ?

Too sophisticated for your mental capabilities after all, I think.

You are a very dishonest debater. You have been from the start.

What law did Liu Xiaobo break? Was it a just law?

I brought up the law in response to your question about Snowden.
Did Snowden have a legal means to speak out against what he thought was wrong-doing by the U.S. government?
Probably not, given that he had a security clearance and had signed an agreement not to disclose the information. By disclosing, he broke the law.

He did not break a law about criticizing the government; we have no law against criticizing the government.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-06-2013, 04:40 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 03:04 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  Hey, party and government, I think the way you guys handle the 1989 Tiananmen Square thing is quite bad, and I have said similar things on this forum quite a few times. --- HU.Junyuan, a communist member and a citizen.

Look, that's a public criticism.

Let's see whether you are wrong again, Chas ...

No, real criticism. Not pissant criticism.

Real criticism - demonstrations, petitions, etc.

OK, Chas, you are being slippery again.

You only said "criticism", you didn't say that "true criticism" is the key instead of "pissant criticism".

And who are you to set standards for "true criticism" and make the judgement call ?

I told you already, this is called "obsession of overreaching", didn't I ?

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 05:05 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 04:40 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, real criticism. Not pissant criticism.

Real criticism - demonstrations, petitions, etc.

OK, Chas, you are being slippery again.

You only said "criticism", you didn't say that "true criticism" is the key instead of "pissant criticism".

And who are you to set standards for "true criticism" and make the judgement call ?

I told you already, this is called "obsession of overreaching", didn't I ?

You really are an asshole, not interested in honest discussion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 05:11 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2013 02:02 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 02:34 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  Such good free speech environment so that Snowden didn't want to try any legal solution first ? Is he determined to break the law even if he apparently has other means to reach his goal ?

It's so funny that you stopped talking about free speech, freedom and human right, and started to talk about law.

Then why do you support this Nobel Peace Prize Winner broke the law and was sentenced guilty ? Isn't it too hypocritical of you to do so ? Are your legally qualified to judge which law is law and which law isn't law ?

Too sophisticated for your mental capabilities after all, I think.

You are a very dishonest debater. You have been from the start.

What law did Liu Xiaobo break? Was it a just law?

I brought up the law in response to your question about Snowden.
Did Snowden have a legal means to speak out against what he thought was wrong-doing by the U.S. government?
Probably not, given that he had a security clearance and had signed an agreement not to disclose the information. By disclosing, he broke the law.

He did not break a law about criticizing the government; we have no law against criticizing the government.

I am indeed greatly impressed by your dishonesty, Mister, a stunning thing for your age. If people read my "Ask a communist" thread, they will find that I tried to be as friendly as possible to you at the beginning. And you are the one with ill intention before we even started a conversation. Shame on you !

================================================================================​====

You avoided answering this question again (OMD, how many times have you done so today?):

"Are you legally qualified to judge which law is law and which law isn't law ?"

Modify it a little bit:

"Mr. Chas, are you legally qualified to judge which law is just and which law isn't just ?"

================================================================================​====

And is your answer to this question impeachment, if you ever truly answered? ("Have you done your research and found out which way the Nobel Peace Prize winner called for to transit China from one-party rule to multiple-party rule? Violence or impeachment? ") If so, that will be more than ridiculous.

================================================================================​====

Most importantly, you should have asked "What law did Liu Xiaobo break?"

YOU DON'T KNOW?

And based on this "I don't know" you have been advocating for his innocence, are you justified to do so?

================================================================================​====

Last, Chas, please read carefully what I wrote:

Quote:Such good free speech environment so that Snowden didn't want to try any legal solution first ? Is he determined to break the law even if he apparently has other means to reach his goal ?

This doesn't mean "speak out against what he thought was wrong-doing by the U.S. government" (your words) and definitely has nothing to do with " given that he had a security clearance and had signed an agreement not to disclose the information" (your words).

Look, I said "legal", read after me, L-E-G-A-L, if you please.

So, you people are free to criticize the government, yet unable to find a practical legal way to report what he/she thought was wrong-doing by the U.S. government (at least in this Snowden case), which you said also violates your 4th amendment, AND YOU ARE FEELING PROUD ABOUT THAT, MR. CHAS? (If not, answer my questions directly in the above quote !)

================================================================================​====

BTW, " Censored off, I answered it" is a coward way to evade answering hard questions. OK, I know, you are beyond save on this aspect.

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 05:14 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2013 05:23 PM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 05:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 04:40 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  OK, Chas, you are being slippery again.

You only said "criticism", you didn't say that "true criticism" is the key instead of "pissant criticism".

And who are you to set standards for "true criticism" and make the judgement call ?

I told you already, this is called "obsession of overreaching", didn't I ?

You really are an asshole, not interested in honest discussion.

My sorriness for your family education, I mean, how you are educated about picking proper words to say in public.

And please answer this question:

"And who are you to set standards for "true criticism" and make the judgement call ?"

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 05:22 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 05:11 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 03:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  You are a very dishonest debater. You have been from the start.

What law did Liu Xiaobo break? Was it a just law?

I brought up the law in response to your question about Snowden.
Did Snowden have a legal means to speak out against what he thought was wrong-doing by the U.S. government?
Probably not, given that he had a security clearance and had signed an agreement not to disclose the information. By disclosing, he broke the law.

He did not break a law about criticizing the government; we have no law against criticizing the government.

I am indeed greatly impressed by your dishonesty, Mister, a stunning thing for your age. If people read my "Ask a communist" thread, they will find that I tried to be as friendly as possible to you at the beginning. And you are the one with ill intention before we even started a conversation. Shame on you !

You avoided answering this question again (OMD, how many times have you done so today?):

"Are you legally qualified to judge which law is law and which law isn't law ?"

Modify it a little bit:

"Mr. Chas, are you legally qualified to judge which law is just and which law isn't just ?"

And is your answer to this question impeachment, if you ever truly answered? ("Have you done your research and found out which way the Nobel Peace Prize winner called for to transit China from one-party rule to multiple-party rule? Violence or impeachment? ") If so, that will be more than ridiculous.

Most importantly, you should have asked "What law did Liu Xiaobo break?" YOU DON'T KNOW? And based on this "I don't know" you have been advocating for his innocence, are you justified to do so?

Last, Chas, please read carefully what I wrote:

Quote:Such good free speech environment so that Snowden didn't want to try any legal solution first ? Is he determined to break the law even if he apparently has other means to reach his goal ?

This doesn't mean "speak out against what he thought was wrong-doing by the U.S. government" (your words) and definitely has nothing to do with " given that he had a security clearance and had signed an agreement not to disclose the information" (your words).

Look, I said "legal", read after me, L-E-G-A-L, if you please.

So, you people are free to criticize the government, yet unable to find a practical legal way to report the wrong-doing by one's belief, which you said also violates your 4th amendment, AND YOU ARE FEELING PROUD ABOUT THAT, MR. CHAS? (If not, answer my questions directly in the above quote !)

BTW, " Censored off, I answered it" is a coward way to evade answering hard questions. OK, I know, you are beyond save on this aspect.

It is clear you have not understood my answers. We are done.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 05:39 PM (This post was last modified: 15-06-2013 01:46 AM by HU.Junyuan.)
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 05:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 05:11 PM)HU.Junyuan Wrote:  I am indeed greatly impressed by your dishonesty, Mister, a stunning thing for your age. If people read my "Ask a communist" thread, they will find that I tried to be as friendly as possible to you at the beginning. And you are the one with ill intention before we even started a conversation. Shame on you !

You avoided answering this question again (OMD, how many times have you done so today?):

"Are you legally qualified to judge which law is law and which law isn't law ?"

Modify it a little bit:

"Mr. Chas, are you legally qualified to judge which law is just and which law isn't just ?"

And is your answer to this question impeachment, if you ever truly answered? ("Have you done your research and found out which way the Nobel Peace Prize winner called for to transit China from one-party rule to multiple-party rule? Violence or impeachment? ") If so, that will be more than ridiculous.

Most importantly, you should have asked "What law did Liu Xiaobo break?" YOU DON'T KNOW? And based on this "I don't know" you have been advocating for his innocence, are you justified to do so?

Last, Chas, please read carefully what I wrote:


This doesn't mean "speak out against what he thought was wrong-doing by the U.S. government" (your words) and definitely has nothing to do with " given that he had a security clearance and had signed an agreement not to disclose the information" (your words).

Look, I said "legal", read after me, L-E-G-A-L, if you please.

So, you people are free to criticize the government, yet unable to find a practical legal way to report the wrong-doing by one's belief, which you said also violates your 4th amendment, AND YOU ARE FEELING PROUD ABOUT THAT, MR. CHAS? (If not, answer my questions directly in the above quote !)

BTW, " Censored off, I answered it" is a coward way to evade answering hard questions. OK, I know, you are beyond save on this aspect.

It is clear you have not understood my answers. We are done.

Your reply is what I call dishonesty, insincerity, cowardice and sophistry.

Since you are OK with such despicable characteristics, nothing more I will have to say.

Have a nice evening. I hope you will.

[Image: em90.gif]

Want something? Then do something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 05:43 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
The Nobel peace prize is a joke and is purely a political ideological tool of the west. Obama won it, and he hasn't closed Guantanamo, now can kill people without trial, and hold people indefinitely without trial, and has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all past presidents combined. When someone wins the Nobel peace prize the first question one should ask is. How much does he support imperialism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes I and I's post
14-06-2013, 05:49 PM
RE: Welcome to China.
(14-06-2013 05:43 PM)I and I Wrote:  The Nobel peace prize is a joke and is purely a political ideological tool of the west. Obama won it, and he hasn't closed Guantanamo, now can kill people without trial, and hold people indefinitely without trial, and has prosecuted more whistle blowers than all past presidents combined. When someone wins the Nobel peace prize the first question one should ask is. How much does he support imperialism?

The award to Obama was a farce--he hadn't achieved anything as president when given the award. I do give Obama credit though for showing what a farce it was by giving a speech about justifiable war for his acceptance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: