Taiwan

[cradleandshoot]

I thought the new management installed strict new regulations to prevent trolling. I guess those rules are only enforced against one poster here and do not pertain to the buffet blimp.

If you are referring to Brooklyn on this topic, I think it's quite possible that he honestly believes what he's writing, meaning that's not trolling. I also don't think he's been posting things that are factually incorrect, he's just got a very different take on what they mean.

I vehemently disagree with his take on this, but I've been asking questions about how his logic applies to similar situations. I haven't gotten a clear answer on that aspect, but it does seem apparent that he thinks that 'capitalist' Taiwan is illegitimate whereas 'communist' PRC is legitimate...

I don't get his logic and will keep pressing that question.

Heck, I may learn something.

We have a difference of opinion here. There is a reason why the buffet blimp is the only person on this forum I will never engage with in any way, shape or form. IMO he is a mentally deranged psychopath. If you choose to waste your time doing so.. knock yourself out.

You sure do spend a lot of time whining about him.

Not as much as you whine about Pete. You do know the blimp is on my ignore list?

I often confront Petey directly.
Sometimes a polite disagreement, sometimes even in agreement, sometimes I say he's trolling....when that's what he's doing. Which has been a lot. Less so since his return from the doghouse, but he's slipping back at a times. IMO.

You claim to 'ignore' Brooklyn yet you mention him constantly, disparagingly.

Your out of your mind MD. The only time I obliquely mention the blimp is when the nut case inserts himself into other people's conversations. The fact you say I mention him constantly is asinine on your part. When I do you are correct I mention him in as disparaging terminology as this forum will allow. You need to do your homework MD and admit your wrong. You do a search and report back how often I ever refer to the blimp. I suggest you stop misrepresenting my words and go back to beating up Pete.

[Brooklyn]

I often confront Petey directly.
Sometimes a polite disagreement, sometimes even in agreement, sometimes I say he's trolling....when that's what he's doing. Which has been a lot. Less so since his return from the doghouse, but he's slipping back at a times. IMO.

You claim to 'ignore' Brooklyn yet you mention him constantly, disparagingly.

Exactly. I wonder what my fate would have been if I had engaged in all those personal attacks like he does. Remarkably he remains fully aware of what I write despite his continued insistence that I am on his IGNORE list.


As for our discussion of history, if you can show me any proof that Formosa has not been a part of the Chinese empire since the 1700s (ironically enough during the Qing dynasty which was Manchu) I shall gladly read your documentation.

[MDlaxfan76]

I often confront Petey directly.
Sometimes a polite disagreement, sometimes even in agreement, sometimes I say he's trolling....when that's what he's doing. Which has been a lot. Less so since his return from the doghouse, but he's slipping back at a times. IMO.

You claim to 'ignore' Brooklyn yet you mention him constantly, disparagingly.

Exactly. I wonder what my fate would have been if I had engaged in all those personal attacks like he does. Remarkably he remains fully aware of what I write despite his continued insistence that I am on his IGNORE list.


As for our discussion of history, if you can show me any proof that Formosa has not been a part of the Chinese empire since the 1700s (ironically enough during the Qing dynasty which was Manchu) I shall gladly read your documentation.

"Chinese empire"...are you saying that the PRC is the inheritor of all that is/was "the Chinese empire"?

1895, Japan took over the island, if I'm not mistaken.

Again, these are all "usurpers".

[PizzaSnake]

I often confront Petey directly.
Sometimes a polite disagreement, sometimes even in agreement, sometimes I say he's trolling....when that's what he's doing. Which has been a lot. Less so since his return from the doghouse, but he's slipping back at a times. IMO.

You claim to 'ignore' Brooklyn yet you mention him constantly, disparagingly.

Exactly. I wonder what my fate would have been if I had engaged in all those personal attacks like he does. Remarkably he remains fully aware of what I write despite his continued insistence that I am on his IGNORE list.


As for our discussion of history, if you can show me any proof that Formosa has not been a part of the Chinese empire since the 1700s (ironically enough during the Qing dynasty which was Manchu) I shall gladly read your documentation.

"Chinese empire"...are you saying that the PRC is the inheritor of all that is/was "the Chinese empire"?

1895, Japan took over the island.

Again, these are all "usurpers".

Possession is nine points of the law. Who has the "title"?

Of course, perhaps common law tradition is a bad lens through which to view an Asian land dispute...

[Brooklyn]

"Chinese empire"...are you saying that the PRC is the inheritor of all that is/was "the Chinese empire"?

1895, Japan took over the island, if I'm not mistaken.

Again, these are all "usurpers".

The usurpers in Formosa are forbidden to use the name "China". This is why they use "Chinese Taipei" during international sporting events. That's all the proof you need to show that Beijing is the rightful heirs to the ancient Chinese empire.

[MDlaxfan76]

"Chinese empire"...are you saying that the PRC is the inheritor of all that is/was "the Chinese empire"?

1895, Japan took over the island, if I'm not mistaken.

Again, these are all "usurpers".

The usurpers in Formosa are forbidden to use the name "China". This is why they use "Chinese Taipei" during international sporting events. That's all the proof you need to show that Beijing is the rightful heirs to the ancient Chinese empire.

ha!
Or they have bigger guns...

Seriously? You really think they have ownership rights to areas they haven't controlled for decades because...some ancestors may have controlled it?

Again, how would you apply that to other situations around the world?

[PizzaSnake]

"Chinese empire"...are you saying that the PRC is the inheritor of all that is/was "the Chinese empire"?

1895, Japan took over the island, if I'm not mistaken.

Again, these are all "usurpers".

The usurpers in Formosa are forbidden to use the name "China". This is why they use "Chinese Taipei" during international sporting events. That's all the proof you need to show that Beijing is the rightful heirs to the ancient Chinese empire.

ha!
Or they have bigger guns...

Seriously? You really think they have ownership rights to areas they haven't controlled for decades because...some ancestors may have controlled it?

Again, how would you apply that to other situations around the world?

Like say, Native Americans? Where did they come from? Somewhere in Eurasia. So Eurasia "owns" the Americas? This seems like a tenuous line of reasoning, at best.

Depending on your preference for earliest human ancestor, Lucy (Africa) or Peking Man (artifacts lost circa WW2), either Africa or Asia has a claim on everything. The whole enchilada.

See how risible reductio ad absurdum arguments are? Where to stop, I wonder?

[Brooklyn]

ha!
Or they have bigger guns...

Seriously? You really think they have ownership rights to areas they haven't controlled for decades because...some ancestors may have controlled it?

Again, how would you apply that to other situations around the world?

The rest of the world? The rest of the world recognizes Beijing as the true capitol of China. Why hasn't it controlled Formosa for decades? Because the USA gave money and military support to tyrant Chiang when the vast majority of Chinese supported Mao.

Some ancestors?? What claim did Chiang have to Formosa???

[MDlaxfan76]

ha!
Or they have bigger guns...

Seriously? You really think they have ownership rights to areas they haven't controlled for decades because...some ancestors may have controlled it?

Again, how would you apply that to other situations around the world?

The rest of the world? The rest of the world recognizes Beijing as the true capitol of China. Why hasn't it controlled Formosa for decades? Because the USA gave money and military support to tyrant Chiang when the vast majority of Chinese supported Mao.

Some ancestors?? What claim did Chiang have to Formosa???

His Chinese ancestors?

Come on Brooklyn, none of these folks have a pure claim of legitimacy.

And you keep dodging my question. How does your logic apply to other situations around the world?

[Brooklyn]

His Chinese ancestors?

Come on Brooklyn, none of these folks have a pure claim of legitimacy.

And you keep dodging my question. How does your logic apply to other situations around the world?

There once was a dictator who stole lands and wealth from others. He took over a country without the authority to do so and killed quite a few people along the way. He declared that God was on his side despite all the evil he committed and he appealed to the governments of the world seeking support and justification for his actions. His disciples built up statues in his name, wrote books proclaiming him as the nation's messiah, and continue to praise him to this day.

Am I talking about Chiang Kai Chek?

Not really. Was actually thinking about Jefferson Davis.

[MDlaxfan76]

His Chinese ancestors?

Come on Brooklyn, none of these folks have a pure claim of legitimacy.

And you keep dodging my question. How does your logic apply to other situations around the world?

There once was a dictator who stole lands and wealth from others. He took over a country without the authority to do so and killed quite a few people along the way. He declared that God was on his side despite all the evil he committed and he appealed to the governments of the world seeking support and justification for his actions. His disciples built up statues in his name, wrote books proclaiming him as the nation's messiah, and continue to praise him to this day.

Am I talking about Chiang Kai Chek?

Not really. Was actually thinking about Jefferson Davis.

Could say the same of George Washington.

That's the problem with your logic...the legitimacy of a government is not determined by prior claim, nor by strength of force (though this is what gets acknowledged internationally), but rather by the degree of free consent of the population governed.

Which ultimately, is why authoritarian forms of government, in which consent is forced, have the least legitimate claim to continue to govern...though they receive international recognition.

[Brooklyn]

Could say the same of George Washington.

That's the problem with your logic...the legitimacy of a government is not determined by prior claim, nor by strength of force (though this is what gets acknowledged internationally), but rather by the degree of free consent of the population governed.

Which ultimately, is why authoritarian forms of government, in which consent is forced, have the least legitimate claim to continue to govern...though they receive international recognition.

Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence. The governments imposed by the British crown were dissolved by others. They did so legitimately as we have discussed on earlier threads. Davis had no such authorization and neither did Chiang.

[MDlaxfan76]

Could say the same of George Washington.

That's the problem with your logic...the legitimacy of a government is not determined by prior claim, nor by strength of force (though this is what gets acknowledged internationally), but rather by the degree of free consent of the population governed.

Which ultimately, is why authoritarian forms of government, in which consent is forced, have the least legitimate claim to continue to govern...though they receive international recognition.

Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence. The governments imposed by the British crown were dissolved by others. They did so legitimately as we have discussed on earlier threads. Davis had no such authorization and neither did Chiang.

So, what if Washington wasn't a signatory?
He was the revolutionary general put in charge of the revolutionary army.

And Chiang was something else?

You do realize that he was the general who 'unified' China and was leader of the government that controlled most of China for quite awhile? I'm fine with calling him a bad guy, given the bloody purges (of communists), but it's not as if Mao was a saint and somehow the more legitimate ruler of all or part of China of the two.

Of course, the Taiwan gov't has long claimed that they are the rightful rulers of all of China...well, good luck with that...

I get it that you prefer communism to capitalism, but lets not confer legitimacy based upon which ideology one prefers...the degree of legitimacy is best weighed by the degree of free consent of the governed.

And in Taiwan it's not the PRC...

btw, exactly what "governments were dissolved" by the Declaration of Independence? Not the British government. It was a rebellion that had it been successfully put down, as many rebellions are, would have resulted in those 'seditionists' being hanged by the Brits...Washington included, absent a decision by the Brits to be generous. In other words, not likely.

[Brooklyn]

British tyrants had no claim over their so called "colonies". Their tyrannical rule was dissolved. Washington was a hero which Chiang could never be. Mao was far more of a unifier than he ever was. The vast majority of China's people agree as does the UN. Beijing has every right to march into Taipei and to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. Same thing the Blue Coats did when they marched into Richmond to remove traitor Jefferson Davis.