Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Chinese pres to become emperor? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Perhaps not but it does preclude America from taking the moral high ground when by any measure it's crimes are more egregious.

    That's a bit reaching isn't it?

    Arguably neither is America nor many other countries that preach this spiel - a liberal democracy generally doesn't execute ts citizens, run torture camps or depose democracies but there we go. Equally the argument can be made - and frequently is - that the party in china rules via quid pro quo in that it promises astounding economic success in return for rule, so far its holding up its end of the bargain.
    This is leaving aside the fact china is, by all accounts, unable to be a democracy - the late president of Singapore summed it up nicely when he said if china went democratic it would implode.
    ...Using a de facto dictator's words to justify dictatorship is...ineffective. Are you going to quote The Pope in support of theocracy?

    We are not the United States, I am not the United States. I'm at a loss as why the USA not being able to stand on the moral high ground has anything at all to do with this discussion. And once again, 2 wrongs don't make a right, and ever if you do think that, China has already had its turn in being a big bully - if that's what you said was "reaching", then I have to assume you haven't studied Chinese history at all. At least not anything before the Republic of China.

    If you're going to make such a hard claim that "China is, by all accounts, unable to be a democracy", you will need to actually make some arguments.

    Taiwan is a democracy, South Korea is a democracy, Japan is a democracy. They all shared the very similar oriental/Chinese culture. Have they exploded?

    India has about the same amount in population as China has. The US is the third-most populous country on Earth, and it is a democracy. Have they exploded?

    So why would it have exploded? And what do you mean by "explode", anyway? Well, in any case, they have had some real explosions now under the CCP's rule.

    Beijing doesn't claim to have the right to rule due to its economic successes. It never has. Not only has it been quite disastrous in delivering economic success during most of the time in its existence, but they claim they have the mandate to rule because they have the people's support. And, if this is how you justify Beijing's rule, then why is Dr Xi given more and more power in a time when the economy has slowed down rapidly? Shouldn't the reverse be done to "punish" the ruler for not delivering as much as they did before?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It was amusing listening to radio 4 news this evening at 5pm, they had a lot of discussion on this move by the Chinese Communist Party and various apologists from China trying to claim it was all just routine and nothing to worry about. (One brave dissident inside China was quoted as trying to organise a petition against it - he is expecting to be sent back to prison for this outrageous act shortly.)

    It's very difficult not to see this as a full return to Maoist autocracy by Xi Jinping. At the very least, he and the leadership are confirming their absolute power and denying even the possibility of another system or leadership. All this from a government that has never once put itself up for election to the people.

    We should move away from trading with China, apart from stocking Poundland and enabling Apple and Samsung and Nike to exploit cheap labour, all it really seems to achieve is cementing this totalitarian dictatorship in place. It's time to review the entire relationship with China and start insisting they offer their people genuine democracy or else bow out of the list of nations we do business with. We also need to put a stop to their ghastly 'New Silk Road' programme and their interference in Africa and elsewhere in Asia.
    Samsung produces their products in Vietnam.

    Naturally, the UK, as well as the rest of the world, will be moving away from trading with China anyway - its wages have gone up but skills have not. Innovation is also limited due to the people not really having any freedom to do much.

    The world is moving towards India, Vietnam, and Bangladesh; not to mention countries like Brazil, Pakistan, Mexico, Nigeria all have the potential to become global factories.

    China is facing a hugely uncertain economic future. On the one hand, its industries are stalling due to the rising wages without the skills; on the other, Beijing is unwilling to deliver the rule of law or economic freedom, 2 of the most important things in attracting foreign investments in order to grow. This is why China is so desperately trying to become a leader in free trade (and why President Obama built up TPP as an economic weapon against China), because that's quite literally the last big thing they can do.

    If they keep the government corruption and continue to not impose the rule of law, they are never going to do anything bigger than Latin America (adjusted to their populations, of course; and LatAm also has the issue of protectionism).

    It's thus very interesting that this is the path Winnie the Pooh has decided to take politically, as he will have to allow for more corruption for his supporters, and to undermine the rule of law even further in order to remain in power forever.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Latest list of banned words in China: (translated by me)

    吾皇 (my king/emperor)
    万岁 (long live the emperor)
    登基 (coronation)
    称帝 (declare himself emperor)
    劝进 (don't know what this is)
    袁世凯 (the aforementioned general who made himself emperor)
    复辟 (restore the monarchy)
    向天再借五百年 (borrow 500 years more from heaven/god)
    信女愿一生吃素 (believe a woman, stay vegan the entire life?)
    动物庄园 (animal farm, the book)
    N
    终身制 (office for life)
    移民 (emigrate)
    习近P (the president's name)
    登机 (cognate to "coronation")
    不同意 (disagree)
    昏君 (bad sovereign)
    戊戌 (this year using traditional Chinese year naming system - the same year in the cycle used to be the year of an emperor's failed reforms - he was imprisoned by Empress Cixi until he was murdered)
    张勋 (the warlord who restored the monarchy briefly)
    年号 (name of the year - an imperial thing)
    黄袍加身 (being made an emperor - a reference to the story of the Song first emperor who claimed he was appointed emperor suddenly by his soldiers)
    袁大头 (I guess this was the nickname for the general who made himself emperor)
    洪宪 (I don't know what this is)
    1984 (the book)
    小熊维尼 (winnie the pooh)


    https://chinadigitaltimes.net/chines...D%89%E4%B9%A0/
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    ...Using a de facto dictator's words to justify dictatorship is...ineffective. Are you going to quote The Pope in support of theocracy?
    I'm sorry who am i quoting ?
    We are not the United States, I am not the United States. I'm at a loss as why the USA not being able to stand on the moral high ground has anything at all to do with this discussion. And once again, 2 wrongs don't make a right, and ever if you do think that, China has already had its turn in being a big bully - if that's what you said was "reaching", then I have to assume you haven't studied Chinese history at all. At least not anything before the Republic of China.
    You don't say dear :rolleyes:
    No i was calling your 'argument' of harking back several centuries reaching. I feel i was being a tad too generous there, it is absolutely preposterous not to mention lazy.
    If you're going to make such a hard claim that "China is, by all accounts, unable to be a democracy", you will need to actually make some arguments.

    Taiwan is a democracy, South Korea is a democracy, Japan is a democracy. They all shared the very similar oriental/Chinese culture. Have they exploded?

    India has about the same amount in population as China has. The US is the third-most populous country on Earth, and it is a democracy. Have they exploded?

    So why would it have exploded? And what do you mean by "explode", anyway? Well, in any case, they have had some real explosions now under the CCP's rule.
    Normally i'd call you out for this blatant and intellectually sub normal kind of sealioning but i'll indulge you.
    Taiwan and south Korea are not China, only a truly ignorant person would try and compare such different countries. Not least of all because China is, unlike the aforementioned, a huge and completely diverse country with differing ethnic, lingual and cultural groups across it. Take for instance the Uighurs, whom would immediately break away followed by Hong Kong, Tibet et al. Say what you want for the morals on keeping them or letting them go but unless you are the premier there it makes absolutely on difference.

    You do know an implosion isnt an explosion right?:rolleyes: Perhaps read what I said first.

    At any rate I was paraphrasing lee kuan kew there and by extension Daniel Elsburg - and no im not going to quote you the book, if you want to read the chapter be my guest but i'm afraid i am not going to type out a book for you.
    Beijing doesn't claim to have the right to rule due to its economic successes. It never has. Not only has it been quite disastrous in delivering economic success during most of the time in its existence, but they claim they have the mandate to rule because they have the people's support. And, if this is how you justify Beijing's rule, then why is Dr Xi given more and more power in a time when the economy has slowed down rapidly? Shouldn't the reverse be done to "punish" the ruler for not delivering as much as they did before?
    Says who? you? lol
    Yeah averaging 10pc or near enough in recent years is a terrible economic performance isnt it? :lol: Out of interest but where do you base these quite amusing opinions of yours? by every metric China is on course to overtake the US as the dominant economic power and if you use PPP as a measure it has over taken them.
    Again why are you saying i have said i have not? I simply put forward a widely used fact - this is what Beijing uses as its justification for rule and whether you like it or not the regime there has widespread support. there might be large elements who dont support the regime but they are still a minority.
    So what if its growth has slowed? that is completely irrelevant to my point as the economy is still growing very quickly compared to any comparable country.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    I'm sorry who am i quoting ?
    Weren't you quoting Prime Minister Lee?

    (Original post by Napp)
    You don't say dear :rolleyes:
    No i was calling your 'argument' of harking back several centuries reaching. I feel i was being a tad too generous there, it is absolutely preposterous not to mention lazy.
    That wasn't my argument at all. I don't think everyone should get their turn to being a bully. But you keep mentioning the fact that the US is a bully as if it's in any way relevant to this.

    (Original post by Napp)
    Normally i'd call you out for this blatant and intellectually sub normal kind of sealioning but i'll indulge you.
    Taiwan and south Korea are not China, only a truly ignorant person would try and compare such different countries.
    If we go by culture, Taiwan and Korea are similar to China. The one who's ignorant is you.

    (Original post by Napp)
    Not least of all because China is, unlike the aforementioned, a huge
    Population - similar to India, a democracy that hasn't exploded
    Size - similar to the US, a democracy that hasn't exploded; smaller than Canada, a democracy that hasn't exploded

    I literally dealt with this because I knew that's gonna be your argument.

    (Original post by Napp)
    and completely diverse country with differing ethnic, lingual and cultural groups across it.
    China ranks No 138 out of 159 countries by ethnic diversity. They are behind more than a handful of democracies.

    Do you know why? Because...

    (Original post by Napp)
    Take for instance the Uighurs, whom would immediately break away followed by Hong Kong, Tibet et al. Say what you want for the morals on keeping them or letting them go but unless you are the premier there it makes absolutely on difference.
    these areas form around 0.8%, 0.5%, and 0.2% of China's population.

    Letting them go would prevent China from exploding (although I'm not certain about Hong Kong, which culturally is a lot more similar to China than the ethnic minority regions are - given the choice, most Hongkongers would not vote to change its current status anyway), by not giving them the reason to stage terrorist attacks, making it easier to build a nation state.

    It's the exact same reason why Israel isn't annexing Palestinian territories despite their having basically full control of them right now (maybe not Gaza).

    (Original post by Napp)
    Says who? you? lol
    And who are you? You've been decreeing things like China can't have democracy just because, Beijing is a legitimate ruler because it agrees to deliver economic success.

    Unless you're actually a 5 center?

    (Original post by Napp)
    Yeah averaging 10pc or near enough in recent years is a terrible economic performance isnt it? :lol: Out of interest but where do you base these quite amusing opinions of yours? by every metric China is on course to overtake the US as the dominant economic power and if you use PPP as a measure it has over taken them.
    Again why are you saying i have said i have not? I simply put forward a widely used fact - this is what Beijing uses as its justification for rule and whether you like it or not the regime there has widespread support. there might be large elements who dont support the regime but they are still a minority.
    So what if its growth has slowed? that is completely irrelevant to my point as the economy is still growing very quickly compared to any comparable country.
    What a strawman argument. I didn't say it was bad, I said it wasn't as good as it was before, so logic has it they should have less power instead of more, if like you said the ruling relationship is "I give you money, you give me power", then "I now give you less money, you give me less power".

    Chinese GDP Growths -
    2017: 6.9
    2016: 6.7
    2015: 6.9
    2014: 7.3
    2013: 7.8
    2012: 7.9
    2011: 9.5
    2010: 10.6
    2009: 9.5
    2008: 9.7
    2007: 14.2
    2006: 12.7
    2005: 11.4
    2004: 10.1
    2003: 10

    The Xi years averaged a 7.12% growth. That's significantly lower than both a 10% average or Wu's average.

    I know where I get my facts and informed opinions from, and I know where you get your usual apologetic views from as well - the Chinese propaganda machine.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think Xi is (hopefully) wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Mao. Also in this era, I would think it's easier for people to revolt *if* Xi were to become Mao No. 2. Hence it's worth waiting to see, cautious optimism.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by singzeon)
    I think Xi is (hopefully) wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Mao. Also in this era, I would think it's easier for people to revolt *if* Xi were to become Mao No. 2. Hence it's worth waiting to see, cautious optimism.
    I think the only rebellion is from within the party.

    A life-long dictator could be seen by party members as the end of the party itself.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Weren't you quoting Prime Minister Lee?
    Paraphrasing but yes, you have some form of problem with the man?


    That wasn't my argument at all. I don't think everyone should get their turn to being a bully. But you keep mentioning the fact that the US is a bully as if it's in any way relevant to this.
    If you say so.

    If we go by culture, Taiwan and Korea are similar to China. The one who's ignorant is you.
    It's a good thing we're not then isnt it? Only a intellectually bankrupt person would try to use such a narrow measure.
    Again, if you say so
    Population - similar to India, a democracy that hasn't exploded
    Size - similar to the US, a democracy that hasn't exploded; smaller than Canada, a democracy that hasn't exploded
    You're forgetting one tiny little - detail China is neither of those countries. You are using the most insanely lazy and slap dash comparisons it beggars belief.

    I literally dealt with this because I knew that's gonna be your argument.
    Lol


    China ranks No 138 out of 159 countries by ethnic diversity. They are behind more than a handful of democracies.
    Again, why are you comparing the incomparable here? An apple is not an orange and China is not America, India, Japan, Korea etc. You're just being thoroughly academically dishonest in your 'arguments'

    these areas form around 0.8%, 0.5%, and 0.2% of China's population.

    Letting them go would prevent China from exploding (although I'm not certain about Hong Kong, which culturally is a lot more similar to China than the ethnic minority regions are - given the choice, most Hongkongers would not vote to change its current status anyway), by not giving them the reason to stage terrorist attacks, making it easier to build a nation state.
    why do you keep saying exploding? China isnt a stick of dynamite.
    To be perfectly honest with you your opinion on this is completely irrelevent - this is what the CCP believe and their opinion is what ultimately counts here.
    It's the exact same reason why Israel isn't annexing Palestinian territories despite their having basically full control of them right now (maybe not Gaza).
    Israel is entirely an annexed territory. Not to mention its gradually pilfering bits of the West Bank.

    And who are you? You've been decreeing things like China can't have democracy just because, Beijing is a legitimate ruler because it agrees to deliver economic success.
    I suggest you familiarize yourself with a dictionary, I have 'decreed' nothing - i have simply put forth the CCPs opinions on the matter.
    No I said I agree with Lees assessment that if China went democratic the state would splinter and China would cease to exist in its current form. Your only 'counter argument' for this is 'What about India [et al.] which to be honest isnt so much an argument a lazy fit of whataboutery.
    Well seeing as once again your opinion on what does or doesnt constitute a legitimate ruler is completely immaterial - not to mention near every single government in the world disagrees with you on that...
    Unless you're actually a 5 center?
    A what ?


    What a strawman argument. I didn't say it was bad, I said it wasn't as good as it was before, so logic has it they should have less power instead of more, if like you said the ruling relationship is "I give you money, you give me power", then "I now give you less money, you give me less power".
    I'm sorry, no you said it was 'disasterous' :lol:
    Chinese GDP Growths -
    2017: 6.9
    2016: 6.7
    2015: 6.9
    2014: 7.3
    2013: 7.8
    2012: 7.9
    2011: 9.5
    2010: 10.6
    2009: 9.5
    2008: 9.7
    2007: 14.2
    2006: 12.7
    2005: 11.4
    2004: 10.1
    2003: 10

    The Xi years averaged a 7.12% growth. That's significantly lower than both a 10% average or Wu's average.
    Whats your point? Are you forgetting one oversaw on the greatest economic bullmarkets in history and the other has been left with a globally sluggish economy?
    I know where I get my facts and informed opinions from, and I know where you get your usual apologetic views from as well - the Chinese propaganda machine.
    Yes, apparently Wikipedia :rolleyes:
    If you say so champ.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Paraphrasing but yes, you have some form of problem with the man?
    He is a de facto dictator/popular dictator. You are using the words of a de facto dictator to support dictatorship.

    (Original post by Napp)
    If you say so.
    You have yet to demonstrate how the US being a bully is in any way relevant. You even say "perhaps" two wrongs don't make a right. So what is it? You've lost the argument and just can't admit defeat?

    (Original post by Napp)
    It's a good thing we're not then isnt it? Only a intellectually bankrupt person would try to use such a narrow measure.
    I was saying that because you failed completely to provide arguments to support your claim that China would explode if given democracy.

    I had to consider of you being an actual racist who thinks Chinese (and by extension, oriental) culture isn't able to survive democracy.

    (Original post by Napp)
    You're forgetting one tiny little - detail China is neither of those countries. You are using the most insanely lazy and slap dash comparisons it beggars belief.

    Again, why are you comparing the incomparable here? An apple is not an orange and China is not America, India, Japan, Korea etc. You're just being thoroughly academically dishonest in your 'arguments'
    And after all these, you're still unable to provide actual arguments as to why "big and diverse" China can't have democracy.

    I've destroyed your argument on size. I've destroyed your argument on diversity. I've destroyed your argument on both size and diversity.

    And it's easy because you have failed to explain, even after so many hours, what makes China's size and diversity a unique problem, a unique barrier to it archiving democracy.

    (Original post by Napp)
    To be perfectly honest with you your opinion on this is completely irrelevent - this is what the CCP believe and their opinion is what ultimately counts here.
    Oh.

    So now we know when you say China can't have democracy, it's because the CCP wouldn't be able to stay in power. Yes, we agree on that. Well, next time have some qualifiers.

    (Original post by Napp)
    Israel is entirely an annexed territory. Not to mention its gradually pilfering bits of the West Bank.
    By getting Jewish people to move into those territories, and only annexing those that are already Jewish.

    The point is, if it'd have brought about prosperity and peace, Israel would've formally annexed the whole thing already, because it can. But it doesn't, because it wouldn't benefit the country as a whole, and that's why it's an evidence to support the view that nation states would be stabler than multi-ethnic states, ie China would be better off shaking off those ethnic minority regions (and build puppet governments in them. Well, in Tibet because of India. Maybe one in East Turkistan for the oil route. All the other ones aren't that important).

    (Original post by Napp)
    I suggest you familiarize yourself with a dictionary, I have 'decreed' nothing - i have simply put forth the CCPs opinions on the matter.
    No I said I agree with Lees assessment that if China went democratic the state would splinter and China would cease to exist in its current form. Your only 'counter argument' for this is 'What about India [et al.] which to be honest isnt so much an argument a lazy fit of whataboutery.
    And do you know why? Because you have failed to actually explain why its size and diversity make it a unique problem, a problem only China has.

    But now we know that what you meant was that the CCP would lose power. Then yes, we can certainly agree on that.

    (Original post by Napp)
    Well seeing as once again your opinion on what does or doesnt constitute a legitimate ruler is completely immaterial - not to mention near every single government in the world disagrees with you on that...
    Wrong.

    Linking economic success to the legitimacy to rule is your opinion, not mine.

    From a western point-of-view, the CCP certainly lacks the legitimacy (ie a democratic mandate) to rule. I'm perfectly aware of the fact that different cultures have different views on that, hence I used the word "questionable", and didn't make it as a main point at all, but as a side note.

    (Original post by Napp)
    Whats your point? Are you forgetting one oversaw on the greatest economic bullmarkets in history and the other has been left with a globally sluggish economy?
    That you are wrong.

    You were wrong about what the growth rate is, you were wrong about the growth rate under Xi's rule.

    That's all - you are wrong and I have provided receipts to prove that you are indeed wrong.

    And GDP is only one way of analyzing the economy. There's currency (stopped its upward trend since Xi takes office), there's debt (3x in 10 years, extremely unhealthy level), there's level of poverty, there's level of foreign investments (including how many factories and companies have moved in and out of China - they are now moving out).

    Even by limiting the economic performance to your very narrow definition, he is still doing worse than his predecessors did.

    Oh, and globally sluggish economy? I guess you're forgetting the fact that it happened in 2008 and he took office in 2013.

    If you weren't too embarrassed to read the evidence presented to you, there was a harsh drop in 2008, and in 2013, or at least by now, China should've recovered when the financial situation wasn't even there and the global economy has already recovered.

    The reality is that growths slowed even further. And now you've mentioned it, yes, it did make his performance even worse because he's supposed to have recovered from the 2008 slum by now, not further it.

    (Original post by Napp)
    Yes, apparently Wikipedia :rolleyes:
    If by Wikipedia, you mean "knowledge from people on the ground in China, numbers from both official and unofficial sources, analyses by well-informed Sinologists", then yes.

    (Original post by Napp)
    If you say so champ.
    If you didn't take your information from Chinese state media, perhaps they will sue you for copyright infringement.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    He is a de facto dictator/popular dictator. You are using the words of a de facto dictator to support dictatorship.
    I'm still waiting for your point? So what?



    I'm curious are you going to get around to proposing facts instead of conjecture and your own tawdry opinions? You have yet to make a single point backed up by a shred of evidence [no Wiki is not a source]
    Post something other than heresay and petty insults and i might debate you, until then bye bye
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Western Democracy does not work all your politicians are sell outs bought by billionaire oligarchs
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KiIlAntiWhites)
    Western Democracy does not work all your politicians are sell outs bought by billionaire oligarchs
    Like Putin is?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    I'm still waiting for your point? So what?
    Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy and is not in itself an argument or evidence for an argument.

    (Original post by Napp)
    I'm curious are you going to get around to proposing facts instead of conjecture and your own tawdry opinions? You have yet to make a single point backed up by a shred of evidence [no Wiki is not a source]
    Post something other than heresay and petty insults and i might debate you, until then bye bye
    Oh. Interesting. So you posted that the growths have been around 10% without any source at all, is not "heresay" or "conjecture and your own tawdry opinions"?

    The GDP growth slowing down can be easily found everywhere, such as the Financial Times. China's debt level being high is the opinion of the IMF. Factories leaving China is also reported by everyone, including just randomly picking a source, CNBC.

    It's laughable that while you have provided exactly 0 source or evidence whatsoever, I have given you one after another receipt, yet somehow I'm still the one who's offering hearsay "yet to make a single point backed up by a shred of evidence".

    I mean, I have to assume you have been typing this looking into a mirror.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Oh. Interesting. So you posted that the growths have been around 10% without any source at all, is not "heresay" or "conjecture and your own tawdry opinions"?

    The GDP growth slowing down can be easily found everywhere, such as the Financial Times. China's debt level being high is the opinion of the IMF. Factories leaving China is also reported by everyone, including just randomly picking a source, CNBC.

    It's laughable that while you have provided exactly 0 source or evidence whatsoever, I have given you one after another receipt, yet somehow I'm still the one who's offering hearsay "yet to make a single point backed up by a shred of evidence".

    I mean, I have to assume you have been typing this looking into a mirror.
    I'm sorry what do Yu have against my quoting the man?
    No strangely enough that was a ball park guess :rolleyes:
    Seeing as no one ever denied it was I'm confused as to what point you're trying (and failing) to make?
    Well that's an outright lie - I told you the sources and I told you to read them yourself as I am not typing up various book chapters for some dunderpate who thinks wiki is the dogs *******s of sources :lol:
    No I'm typing this drinking a beer on the beach, alas you of all people aren't going to trump my tanning I'm afraid.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    I'm sorry what do Yu have against my quoting the man?
    No strangely enough that was a ball park guess :rolleyes:
    Seeing as no one ever denied it was I'm confused as to what point you're trying (and failing) to make?
    Well that's an outright lie - I told you the sources and I told you to read them yourself as I am not typing up various book chapters for some dunderpate who thinks wiki is the dogs *******s of sources :lol:
    No I'm typing this drinking a beer on the beach, alas you of all people aren't going to trump my tanning I'm afraid.
    So now all your arguments have been destroyed, you're holding on to the one single irrelevant point, ie that you have provided a source for the quote. I pointed out, extremely specifically, clearly explicitly, that you didn't provide a source for your 10% growth claim. But reading is perhaps challenging for certain people.

    The quote doesn't add any arguments whatsoever as it's just one man's opinion. That is appealing to authority. That is a logical fallacy.

    Do you do logic?

    Supporting your view by simply quoting someone's opinion doesn't explain anything, unlike me giving you examples of countries that have democracies or providing you hard, solid numbers from reputable organizations such as the Financial Times (which isn't Wikipedia - btw that'd still be better than you and your "China averages 10% growth in recent year because I say so, even though I clearly know nothing".

    Interesting how you feel the need to bring up yet another irrelevant point that you are intoxicated on a beach, which further adds to the now obvious situation where you have been utterly destroyed by facts and figures, been thoroughly exposed for your hypocricy, and can do nothing other than saying more irrelevant nonsense no-one is interested in reading.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    So now all your arguments have been destroyed, you're holding on to the one single irrelevant point, ie that you have provided a source for the quote. I pointed out, extremely specifically, clearly explicitly, that you didn't provide a source for your 10% growth claim. But reading is perhaps challenging for certain people.
    If you say so babe
    I'm sorry i thought that was clear, to even the most dullwited person, that was a'guesstimate' i.e. something that doesnt need sourcing - i'm not sure how else someone would interprate 'around 10pc' :lol:
    [quote]The quote doesn't add any arguments whatsoever as it's just one man's opinion. That is appealing to authority. That is a logical fallacy.p/quote]
    Is this coming from the person who hasnt supplied any sources, as once again wiki is not a source :rolleyes:

    Supporting your view by simply quoting someone's opinion doesn't explain anything, unlike me giving you examples of countries that have democracies or providing you hard, solid numbers from reputable organizations such as the Financial Times (which isn't Wikipedia - btw that'd still be better than you and your "China averages 10% growth in recent year because I say so, even though I clearly know nothing".
    Seeing as the figures were never in dispute im still not certain what point youre trying to make?
    Interesting how you feel the need to bring up yet another irrelevant point that you are intoxicated on a beach, which further adds to the now obvious situation where you have been utterly destroyed by facts and figures, been thoroughly exposed for your hypocricy, and can do nothing other than saying more irrelevant nonsense no-one is interested in reading.
    I'm really starting to doubt your literary skills - nowhere did i say one was 'intoxicated'
    Of course babe.
    Well apparently you are...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    If you say so babe
    I'm sorry i thought that was clear, to even the most dullwited person, that was a'guesstimate' i.e. something that doesnt need sourcing - i'm not sure how else someone would interprate 'around 10pc' :lol:
    I didn't demand you provide your source, because I know your information is wrong. I provided the real numbers for you. You are welcome.

    (Original post by Napp)
    Is this coming from the person who hasnt supplied any sources, as once again wiki is not a source :rolleyes:
    (Original post by Napp)
    I'm really starting to doubt your literary skills - nowhere did i say one was 'intoxicated'
    Of course babe.
    Ironic because you are the one whose literary skills were too low to spot the 3 sources (Financial Times, IMF, and CNBC) I used 22 hours ago to support my claim that the economy is going downhill.

    Oh, and not only did you respond to that post, you responded to my follow-up that pointed out the fact that I used the Financial Times among others as my sources.

    So yes, you are the one who hasn't supplied any sources, I am the one who has supplied multiple.

    If your next post continues to deny this obvious, verifiable fact, I can only repeat this over and over again: I have provided multiple reputable sources to verify my claim, you have never.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I didn't demand you provide your source, because I know your information is wrong. I provided the real numbers for you. You are welcome.
    Try not to lie now.
    I'm not sure how you can call a ball park guess 'wrong', out yes but not wrong.


    Ironic because you are the one whose literary skills were too low to spot the 3 sources (Financial Times, IMF, and CNBC) I used 22 hours ago to support my claim that the economy is going downhill.
    Slowing growth does not mean the economy is going down hill sunshine. Not to mention you have failed to specify exactly what about it is going down hill.

    So yes, you are the one who hasn't supplied any sources, I am the one who has supplied multiple.
    Please stop lying...
    If your next post continues to deny this obvious, verifiable fact, I can only repeat this over and over again: I have provided multiple reputable sources to verify my claim, you have never.
    You provided a source relating to an economic slow down which for all intents and purposes is completely irrelevant to the argument that you seem to believe the Chinese government is illegitimate when all facts strongly beg to differ.
    To be honest though kid you're apparently from Hong Kong SAR so i'd imagine you're somewhat unfit to debate this as you cant see the wood for the trees.
    ETA: And for someone who complains about petty insults, it's interesting how you have continued using the same lie over and over again just so you can insult. I believe you are what people called a "hypocrite". Maybe an "illiterate person" as well, if you have read my two posts closely (judged by the fact that you broke them up to quote), yet were still unable to see the linked sources, twice.
    Why are you still harping on about sources? If this was an essay I might concur it needs referencing - alas it is not and it doesnt. I'm sure since you 'apparently' went to Oxford you have the initiative to use that mighty fine invention called the interweb to see that nothing i have said is a simple fabrication - not to mention i have told you the book to read so please stop all this lying and try to debate like an adult.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Try not to lie now.
    I'm not sure how you can call a ball park guess 'wrong', out yes but not wrong.



    Slowing growth does not mean the economy is going down hill sunshine. Not to mention you have failed to specify exactly what about it is going down hill.


    Please stop lying...

    You provided a source relating to an economic slow down which for all intents and purposes is completely irrelevant to the argument that you seem to believe the Chinese government is illegitimate when all facts strongly beg to differ.
    To be honest though kid you're apparently from Hong Kong SAR so i'd imagine you're somewhat unfit to debate this as you cant see the wood for the trees.

    Why are you still harping on about sources? If this was an essay I might concur it needs referencing - alas it is not and it doesnt. I'm sure since you 'apparently' went to Oxford you have the initiative to use that mighty fine invention called the interweb to see that nothing i have said is a simple fabrication - not to mention i have told you the book to read so please stop all this lying and try to debate like an adult.
    I repeat: You are the one who hasn't supplied any sources, I am the one who has supplied multiple. That is a fact.

    Take you own advice and "stop all this lying and try to debate like an adult".

    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    The GDP growth slowing down can be easily found everywhere, such as the Financial Times. China's debt level being high is the opinion of the IMF. Factories leaving China is also reported by everyone, including just randomly picking a source, CNBC
    ---

    One second you acknowledged the obvious fact that I did provide a source for my claim that the economy is slowing down and has many signs of danger, another second you claimed that I "lied". Right.

    Perhaps be consistent next time?

    ---

    And in a final pathetic attempt to "win" the argument, you've resorted to attacking for my background, casting doubt over my qualifications, and calling me a "kid".

    Not to mention I have stated very explicitly that the point about their legitimacy to rule was merely a side point, and I based it on how western liberal democracies define it (by having a democratic mandate), I even then said that I understood not all cultures saw it the same way, so I used the word "questionable". Oh wait - unless you mean you want me to provide a source that the CCP never won an election?! You know, I'd think people who want to debate on this topic would have some basic knowledge on what's going on. But I guess not!

    Why is it so difficult for you to admit defeat, Mr Adult?

    In fact, you know how a child would respond to your post? They would respond by saying things like "you're lying" ever as they acknowledge the fact that that wasn't a lie, and they would say "all I said was right I don't need no sources but you are simply wrong!!!" like you did.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    I repeat: You are the one who hasn't supplied any sources, I am the one who has supplied multiple. That is a fact.

    Take you own advice and "stop all this lying and try to debate like an adult".



    ---

    One second you acknowledged the obvious fact that I did provide a source for my claim that the economy is slowing down and has many signs of danger, another second you claimed that I "lied". Right.

    Perhaps be consistent next time?

    ---

    And in a final pathetic attempt to "win" the argument, you've resorted to attacking for my background, casting doubt over my qualifications, and calling me a "kid".

    Not to mention I have stated very explicitly that the point about their legitimacy to rule was merely a side point, and I based it on how western liberal democracies define it (by having a democratic mandate), I even then said that I understood not all cultures saw it the same way, so I used the word "questionable". Oh wait - unless you mean you want me to provide a source that the CCP never won an election?! You know, I'd think people who want to debate on this topic would have some basic knowledge on what's going on. But I guess not!

    Why is it so difficult for you to admit defeat, Mr Adult?
    for 3 reasons
    1] Because you're wrong
    2] Because you come across as a thoroughly unpleasant little person who doesnt take it well some one disagrees with them
    3] Because you're rather boorish.

    oh and 4 - because you seem to have a perverse interest in sources for an only debate. Tell me would you demand someone at a debating competition provide you with a bibliography?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.