Yao Ming Rejected for Taiwan Charity Visit, China Times Reports

For you I have added the question that it was a response to. Statemednt/Response = fully contiguous, self-contained text.

If you think I can do more, please let me know.

If you want me to add 3 or 4 pages of conversation to place it in some grand historical context, I'm afraid I am kind of prevented from doing that by the vBBS software and I am sure that it not be looked upon kindly if I could do it.

Also note that to this point he hasn't claimed that he doesn't want what he said he wanted in his response. Just that I somehow tricked him into saying it or something along those lines.

EDIT:

Since he has included my statement line in his signature, I have trimmed mine down to avoid repetition and a very long signature.

 

In other words, you are debated into a corner and the only thing you can do now is name calling.

It might be a reasonable question to you, but I'd be insulted if some random person asks me that question because I have never done anything to warrant such a strong accusation. Imagine that someone asks the Pope at a news conference on whether he's going to rape his altar boys, I'd be surprised if the Pope wasn't outraged.

Ok, think about what you've just said. On the one hand, you acted so out raged and accused me for being jingoistic and xenophobic when you implied that China may want to commit genocide to the Japanese, and I replied that China doesn't want genocide, but we do want to disarm Japan and remove its fascist and militaristic politicians. On the other hand, you think it's perfectly fine when it was implied that you may cheat, and you replied that you don't want extra-marital sex, but you do want extra-marital oral sex. So, it seems that to you, it's not immoral to desire for extra-marital oral sex, but it's jingoistic and xenophobic to desire for the disarming of a country that not only committed terrible war crimes not so long ago, but also still harbors considerable right wing fascist sentiments among its top politicians. You are rather strange ...

You think it's too much to ask for the current Japanese Emperor to offer an apology on behalf of his deceased father who was responsible for his country's WW2 atrocities but never punished and never offered an apology? I don't know what to say except that we have rather different ideas about the need of taking responsibilities.

 

No, it is very clear to me that I was providing an example by way of an analogy to show that someone who asks questions is not to blame for the answers that are received. You think I was accusing China's leaders of being criminals. One of us is right and the other is wrong, and no more talk on the subject will resolve this. I am trying to avoid name calling.

If someone asked it out of the blue you are probably right. This, however, occurred in the context of the conversation - i.e. if the press was conducting an interview on the Church and its history of buggering little boys, it is suddenly germane. And in the end, if the Pope is asked a question and feels it is innapropriate, he says "I don't want to talk about that."

In my estimation, the type of question that would have been the 'smearing question' would have been something like, "Do you want to rape the Japanese before or after you commit genocide." Can you see the difference between the two? One can be answered easily, the other can not.

And now that I really look at it, I wasn't even asking a question at all, so how was it that I tricked you into answering this non-question?

I hope this is just a minor mistake on your part. They certainly happen to us all and I don't want to fault you for that. But when I start a phrase with the word "if", then I am not stating something but exploring hypothetical situations.

What I wrote was:

I can say "If were 250 centimeters tall, I would dunk on Shaq." By saying this, I am in now way indicating that I am really 250 centimeters tall. You seem to be missing a number of the contextual cues inherent in the English language here.

AGAIN. For the third or fourth time I was pointing out a slightly misstated fact, not claiming anything else or providing a train of logic that results in absence of guilt for the current Emperor.

In fact I agree with panda that the emperor should apologize for his predecessor’s crimes. But to me precision in discussing actual facts is important. Continuing to ignore that is a strawman.

 

It may be clear to you, but not to other people. Telling someone that they are on the path of committing genocide to another race is not an analogy, not matter how you twist it. Normal people just don't ever entertain the idea of genocide, period. You didn't refer to the leaders of China either, you implied the entire Chinese people.

I'm right, you are wrong.

Is this before or after you called me an ass?

What context warrants the possibility of China committing genocide? It's like that two people are arguing over a traffic accident and you step up and say to the victim: "Gee, if you cannot agree on the compensation, the only thing you can do is killing him and taking all his money". Do you think this is appropriate?

Again, you demonstrate your lack of common sense. It's inappropriate to ask an innocent person whether he's gonna commit a crime, no matter what the context is. It's like, you are sitting in a park talking to a man about how his brother committed a crime of sexual nature, then you casually slip in the statement "So, are you gonna abuse your own children?". It is not an appropriate question to throw around freely.

Did I say you tricked me into answering a question? I was comparing your statement with smearing questions.

Again, there are things that you just don't hypothesize freely, and genocide is one of these things which you should never ever suggest. It's like saying "If Ottomaton could get away with it, then he would cheat on his partner", or "If the Nazi had won WW2, the Holocaust would have been alright". Do you think these "contextual cues inherent in the English language" make these explorations of "hypothetical situations" acceptable?

Again, why did you point out that fact? What point were you trying to prove? Were you arguing for or against an apology from the Emperor of Japan?

 

Maybe you would call that person a hypocrite, but someone who understands the word would not. A hypocrite is one who professes beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess. A person who murdered one person (for whatever reason, money, jealousy, road rage, whatever) could certainly find a serial killer who has killed many people for no reason repugnant then profess those honest and deeply held beliefs.

Outside of a small minority located mostly in the middle east, they probably would. America allows people to freely practice their religion, and has many Muslims. China is an avowed athiest country, which runs counter to Muslim beliefs.

Yes, when I freely express my opinion, others are freely allowed to criticize it. That doesn't take away my right to say something, it just shows that exercising that right can have consequences.

Functionally, the passports of Taiwan operate like any other independent nation's passport. You were the one who brought up passports, and the only thing in your post that goes anywhere in the direction of connecting Taiwan and China was that the passport are for the Republic of China, and that has the word China in it. The fact that they have passports that are not PRC passports but nevertheless have the word China on them does not make them a part of China.

I just read the Constitution of the Republic of China and at no point does it say it was founded to serve China. In fact, the word China only appears as part of the name Republic of China, the mainland is not even referenced. It does say, however, that the NATIONAL BOUNDARIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly. So, according to the Constitution of the Republic of China, it is an independent nation.

That point is certainly debatable. In effect you are espousing a might makes right philosophy. In that circumstance, a military coup is a legitimate means to alter the government. Setting that aside, let's go ahead and use that theory of governance. And so, the people of Taiwan have rebelled against China. They have set up a government, they have their own military. They conduct foreign affairs. They have become the legitimate government of Taiwan.

I (and others) have already explained this to you, yet you ask again while at the same time complain about me being repetitive. China has a lot of economic power, mostly by virtue of being a huge market and a source of cheap labor. Other countries want access to that market to sell their exports and that labor to buy cheap imports. China has made it clear that if you want to deal with them, the price is to not recognize Taiwan (btw, even if a country caves to this pressure, Taiwan still allows that country to deal normally with them). That is how they bullied the USA, Japan, Korea, British[sic], France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austrailia[sic], Canada into agreeing with her "undisputable[sic]" right over Taiwan. It isn't because they actually think Taiwan is part of China. The government of the US didn't wake up one day and suddenly realize, "Hey, we've been recognizing the wrong government for China. Our bad."

 

You do realize that the republic of China was established in 1911 in mainland China and ruled mainland China until it was kicked out of mainland China by the communists in 1949?

You do realize that when the Constitution of the ROC was written, there was no divide between Taiwan island and mainland China because Taiwan was occupied by the Japanese at the time and it wasn't returned to ROC until 1945 when ROC was still the legit government of mainland China? The term "mainland" was used to distinguish PRC from HK, Macao and Taiwan, so why would it be in the constitution of ROC which ruled the mainland when the constitution was written?

Since the constitution of ROC was written (with the participation of representatives of the Tibetan lamas I might add) to cover the entire China, and its people, then wouldn't that imply the "national assembly" actually referred to the representatives for the entire Chinese population? So how could the representatives of 21 million people make a decision for the entire 1.4 billion Chinese?

China is one independent nation but it has two competing governments occupying different parts of its territory.

Again, see the model of one-country-two-systems. It is perfectly fine for Taiwan to have its independent local government, have its own military or even conduct its own foreign affairs, but it still doesn't necessarily make it an independent country.
HK and Macao are examples of this system and they have been doing fine since their returns. PRC has promised to make the system even more flexible for Taiwan.

Well, you certainly have a point there. But you see, if other countries such as the US hadn't interfered with China's civil war and protected Taiwan in 1949, the communist army would have already taken Taiwan and dismantled ROC and we wouldn't be having this debate now.

And please don't make other countries out to be the innocent victims of China's bullying. China didn't force them with its military might to not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The other countries wanted something from China, and not recognizing Taiwan was one of the things that China asked for return. Every single country you mentioned entered into the agreement with China on their own free will, and they can pull out at any time on their own free will too. So please don't make China look like the only "bad guy" here.

 

Wrong again. A murderer who criticize serial killers without self reflection is a hypocrite. Try to address issues at hand instead of dodging it.

Is that why many Mulisms in many countries protest against the America?

You don't have the social right to make derogative stereotypes against an ethnic group like Chinese.

Functionally, Hong Kong's passports operate like any other independant nation's passport. A passport that belongs to China means it's a property of China.

The name of Republic of China says it's a regime that serves China.

The mainland was referenced as the various provinces in the constitution.
The ROC is not a nation anymore, just an former regime on exile on China's Taiwan province.

When a legit government is overthrown by its people, it becomes not legit. ROC is an illegit regime overthrown by the Chinese people creating segregation inside of China.

ROC as an illegit regime fled to China's province Taiwan. The ROC is not set up by Taiwanese(at the time of its foundation Taiwan was still under Japan's control, but by Chinese.

LMAO. Congrat sir, your lack of common sense caused you to lose track of the meaning of the word "bully". You say China is bullying over 100 countries in the world because she says recognizing Taiwan and no business with you. BS. So I see, in your crazy mind a guy doesn't want to have a relationship with you because you make friends with people he/she have issues with is bullying you. It's official, you SM, are one crazy son of a gun. Honestly, I don't think I have met a person more ridiculous than you in the last ten years.

 

Newplayer:

For the sake of keeping your sanity, I think you should refrain from keeping a discussion with a delusional maniac.

Sincerely,

Panda.

 

Very true. That doesn't change the fact that it doesn't say it was founded to serve China. The closest it comes is to call for a government, of the people, by the people, and for the people (I wonder where they got that from )

They wouldn't. The mainland obviously doesn't go by the constitution anymore, so it stands to reason that it would cover only Taiwan.

It would have, except the communists didn't want it that way. The mainland is breaking or has broken just about every article of the constitution, which was written by their enemies while they were at war.

This is the party line, yes. Over here in reality they are two independent nations that make BS claims on each other's territory.

If it walks like a duck....

I am sure Taiwan could do fine if unified with China too. That has no bearing on it's status as an independent country. Cuba would do fine if it became part of the US, but that doesn't mean Cuba is in America.

If France hadn't helped protect America in the 1770's, maybe the Red Coats would have put down the rebellion and Britain would still run the colonies. Also, if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. The world doesn't turn on what could have happened.

I never said they were forcing them to do it militarily, they are in effect buying non-recognition of Taiwan. Come to think of it, they are doing basically the same thing people were making fun of Taiwan for doing a few pages back. Just as Liberia or whoever recognized Taiwan of their own free will for money, so to have the US, et al. agreed to recognize the One China policy for money.

 

Says who? Has the ROC government had any formal consultation with the government of PRC about the problems with the ROC constitution? Have they even entertained the idea of sharing power?

Are you a communist? How do you know what the communists wanted or didn't want? ROC hasn't formally given up its claim of the mainland, who are you to decide what they want?

BS claims? You are free view the history of your country as BS, but don't apply the same attitude to other people's history.

Same logic goes for all your arguments too.

Has Cube ever been part of the US? No? Don't compare apples with oranges then.

Well, I guess it's alright for PRC to clean up the mess left by the US then. What are you complaining about?

Well, at least PRC doesn't pay ransom money to countries for their recognition ... unless you call mutual free trade as ransom, or maybe you are calling the 100sth countries that don't recognize Taiwan spineless greedy bastards.

 

Don't want to derail, but some of the HK people I know are painting a slightly different picture. It would seem that there is an under-current and a feeling that the current government are too much of an extension of the central government and not putting HK's best interest forward. I think there are also some policies in the past two years curtailing liberties that I know didn't sit well with some the HK populous.

Again I don't know if it's just a one sided interpretation, but to say that things are all honkie-dorie might be to big of genralization. Though one thing to point out is that most HK people that dislike some government actions are still fairly nationalistic and sees themselves as Chinese. It would seem that HKers that are critical of the mainland gov't are more to do with actual policies while TW people that are critical really wants nothing to do with mainlainders at all.

 

I think some people are viewing the tragedy under the context of war, but the systematic brutality upon Japanese soldiers goes beyond any Western concept of polite warfare. It goes beyond gassing people with chemical weapons or sending infantry and cavalry through machine gun fire like in WW1. Like Paris, Nanking was declared an open city. Yet Hitler didn't let his soldiers loose in some attempt to break the will of the French.

A more appropriate context would be under the treatment the Africans and Native Americans recieved during the age of imperialism, where the value of human life was reduced to nothing. The Japanese carried out their crimes against humanity with the best science and industry had to offer at that time. It's just an event that's hard for any observer to grasp in their mind.

It's because of this that WW2 goes beyond any previous war Japan had with China. There's no way any victim nation will move on until Japanese leaders admit the ****ed up **** their predecessors committed and put it in writing for their children to learn.

 

I don't get your argument because you had been claiming that the PRC could blockade and occupy Taiwan if they wanted to so that qualifies that they have sovereignity over Taiwan. Soveriegnity isn't determined by whether you can conquer a country it is determined by who ultimately makes the political decisions in that country.

 

You can keep on saying it is Chinese land but that doesn't mean that Taiwan and the PRC are one country. England could claim that the US is on British land too but that is a claim with no practical basis. You are mistaking rhetoric for what the situation is in fact.

FACT is that the PRC and the ROC operate as seperate countries not one country with two systems since neither IN FACT has sovereignity over the other.

 

Just to follow my last point since I don't have the edit function back. The fact that neither Taiwan or the PRC function as one country doesn't mean they couldn't unify at some point or whether they should or should not unify. I am merely pointing out that it is a fiction made for political purposes to claim that there is one single nation of China encompassing both. There is a historical territory that at one time was a single political entity but that doesn't exist at the moment.

 

Before the Iraq war the Kurds had their own territory and government. Did that make them a country?

There are many regions on earth where a part of a country is controled by an armed group while another is controled by a different faction. I do not hear people say thes regions are seperate countries.

 

Who says the PRC doesn't follow the constitution? For starters you might want to check articles 7, 11, 13, 15, and 17.

How do I know the commies didn't want the constitution to apply to all of what comprised China at the time? I could tell by their actions. They fought a war to remove the framers from power and proceeded to set up a government in violation of that constitution.

Yes, BS claims. Claims that are unenforceable. No matter how many times the government in Taiwan claims sovereignty over the mainland, it doesn't make it so, and vice versa. It has nothing to do with history, it has to do with current events. Basing it on history would be like saying Italy has the right to claim all of Europe and half of Asia, or like saying Osama bin Laden is right and the Islamic Caliphate has the right to the Ottoman Empire complete.

 

I'm also just pointing out, that the notion of "independant functionality is the deciding factor in sovereignty dispute" is flat out wrong. Sure, every legit nation has independant functionality, one MAJOR caveat though, is this fact doesn't work reversely, that every entity with independant functionality is an independant nation. In fact, independant functionality is not a deciding factor in establishing territorial rights, let alone establishing independance of nations.

If independant functionality is the deciding factor in establishing territorial rights, then Al Queda's terrirists camps that functions as independantly should've already declared that they own part of Pakistan, and Taiwan Segregationists should've already declared that they own part of China. Sorry, neither lunacies are happening in the real world because the world has enough sense to confront this travesty of robbery logic - independant functionality establishes a country as independant functionality can be, and is being, realized through unlawful segreation.

Taiwan as a country because it mimics independant functionality is just a fiction, a self wished whim, a fairy tale based robbery logic that tries to justify the fallacy of its propagators.

 

Exactly what's your problem with the articles regarding the economy and property ownership and inheritance?

Well, the intention of the communists was, is and has always been to apply the PRC constitution to the entire China, including Taiwan, and the same goes for the ROC government. So, it doesn't matter which constitution you follow, Taiwan is still defined as part of China.

That's a total BS argument. PRC's claim on Taiwan is totally enforceable and it's so evident -- Taiwan has not formally declared independence from China, and the moment they do (which they probably never will), it will be dealt with by the PRC military, here is your enforcement.

Italy cannot possibly lay claims to all of Europe and half of Asia because Italy as a united country has only been in existence for a couple of hundred years and the present day Italy cannot possibly represent the Roman empire, oh, plus all the wars that the Roman empire lost and the treaties they signed after their defeats.

Well, what can I say? Your views of people like you reflects ignorance and arrogance.

Except that there is a treaty signed by the Japanese returning Taiwan to the sovereignty of ROC. You wouldn't happen to have one of those signed between US and the previous owner of Cuba, would you?

Ok, so you are complaining that PRC hasn't taken Taiwan back by force but still claim Taiwan is part of China? Fine, complaints accepted and I expect you to support PRC when it takes appropriate actions to address your complaint.

So now you are saying that all the countries that don't recognize Taiwan are greedy bastards who care more about their self interest than the truth, and all the countries that do recognize Taiwan, such as Liberia, are just crapholes.

Or, there is a simpler and more logical explanation: Taiwan is not an independent country.