What's new

Obama demands halt to South China Sea island building

You are probably thinking I was making my own interpretation. So lets cut to the chase and look at an interpretation and judgment of the international court: go to this link of the ICJ website, download the 2012 summary of a judgement for the Nicaragua vs. Colombia case (which is quite similar to the LTE dispute between PHL vs CN case:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=124&code=nicol&p3=5

Download the last (september 2012) summary. Then read the bottom of the first page where it clearly says this:


“1. Whether the maritime features in dispute are capable of appropriation. Before addressing the question of sovereignty, the Court must determine whether the maritime features in dispute are capable of appropriation. It is well established in international law that islands, however small, are capable of appropriation. By contrast, low-tide elevations (features which are above water at low tide but submerged at high tide) cannot be appropriated, although a coastal State has sovereignty over low-tide elevations which are situated within its territorial sea, and these low-tide elevations may be taken into account for the purpose of measuring the breadth of the territorial sea.”

In case you don’t know, “appropriation” in this legal context means acquiring ownership of lands/islands that was previously either unclaimed or claimed by another party.

And like I said, UNCLOS only allows sovereignty claim over LTE if they are within the territorial sea of the coastal state.

My question still stands. Which UNCLOS article stated that country cannot claim LTE beyond its costal water? Following is the excerpt from the case of Bahrain vs Qatar in the UN Juridical Yearbook.

"International treaty law is silent on the question whether low-tide elevations can be considered to be "territory". Nor is the Court aware of a uniform and widespread State practice which might have given rise to a customary rule which unequivocally permits or excludes appropriation of low-tide elevations. It is only in the context of the law of the sea that a number of permissive rules have been established with regard to low-tide elevations which are situated at a relatively short distance from a coast. The few existing rules do not justify a general assumption that low-tide elevations are territory in the same sense as islands."

China has no obligation to abide by the case precedence established purely by the ICJ base on interpretation that's beyond the text of the UNCLOS.


Looks like you are not informed about the PHL vs. CN arbitration case. The Phil is claiming that reefs like Mischief and some other are on their continental shelf. Please read the those PHil vs CN court documents, they are available on the net.

Below are the submissions to Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. Only Philippine submission is related to the Benham Rise region. If Philippine did claim continental shelf in SCS, it would not qualify according to the definition of continental shelf.
SUBMISSIONS TO THE CLCS


First of all, FON can happen anywhere, not just in the high seas. Everyone has FON rights through any seas, including EEZ or even territorial sea. So FONOP principle do not only depend on that article about high seas, all the other provisions about EEZ, etc. give everyone FON rights.

Again, we are talking about the SCS, Obama was talking about the SCS, and we all know that China is not claiming “high seas right” to justify their island building. Never have and probably never will. Why? because that same article has a clause saying that high seas does not fall under the sovereignty of anyone. And China has already officially claimed sovereignty over the 9 dash lines anyway (but never clarify what kind of sovereignty, and exactly what area, because they can’t prove it).

So in “US perspective”, China is not claiming “high sea rights” but sovereignty rights, so its no problem for them to troll you and tell you to stop building and at the same time claiming that they are sailing across international water. Simply because they know China won’t appeal to high seas rights and that China does not have the legal support to appeal to sovereignty rights either.

The question should be whether US see the SCS as high sea or not, as there are many statements by the state department claiming that it is. The party making the demand should apply the standard it abides by, not the standard of the party being demanded upon. Whether its China or someone else that US making the demand upon is besides the point, as US claims to be the neutral party. Is that too difficult to understand?
 
He is too sensitive. By the way, even a recent HK series I watched the actress said, "BULL SHIT!" William Hung/ Black Flag/ will cry if he watched the pg 13 series

So who is Black Flag? Is that William Hung's account too?

I think China should increase SCS island building. Obama demands stop to SCS island building, Xi Jinping should demand increase in size and magnitude of SCS island building.
 
Last edited:
He is too sensitive. By the way, even a recent HK series I watched the actress said, "BULL SHIT!" William Hung/ Black Flag/ will cry if he watched the pg 13 series

That william hung previously had a different username until he changed it to the current one with a new avatar. He was very upset after he learned that BoQ77 got permanently banned from the East Asian section :lol:
New Viet port a clue to Kra Canal? | Page 2
 
well this will prove to the world that china is arrogant nation

No because China and Chinese see Xi Jinping as their leader and not Obama. So only if Xi Jinping (or other Chinese authority) says to stop building then it will stop. But Xi Jinping has not said to stop island building so it will continue in full force.
 
No because China and Chinese see Xi Jinping as their leader and not Obama. So only if Xi Jinping (or other Chinese authority) says to stop building then it will stop. But Xi Jinping has not said to stop island building so it will continue in full force.

Again that is sign of pure arrogance
 
No because China is not servile to Obama. That is not arrogance, that's called respecting yourself.

Exactly sir. :enjoy:

If they REALLY want us to stop building, they're either going to have to do something about it directly, or persuade us in some other way.

And even then it will only delay the island-building.
 
Excuse me William Hung but it is a fundamental truth that no matter how unbiased someone thinks they are, they are subconsciously biased and that's not their fault. That's why there's no point pretending that you're a neutral analyst while acting like a voice of reason, when you're not.

Read my conversation again with Zsari from the beginning, where did I said Im a “neutral analysts”? I said I’m only making comments, and if you think my comments are wrong, I said I would welcome you to raise it up and dispute my comments.

So far, you have barely contributed to the contents of our discussion. At least Zsari and I was focussing on the contents of the debate such as those specific legal clauses that we were originally discussing about. On the other hand, you didn’t focus much on the contents but just commented on how myself and every other humans are biased and opinionated. Its pretty much an ad hominen attack if you ignore the contents of the debate and rather focus on the character of the debaters.

Likewise with the PHL vs. CN arbitration case. You cried foul over their socalled biased ulterior motives but haven’t explained how their decisions are so. The Arbitration judges have already issued their jurisdictional rulings, so can you explain how those rulings are unfair and wrong? Can you list each rulings and explain how wrongful it is? Or are you going to ignore the contents of the rulings and can only try to tarnish the reputation if the judges instead?

What if the arbitration judges say “1+1=2”, are you just going to dismiss that factual content and conclude that what they have said is wrong because they have biased ulterior motives? If you concede that the contents of what they say can be correct (e.g. 1+1=2) and that we must judge and analyse their words independent from their character, then I would expect you to do the same here in your rhetorics. Discuss the contents of what I said, the contents of the rulings made by the arbitration judges, and if you think those contents are wrong, then explain it. Don’t just try to focus on character assassination attempts.


Further, I am not the first one to cite impartiality issues of the ICJ; this has been given serious academic discussion. And no, it is not my job to do any independent research for you. Research it yourself. I will however provide you with some links and papers to get you started.

Nothing is in black and white, but more levels of grey; this paper discusses bias at the ICJ:
http://dro.dur.ac.uk/11627/1/11627.pdf

ICJ reform has been academically proposed
Judicial Independence and Impartiality in International Courts: ingentaconnect

Discussion on international judges and experts' impartiality
International Judges and Experts’ Impartiality and the Problem of Past Declarations » Brill Online

Attorney accuses ICJ of bias:
'ICJ treatment of Israel biased, as seen in Syria' | The Times of Israel


I also suggest reading works by Martti Koskenniemi, who provides interesting insight into international law.
The Politics of International Law - Martti Koskenniemi - Google Books

Thanks for digging these up and I have quickly read through them. Unfortunately, none of them support your claims that the the PHL vs CN arbitration court has “ulterior motives” and “don’t want the accused to benefit”. Unless you can bring specific evidences against the current judges on the PHL vs. CN panel, you are only supporting your claims by making gross generalisations. You are going from a handful of articles criticising the structure of the ICJ and its recommendations for reforms and jumped into the conclusion that the panel on the PHL vs. CN court case has “ulterior motives” and “don’t want the acussed(China) to benefit”. And even if we accept the contention that the court can be biased, you would need to show how they are biased against China rather than against the Philippines. So even if we assume what those articles said are correct, there is no direct connection between what they have said and your specific claims unless you make a conclusion from those articles that everything the international courts say are wrong/unfair (even if they say 1+1=2) and that they never want the acussed/China to benefit, which resemble more like a conspiracy theory if you cant provide the evidences. However, if you concede that it is still possible for the international courts to sometime issue correct/fair rulings, then you would need to provide specific evidences showing how the current judge panel on the PHL vs. CN court case are unfair rather than fair.

So, go ahead, I’m still waiting for you to show evidences of how the judge panels for the PHL vs. CN court case have “ulterior motives” and “don’t want the acussed (China) to benefit”. And Im also waiting for you to at least analyse the jurisdictional rulings that were made so far and prove how they were wrong and unfair. And I’m not asking you for the impossible either. The name and profiles of the judges are listed publically, including their previous work. Likewise, the jurisdictional rulings are also made public. So go ahead and validate your specific claims please, I’m still waiting.


That aside, there is a massive conflict of interest on your part because you are Vietnamese. Since you love real life analogies, it's sort of like you should not be involved in the investigation of your own family (if they were involved in some sort of crime with another family), because there is a huge conlifct of interest which would corrupt any proceedings. I hope that makes sense. So I think you should drop the pretentious "I'm neutral and you should all listen to me" act, which I find rather repulsive if I'm going to be quite honest.

William Hung I am asking you what we might expect. Do you know what we might expect, yes or no.

First of all, read my conversation with Zsari from the beginning again. I have never said "I'm neutral and you should all listen to me" so I don’t know why you have put that in quotation marks as though as you’re trying to attribute that quote to me. I have said here that Im just making comments, and if you think my comments are wrong, then you are free to explain how and dispute it. So far, you have barely touched the contents that Zsari and I were originally discussing and you have mainly focussed on questioning my character or the charcter of the international court.

Secondly, you keep still continuing your pattern of ad hominen character assassination attempts rather than discussing the contents of the discussions. So just because I’m a Vietnamese, that automatically means I have “massive conflict of interest”? And what other conclusion did you draw from it? That me being Vietnamese automatically means my contents are incorrect and unfair? That I should not be involved in discussing issues related to Vietnam?

You are a Chinese, and according to your logic, you also have a massive conflict of interest, that you are also biased and unfair? does that mean I should ignore everything that you have said so far? including your comments about me being biased or having massive conflict of interest? lol Friend, I do not care if you are biased or unfair, or whether you think I’m biased. All I care is the contents of the arguments, if I think you or other people say something wrong, I will dispute it. If you think I said something wrong, I welcome you to dispute it. It simple as that. And this just made me realized, ever since you have hi-jacked the discussion from Zsari, you have wasted 2 pages mainly talking about the characters of people (the ICJ judges or myself) rather than the contents originally discussed by Zsari and myself.

He is too sensitive. By the way, even a recent HK series I watched the actress said, "BULL SHIT!" William Hung/ Black Flag/ will cry if he watched the pg 13 series
So who is Black Flag? Is that William Hung's account too?
That william hung previously had a different username until he changed it to the current one with a new avatar. He was very upset after he learned that BoQ77 got permanently banned from the East Asian section :lol:
New Viet port a clue to Kra Canal? | Page 2

So we are heading towards the all too familiar character assassination attempt now are we? :lol:

Seems like there is a unwritten rule commonly observed by some Chinese PDFer here: When one cannot debate, one should then resort to character assassination attempt. :D
 
Read my conversation again with Zsari from the beginning, where did I said Im a “neutral analysts”? I said I’m only making comments, and if you think my comments are wrong, I said I would welcome you to raise it up and dispute my comments.

No you don't need to say it, you're acting like you're an impartial arbiter on SCS issues. I don't think you should act like such because you're Vietnamese. That's a dangerous conflict of interest.

So far, you have barely contributed to the contents of our discussion. At least Zsari and I was focussing on the contents of the debate such as those specific legal clauses that we were originally discussing about. On the other hand, you didn’t focus much on the contents but just commented on how myself and every other humans are biased and opinionated. Its pretty much an ad hominen attack if you ignore the contents of the debate and rather focus on the character of the debaters.

No, your understanding is poor. I am setting a framework for this discussion so that we can appreciate that anybody touting pretentious displays of "I'm neutral so you should listen to me" is pointless, and also repulsive. It's not an attack on character, but serves to elaborate on the mindset and dynamics of this discourse which influences the content that you post.

Likewise with the PHL vs. CN arbitration case. You cried foul over their socalled biased ulterior motives but haven’t explained how their decisions are so. The Arbitration judges have already issued their jurisdictional rulings, so can you explain how those rulings are unfair and wrong? Can you list each rulings and explain how wrongful it is? Or are you going to ignore the contents of the rulings and can only try to tarnish the reputation if the judges instead?

If they are that interested in ICJ judges then they can research it themselves. It's a bit condescending to assume that other people are unable to do their own research. If you can't see the blatant biases in many, many cases of ICJ rulings then I think there is a problem with your ability to think independently. The point here is that the perspectives of events is always going to be different and a group of people agreeing with each other is just an appeal to argumentum ad populum.

Corfu Channel Incident (Albania ordered to pay for reparations)
Corfu Channel incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. UK sailed in such proximity to Albania's border and trespassed into Albanian territorial waters. Albania fired on the ships. In my view, they should have notified Albania or Greece beforehand that they were going to sail pass these areas which were already hazardous due to ongoing conflicts from the Greek civil war.
In fact, UK was allied to Greece so they could sail in Greek territorial waters without any problems, but they chose to sail in Albanian territorial waters.
(Greek Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. UK ships hit mines that Albania requested Yugoslavia to place. Knowing the volatility of the previous incident, UK should have sailed closely to Greek shores, but instead chose to sail close to Albania's shores to "test the waters". That's asking for trouble. I think UK cannot complain here because they deliberately sailed in Albania's territorial waters, knowing the hostile circumstances.

3. UK conducted a minesweeping operation in Albanian territorial waters. This was not authorised by the Albanian government. Well again, they shouldn't be in Albanian territorial waters anyway.

Despite this, Albania was ordered by the ICJ to pay UK £844,000, which is equivalent to £26.6 million (or $40.1 million) in 2015.

What if the arbitration judges say “1+1=2”, are you just going to dismiss that factual content and conclude that what they have said is wrong because they have biased ulterior motives? If you concede that the contents of what they say can be correct (e.g. 1+1=2) and that we must judge and analyse their words independent from their character, then I would expect you to do the same here in your rhetorics. Discuss the contents of what I said, the contents of the rulings made by the arbitration judges, and if you think those contents are wrong, then explain it. Don’t just try to focus on character assassination attempts.

I think you have a problem distinguishing things that are objective and subjective. 1+1=2 is objective. The distance between this tree and and that streetlamp is objective. The interpretation of events is going to subjective.

Thanks for digging these up and I have quickly read through them. Unfortunately, none of them support your claims that the the PHL vs CN arbitration court has “ulterior motives” and “don’t want the accused to benefit”. Unless you can bring specific evidences against the current judges on the PHL vs. CN panel, you are only supporting your claims by making gross generalisations. You are going from a handful of articles criticising the structure of the ICJ and its recommendations for reforms and jumped into the conclusion that the panel on the PHL vs. CN court case has “ulterior motives” and “don’t want the acussed(China) to benefit”. And even if we accept the contention that the court can be biased, you would need to show how they are biased against China rather than against the Philippines. So even if we assume what those articles said are correct, there is no direct connection between what they have said and your specific claims unless you make a conclusion from those articles that everything the international courts say are wrong/unfair (even if they say 1+1=2) and that they never want the acussed/China to benefit, which resemble more like a conspiracy theory if you cant provide the evidences. However, if you concede that it is still possible for the international courts to sometime issue correct/fair rulings, then you would need to provide specific evidences showing how the current judge panel on the PHL vs. CN court case are unfair rather than fair.

Unfortunately I think you have a lack of ability to abstract ideas from general concepts and postulate paradigms. Instead you're asking for specific examples, which shows that you're a concrete rather than abstract thinker. This is not an attack on character, this is explaining why you fail to understand and "connect the dots" to what I have posted.

Tutorial: Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking

So, go ahead, I’m still waiting for you to show evidences of how the judge panels for the PHL vs. CN court case have “ulterior motives” and “don’t want the acussed (China) to benefit”. And Im also waiting for you to at least analyse the jurisdictional rulings that were made so far and prove how they were wrong and unfair. And I’m not asking you for the impossible either. The name and profiles of the judges are listed publically, including their previous work. Likewise, the jurisdictional rulings are also made public. So go ahead and validate your specific claims please, I’m still waiting.

William Hung re-read everything I posted and abstract from it, if you are able to do that. I think there's no point if there's just going to be 10 pages of you confusing yourself. Understand the basic paradigms first before requesting for more information.

Secondly, you keep still continuing your pattern of ad hominen character assassination attempts rather than discussing the contents of the discussions. So just because I’m a Vietnamese, that automatically means I have “massive conflict of interest”? And what other conclusion did you draw from it? That me being Vietnamese automatically means my contents are incorrect and unfair? That I should not be involved in discussing issues related to Vietnam?

It's important and not ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack would be an irrelevant attribute. An example of an ad hominem attack is "William Hung wears crocs, so why should we listen to him". Crocs are irrelevant here so that would be an ad hominem attack.

By contrast, what I am alluding to is "William Hung like everybody else is clouded by bias, but pretends that he's not, so we should be careful in interpreting anything he posts". Such comments serves to understand the dynamics of this discourse which influences the content that you post. I'm also explaining why you fail to understand content that I have posted which is relevant to this discussion.

You are a Chinese, and according to your logic, you also have a massive conflict of interest, that you are also biased and unfair? does that mean I should ignore everything that you have said so far? including your comments about me being biased or having massive conflict of interest? lol Friend, I do not care if you are biased or unfair, or whether you think I’m biased. All I care is the contents of the arguments, if I think you or other people say something wrong, I will dispute it. If you think I said something wrong, I welcome you to dispute it. It simple as that. And this just made me realized, ever since you have hi-jacked the discussion from Zsari, you have wasted 2 pages mainly talking about the characters of people (the ICJ judges or myself) rather than the contents originally discussed by Zsari and myself.

"Tu quoque!" but whatever. Read what I posted above and try to abstract from it rather than thinking in concrete, black and white terms. After you have done that, can you suggest some possible legal consequences that China might face for building in territories it considers her own?
 
Last edited:
No you don't need to say it, you're acting like you're an impartial arbiter on SCS issues. I don't think you should act like such because you're Vietnamese. That's a dangerous conflict of interest.

So you admit that I’ve never called myself one, only that I act like one. But what do you mean? that my actions and behaviour in this thread looks as though I’m an impartial arbiter? But isn’t this a good thing? lol. Secondly, in what way have I “acted” like an impartial arbiter? By telling you that I only want to make claims where I can back up with facts or sources and that you should do the same? But isn’t this the standard etiquette in debating?

No, your understanding is poor. I am setting a framework for this discussion so that we can appreciate that anybody touting pretentious displays of "I'm neutral so you should listen to me” is pointless, and also repulsive. It's not an attack on character, but serves to elaborate on the mindset and dynamics of this discourse which influences the content that you post.

Again, how am I making that pretension? I have never claimed myself here that “I’m neutral so you should listen to me”, so why do you keep attributing that to me? lol

If they are that interested in ICJ judges then they can research it themselves. It's a bit condescending to assume that other people are unable to do their own research.

Who are “they”? You’ve made some specific claims about the judges on the PHL vs. CN court case so I have asked you to provide evidences and sources to validate your claims. Again, this is just standard debating etiquette, its normal (and should be expected) to be asked to provide evidences/sources to support your claims. I don’t know why you think this is a case of being “condescending to assume that other people are unable to do their own research”. You are not familiar with debates or academic discourses before? or is this just an excuse when you can’t provide sources?

If you can't see the blatant biases in many, many cases of ICJ rulings then I think there is a problem with your ability to think independently. The point here is that the perspectives of events is always going to be different and a group of people agreeing with each other is just an appeal to argumentum ad populum.

Corfu Channel Incident (Albania ordered to pay for reparations)
Corfu Channel incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. UK sailed in such proximity to Albania's border and trespassed into Albanian territorial waters. Albania fired on the ships. In my view, they should have notified Albania or Greece beforehand that they were going to sail pass these areas which were already hazardous due to ongoing conflicts from the Greek civil war.
In fact, UK was allied to Greece so they could sail in Greek territorial waters without any problems, but they chose to sail in Albanian territorial waters.
(Greek Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. UK ships hit mines that Albania requested Yugoslavia to place. Knowing the volatility of the previous incident, UK should have sailed closely to Greek shores, but instead chose to sail close to Albania's shores to "test the waters". That's asking for trouble. I think UK cannot complain here because they deliberately sailed in Albania's territorial waters, knowing the hostile circumstances.

3. UK conducted a minesweeping operation in Albanian territorial waters. This was not authorised by the Albanian government. Well again, they shouldn't be in Albanian territorial waters anyway.

Despite this, Albania was ordered by the ICJ to pay UK £844,000, which is equivalent to £26.6 million (or $40.1 million) in 2015.

Again, what you have pasted does not validate your specific claims, that the PHL vs. CN court case and judges have ulterior motives, dont want the accused/China to benefit, etc. I think it is you that lacks the ability to think through your arguments, so let me break it down for you step by step:

1. You said the PHL-CN court case judges are biased, have ulterior motives and don’t want the accused/China to benefit.

2. You then tried to validate those claims by showing a handful of articles arguing how the structure of the international courts are problematic or a few previous examples of biased/unfair rulings.

-but to justify (1), you would first need to either prove that all of the rulings of the international courts are unfair/biased, or accept that they can sometime be fair but prove that in this specific PHL vs. CN case, they are not so. But so far, your examples in (2) does not prove either of them.

- And more importantly, even if we assume and accept that all rulings from the international courts are biased and unfair, you would still need to prove or give evidences to show how the judges on the PHL-CN court case are biased against China rather than biased against the Philippines, you would need to show evidences that the judges has ulterior motives against China and that they don’t want the accused China to benefit. And the articles and examples you have given in (2) does not prove any of this (none of them involved China at all). For example, to justify your claims, you would need to show that the judges on the PHL-CN case are the same judges in your examples, then you may have a point, but unfortunately they are not the same judges.

So I have only asked you to provide evidences and sources to validate your claims made in (1), but what you have provided so far does not validate any of your claims.


I think you have a problem distinguishing things that are objective and subjective. 1+1=2 is objective. The distance between this tree and and that streetlamp is objective. The interpretation of events is going to subjective.

The point was, the judges do have the ability and possibility of saying things that are objective, and to figure out whether the things they say are objective or subjective, you would need to analyse the contents of what they say, not just their character or job position. And so far, you have not analysed the contents of what they said. You have claimed they are biased, but refused to explain their jurisdictional rulings and making an analysis proving it was biased.

Unless, you are going to generalise all judges and jurors as being biased when interpreting events in a court proceedings, but in this case, why bother having courts, judges and jurors at all? are you going to tell your country to shut down all its courts and dismiss all the judges because they are inherently biased when interpreting events? lol


Unfortunately I think you have a lack of ability to abstract ideas from general concepts and postulate paradigms. Instead you're asking for specific examples, which shows that you're a concrete rather than abstract thinker. This is not an attack on character, this is explaining why you fail to understand and "connect the dots" to what I have posted.

Tutorial: Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking

No, it is you who lacks abstract thinking ability to make inferences and “connecting the dots” to construct a proper argument. As I have explained earlier, the argument you have tried to present is not logically valid, you have failed to justify your conclusion from your premises, there is no connection between your claims and the examples/articles you have provide.

Why did I asked you for specific/concrete evidences? because you have made some specific/concrete claims. It would be logical for you to provide specific/concrete evidences to validate your specific/concrete claims.

You have specifically claimed that the PHL-CN court case judges have ulterior motives and that they are biased against China and don’t want the accused/China to benefit. But there are no connections between your examples/articles and your specific contention that the PHL-CN court case judges have ulterior motives against China and don’t want China to benefit. If the “general concept” you wanted to present is that the IC rulings are generally biased and unfair, then I don’t see how could draw from it your specific ideas that “the judges have ulterior motives against China and dont want it to benefit”.

And the reason why its reaching 10-12 posts is because you still haven’t been able to validate those specific claims of yours.


William Hung re-read everything I posted and abstract from it, if you are able to do that. I think there's no point if there's just going to be 10 pages of you confusing yourself. Understand the basic paradigms first before requesting for more information.

As explained above, it is you who have issue with abstract thoughts. What is the basic paradigm that you have constructed? That the international courts have ulterior motives against China and dont want it to benefit? I dont know how you have managed to construct that paradigm out of examples like the UK vs. Albanian court cases that dont even involve China, unless you use some kind of voodoo abstract inferences.

On the other hand, if your basic paradigm is that all judges are generally biased, then I dont know how you could draw specific ideas from that such as “judges have ulterior motives against China and dont want it to benefit.” There are no connections, because it is still possible that it is the Philippines that they are biased against, and your “basic paradigms” doesn’t indicate which side they are biased against, if they are biased at all. Also, your basic paradigm, concept and examples still does not specify the so-called “ulterior motives” that you claim the judges to possess.


By contrast, what I am alluding to is "William Hung like everybody else is clouded by bias, but pretends that he's not, so we should be careful in interpreting anything he posts". Such comments serves to understand the dynamics of this discourse which influences the content that you post. I'm also explaining why you fail to understand content that I have posted which is relevant to this discussion.

And I have already told you, many times now, if you think my comments are wrong, then point it out and explain it so. Why do you keep babbling about humans being inherently biased, etc?
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom