This is getting too wordy so I am just going to cut to the main points.
First, the term "admit" is insanely inappropriate here, because it implies that I am confessing a wrongdoing. I never that said you called yourself an impartial arbiter, I said that you acted and touted yourself like one. You were trying to sell yourself as an impartial voice of reason that everybody should listen to.
So can you admit that I never said you called yourself an impartial arbiter?
And yes, your "listen to me" rhetoric was pretentious and cringeworthy. It's not a good thing because it's repulsive and deceptive.
William Hung you have been masquerading as an impartial arbiter but the content that you post is ultimately biased and influenced by personal grievances, so you should stop acting like you're neutral because it's deceptive and therefore repulsive. I think your inability to connect the dots and abstract from a general statement is rearing its ugly head again and explains why you seem to be so confused.
lol again, you are attributing things onto me that I have never claimed myself to be here, as you have already admitted. And it looks as though you are deliberately using these trivial topic about “neitral arbiter thing” to distract and side-track from the main issue, that is you not being able to validate claims that you have made. So let me end this trivial side topic by saying, as I have said before, I do not care if you think I’m biased or not, or whether you think I’m trying to be a neutral arbiter, etc. All I care are the contents of the debate. I make comments or claims, and I welcome you to dispute it if you disagree with it, and I will use evidences or sources to back up my claims, as Zsari and I have originally done. So I am expecting you to do the same, provide evidences or sources to validate your claims. That is all.
So we can stop bickering on side issues like whether I think you think I think I’m neutral or not neutral, etc lol. Just focus on the contents of the debate. If you think my comments are wrong due to my biasedness, then analyse my comments and explain how they are wrong.
"They" as in other posters, that is obvious.
So that’s pretty much your excuse to cover the fact that you can’t provide sources to back up your claims. Let’s be clear,
you made specific claims about the judges, so I have asked
you to provide sources or evidences to validate your claims. Your reply was, “the readers and other posters can find those sources/evidences themselves, asking for sources is being condescending in thinking other posters cant find those sources.” That is such a big excuse, and a big joke. lol
Maybe you should ask the admins to change the forum rules to ban people asking for sources or evidences, because asking for sources or evidences is soooo “condescending” and disrespectful to other posters.
I think you are getting confused. What I posted was obviously speculation. I thought that was obvious. It is possible to extrapolate from past cases and academic papers and apply such paradigms onto a current case in order to put forth postulations. It seems that you don't understand that. I have posted extremely interesting and relevant sources for you to read, you either didn't read them or you were unable to abstract anything from it and apply it onto the PHL vs CN case.
So you have finally acknowledged that your claims was just speculations. You could have just admit it from the beginning when I first challenged your claims and would have saved all these posts, instead of trying to validate it with articles. But look, you still try to desperately salvage your arguments, which only continue to show your fallacious reasoning skills.
Lets see, you acknowledged that your previous claims were only speculations. That would means you were only postulating the
possibility of those judges having ulterior motives against China, etc.
I won’t deny that there is a
possibility that the judges are/will be biased against China, etc. But
possibility and
speculations means that it
could be true or it
could be false as well. Yes, it is possible that the judges have/will have “ulterior motives against China”, or it could be possible that the judges have ulterior motives against the Philippines instead, or it could be possible for this specific case that the judges decide not to be biased against anyone and be neutral. These are still all three possible scenarios because you have only given speculations so far.
Since you have speculated that it is the first scenario, that the judges are biased against China, the burden is
on you to show how it is more likely to be this first scenario, rather than the second or third scenario where the judges are biased against the philippines or biased to neither.
And the articles or past cases that you have mentioned does not support in any way that the current judges for the PHL-CN case have
ulterior motives against China. Those articles and cases you have cited does not even involved China nor the Philippines, and they don’t even involve any of the current judges on the PHL-CN case, so how could you “extrapolate” from those past cases and “put forth postulations” that the judges for the PHL-CN case
have ulterior motives against China? A Filipino too can postulate that the judges will be biased against the Philippines. Or a Dutch guy can postulate that the judges will be biased against neither (or be against both). These two other “extrapolations” are just as good as yours, meaning, not really good at all since those articles and past cases doesn’t indicate that the court favours PHL over CN or vice versa.
This is what I have been trying to explain to you all this time. It is you who lack understanding. Your “extrapolations“ and “postulations” are very weak, still a possibility but very weak since you have failed to show the “connections”. You have failed to demonstrate how you have made a valid inference from those past cases and articles to support your speculations that the judges have
“ulterior motives against China.” So at this point, your speculations are just blind guesses. And if you insist on putting forth your blind guesses and speculations without presenting any proper evidences for them, I was right to have originally accused it of being conspiracy theories.
Excuse me but you seem to be unable to differentiate between someone speculating (based on peer reviewed and published academic papers, and past ICJ cases) and laying down a fundamental truth. I think that is your own personal problem that you need to deal with. One thing that's certain is that the ICJ has partiality issues, and that the ICJ has made unfair rulings in the past. There's no need to provide specific examples unless you have the thinking ability of a 5 year old.
And you are absolutely wrong. What I have posted might not "validate" my speculations, but provides evidence for the speculations that I have put forth. You also seem to be confusing evidence with facts. Yes, I have provided evidence, but not facts. You requested evidence, but not specifically facts.
No, as explained above, you still have not provided any evidences for your speculations that the judges specifically have ulterior motives against China, that they dont want the accused China to benefit, etc. Those articles and past cases does not indicate in any form or manner that the current PHL-CN case judges will have ulterior motive to favor the PHL over China. At best, your speculations are only a possibilty, just as it is also a possibility that the judges will have ulterior motives against the Philippines and favour China.
No. Everything is subjective. Apart from distance from x to y, the mass of a ship, speed of missile, those are objective. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
William Hung it's a complex issue that requires a lot of thinking. Someone can clearly be in the wrong, like if I just went up to someone and knifed them in the neck. But when it comes to cases like the SCS we're dealing with very murky waters with conflicting claims and interpretations of events, and "his words against mine". I think people want a shortcut to rest the case so they go with their feelings.
What we know is that you do not understand the difference between the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity. You do not understand the difference between someone speculating and stating a fundamental truth. You do not understand how to abstract from general ideas (and thus connecting the dots). You are easily confused because you lack the ability to think in an abstract way, which is why you fail to see the relevance of what I posted earlier. You do not know what to do when presented with a group of general ideas and how to form a conceptual abstraction.
Again, the point was, even a biased person will still have the capability to say objective truths and facts, example, when he mention mathematical truths like 1+1=2 or when he mentioned some verifiable empirical facts, it will still be true. And the main point was this, how can we tell when he is telling truths and when he is telling falsehoods? Or when he is telling a fair subjective statement or unfair subjective statement? By examining the
contents of his words.
That is the main issue here, you have refused to analyse the contents and rulings of the judges. At least Zsari and I were discussing specific legal clauses of the UNCLOS and whether it applies to the PHL-CN case. You have not done any of that here, to analyse the
contents and rulings of the judges.
Yet, you were the one that made speculations that the judges have ulterior motives and biased against the accused China. But as explained above, you have not shown any evidences to support this speculations over the other possible speculations. At best, you have only demonstrated the
possibility that your speculations can be true.
And here is the funny thing, the names and profiles of the PHL vs. CN case judges are made public, their preliminary jurisdictional rulings has also being made public, so the logically thing to do to present evidences and proves your speculations are true is to post the profiles and background of the judges here, if there are evidences that they have been anti-China or something similar in the past, then post them because that would be good evidences to support your speculations. You can also bring up their jurisdictional rulings for the PHL vs. CN case. Analyse it and show how their decisions might have been unfair and biased against China. These kind of things, the judges’ identity and the jurisdictional ruling documents are all made public. These would be the legititmate evidences to support your speculations, and they would be far stronger evidences than your articles and past cases which doesnt even involve the PHL, China or the current judge panel. Yet, when I challenged you to do so, to discuss the profiles of the current judges and their jurisdictional rulings, your reply was, it is rude to ask for those evidences/sources and “condescending to think other posters cannot find those sources for themselves.”
So "William Hung has multiple accounts and is a notorious troll" is not an ad hominem attack because it's relevant to this discourse and the extent to which we should be wary of anything you post.
lol, I knew you would join your countrymen to engage in an character assassination attempt. It is expected when one can no longer debate in a legitimate manner. And no, I don’t have multiple accounts. I have one single account but have permission from admins to change my account name. I was also expecting that you would evetually accuse me of being a “notorious” troll in your desperate character assassination attempt.