Obama demands halt to South China Sea island building

[William Hung]

1.Yes, I have already explained enough times that linear reasoning cannot be applied to nonlinear paradigms. Your requests are fruitless and logically kaput. I have not evaded anything, I have fully explained it so many times, and yet you simply don't get it.

2. You're still lying, and also confusing yourself. You didn't understand what I posted, so you make claims like I am evading something. I don't think you're very smart.

3. Go look for it yourself. I am not helping you anymore because you have abused my patience too much. You can't even abstract from what I've posted to work out something so basic for yourself. You are disrespectful, yet want me to walk it through it with you, when I have already gone over it a billion times. I think you should just accept that you will never understand the value of what I posted due to how you are wired and how you process information.

You were repetitively claiming that there are “many” past legal cases that supports your larger paradigm so I was just asking you to list them. It was a simple request but you keep evading it. Now you are saying this request is “logically kaput” . Your desperate excuses and dodging are amusing.

Even if you were abstracting in a non-linear way like you have claimed, you would still need to list those supposedly “many” past legal cases here and I’ll see it for myself if they are relevant, no need to walk me through anything (another nice excuse btw). But nope, you didn’t even dared to list them out but just keep evading that request. Your dodging was so obvious . (btw, I already know why you have been dodging it, read post #110, #100)

Now you still have the audacity to call me a liar when I have referenced the exact post numbers. All you could do in respond is to block your ears and say I’m thinking in a linear way, falsely claimed that you have explained the issue but can’t reference your own post number for that, accuse me of being in the wrong and then just immediately bury your head in the sand again . Its like China claiming the rights to the nine dash lines: when another country ask China to clarify that line, China just evade those requests, declare it has indisputable legal rights to it and then just bury its head in the sand . It is easy to see why someone would evade simple requests: because he doesn’t want to admit his fake claims. Just declare that he is right, then immediately bury his head in the sand hoping the whole world would believe it . BTW, do you find it strange that China has never dared to explain and clarify the nine dash lines? Hmm I don’t think you would, because you carry that same behaiviour in this thread .

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

US is founded by Puritans. It is only considered sexually open when comparing to the Chinese culture, which is one of the most conservative on the planet. Comparing to the Europeans, Indians and Japanese, the Chinese and Americans are positively prudes.

Not sure that Chinese culture is that conservative. It was only during the barbarian Qing dynasty that we became conservative while in the Han, Wei, Jin, Sui, Tang... up to Ming, we were pretty open and liberal. Right now we are actually more liberal and live-let-live than most states in the US that aren't California or New York. The only way we are more conservative is the ban on pornography.

Anyhow nothing can stop the island building; if they wanted to stop it, then everyone has to stop it, but the other claimants have already done their island building, now it's time to show them Chinese Speed.

 

[Wolfwind]

You were repetitively claiming that there are “many” past legal cases that supports your larger paradigm so I was just asking you to list them. It was a simple request but you keep evading it. Now you are saying this request is “logically kaput” . Your desperate excuses and dodging are amusing.

Even if you were abstracting in a non-linear way like you have claimed, you would still need to list those supposedly “many” past legal cases here and I’ll see it for myself if they are relevant, no need to walk me through anything (another nice excuse btw). But nope, you didn’t even dared to list them out but just keep evading that request. Your dodging was so obvious . (btw, I already know why you have been dodging it, read post #110, #100)

Now you still have the audacity to call me a liar when I have referenced the exact post numbers. All you could do in respond is to block your ears and say I’m thinking in a linear way, falsely claimed that you have explained the issue but can’t reference your own post number for that, accuse me of being in the wrong and then just immediately bury your head in the sand again . Its like China claiming the rights to the nine dash lines: when another country ask China to clarify that line, China just evade those requests, declare it has indisputable legal rights to it and then just bury its head in the sand . It is easy to see why someone would evade simple requests: because he doesn’t want to admit his fake claims. Just declare that he is right, then immediately bury his head in the sand hoping the whole world would believe it . BTW, do you find it strange that China has never dared to explain and clarify the nine dash lines? Hmm I don’t think you would, because you carry that same behaiviour in this thread .

I'm not evading it: linear examples cannot be applied onto nonlinear paradigms. How many times must this be repeated to you in order for it to sink in? I have even bolded and underlined it! Are you selectively reading? You keep saying I am evading, yet I have explained this yet again in this post. Your entire mindset needs adjusting because you have a crucial fault in your understanding.

The rest of your post is just more red herrings, straw man arguments and you confusing yourself. I'm not even going to dignify your petty waffling and floundering by addressing them, you are too abusive and disrespectful.

 

[TaiShang]

Anyhow nothing can stop the island building; if they wanted to stop it, then everyone has to stop it, but the other claimants have already done their island building, now it's time to show them Chinese Speed.

That's indeed the point to be made. China is a late comer in the game, hence the reason for the sped-up development of the islands. Besides, China's logistics and engineering prowess is second to none. Put them together, you will have Obama spinning his head and ending up giving out inconclusive warnings.

 

[William Hung]

These quotes were made by you earlier before, notice how you used the words “case” and “example” in the plural, claiming that there are many:

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...

Speculations (not random guesses) are important, I don't know why you are trying to downplay it. They are not just random, ridiculous guesses with zero basis that I have pulled out of thin air, it is based on peer reviewed academic papers and past ICJ cases...

I still maintain that peer reviewed articles and past cases are evidences for the larger paradigm...

Cases and examples in plural is definitely appropriate given that many non-Western aligned countries had their cases rejected by the court, when they were up against a Western country.

Importantly, cases that involve a threat against Western hegemony are often rejected.

You can critique this speculation as much as you want, but it's not a random guess, but the basis for this speculation is constructed from past cases...

Me: “OK so can you list out those supposedly many past examples and cases for me to see?” (but you refused to list them) This was a simple request, why have you been evading it? I asked you many times on this.


Your reply: “I'm not evading it: linear examples cannot be applied onto nonlinear paradigms. How many times must this be repeated to you in order for it to sink in? I have even bolded and underlined it!”



You considered this as an adequate reply and explanation? you evading my request was obvious, and I know why you have been evading it (I have already explained it in post #100) so I’m not really expecting much from you now, I just love reading your funny desperate replies and see how far you’re willing to go to save face.

 

[Wolfwind]

These quotes were made by you earlier before, notice how you used the words “case” and “example” in the plural, claiming that there are many:


Me: “OK so can you list out those supposedly many past examples and cases for me to see?” (but you refused to list them) This was a simple request, why have you been evading it? I asked you many times on this.


Your reply: “I'm not evading it: linear examples cannot be applied onto nonlinear paradigms. How many times must this be repeated to you in order for it to sink in? I have even bolded and underlined it!”



You considered this as an adequate reply and explanation? you evading my request was obvious, and I know why you have been evading it (I have already explained it in post #100) so I’m not really expecting much from you now, I just love reading your funny desperate replies and see how far you’re willing to go to save face.

Of course it's adequate. It's only inadequate if you're stupid and have a low thinking ability. What you need to do is to deconstruct what has been posted. If you want to look at it in your concrete way, there are further examples which support this paradigm, which include Libya v UK, (1992), Libya v USA (1992), and Iran v USA (2003). These outcomes can be considered a bias since Libya and Iran were both threats to USA. Libya had close cooperation with the Soviet Union; Iran was anti-Western and has communist ties.

But if you look at it from an abstract framework, which is the preferred mode of operating, there is no point in posting examples, you just need to understand the concepts that has been put forth. Any linear examples do not serve to validate nonlinear paradigms.

 

[Zero_wing]

Man are unrelated issue the best you people can post against a logical arguments wow weak

 

[William Hung]

Of course it's adequate. It's only inadequate if you're stupid and have a low thinking ability.

Relax buddy, don’t get mad.

You claimed that there were many cases, so I asked you to list them...its not about being concrete or abstract. You have made claims that there are many cases, then you need to back it up. Previously, you have absolutely refused to list them, so your reply and evading was inadequate for my requests to have them listed.

If you want to look at it in your concrete way, there are further examples which support this paradigm, which include Libya v UK, (1992), Libya v USA (1992), and Iran v USA (2003). These outcomes can be considered a bias since Libya and Iran were both threats to USA. Libya had close cooperation with the Soviet Union; Iran was anti-Western and has communist ties.

So you have finally list a few cases. My question is why did you refused to do so when I requested it earlier? You have finally managed to dig up 3 cases all these time?

Anyway, these 3 examples are inadequate. For the Iran vs. US case, can you explain how that was biased against Iran? Just because Iran didn’t win doesn’t necessarily mean that the court was being biased and unfair. I have earlier mentioned that the UK didn’t win against Iran in another case (1951), does that also mean that the court was biased against the UK in favour of Iran? (this would be against your paradigm). And lastly, the court didnt just rejected Iran’s claims, it also rejected the US counter claims as well, meaning, it rejected both countries’ claims, so how is that suppose to be a bias against Iran in favour of the US? The US would have won its claims if the court truly favoured it.

For the other two Libya vs. UK/US cases, the court didn’t even ruled anything in favour of the UK/US or against Libya. The parties agreed outside of court and issued a joint request to the court to discontinue the case:

“Whereas by a letter dated 9 September 2003, filed in the Registry on the same day, the Agents of the two Parties jointly notified the Court that “the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom have agreed to discontinue with prejudice the proceedings initiated by the Libyan Application filed on 3 March 1992”

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=9c&case=88&code=luk&p3=3

So how is this suppose to be a bias against Libya in favour of the UK/US? All the parties jointly instructed the court to discontinue the case before it even made any final rulings. And quite contrary to your paradigm, the court had earlier accepted Libya’s jurisdictional arguments and ruled against the UK/US objections.

So these few examples are not even adequate. You had all these time but could only find these 3 inadequate examples. And this is why you have tried so hard to evade my requests to list the supposedly “many” cases, there are barely any that you could find. The reason why you have finally decided to post some funny examples is because I have quoted your earlier claims in my previous post showing your funny rhetorics that made you lose face.

But if you look at it from an abstract framework, which is the preferred mode of operating, there is no point in posting examples, you just need to understand the concepts that has been put forth. Any linear examples do not serve to validate nonlinear paradigms.

No point in posting examples? First of all, you have claimed that there are many examples and cases, so I have the rights to ask you to list them. Secondly, you have previously claimed that past cases and examples are evidences for your “larger paradigm”, that they were also the basis of your speculations, but now you are trying to tell me there is no point in posting examples. or even more funnier, you are now telling me
“linear examples do not serve to validate nonlinear paradigms” after you have earlier said that past cases and examples are “evidences” for your larger paradigm.

And finally, why have you refused to present the data for the PHL vs. CN case to justify your “speculations” that the court is biased against China in favour of the Philippines? As I have said, these data have been made available to the public now. You don’t mind looking at the other past cases to form the basis of your specualtions and paradigm but you absolutely refused to look at the PHL vs. CN case itself.

Its like you accusing your dad of stealing from your house...your dad then tells you to show the security video footage of your house to justify your accusation. You then absolutely refused to do so and just try to form “paradigms” and speculations from something else. Your dad asked you to just show the direct video footage of your house but you keep refusing to do so and insist that your abstract paradigm is enough and that he is being too concrete minded if he want to look at the footage. Do you see how funny this is? the evasion is blatant.

Look kid, there is nothing wrong with abstraction and forming paradigm. But when you are blatantly evading challenges and masquerading it as some form of intellectual abstraction ability, it makes for some very entertaining and comedic reading. So keep going at it

 

[Wolfwind]

Relax buddy, don’t get mad.

You claimed that there were many cases, so I asked you to list them...its not about being concrete or abstract. You have made claims that there are many cases, then you need to back it up. Previously, you have absolutely refused to list them, so your reply and evading was inadequate for my requests to have them listed.

No but you can abstract from what has been posted no matter how concrete it appeared to be. I could speak about many specific pigeons with yellow tails, but I'm still talking about birds in general.

So you have finally list a few cases. My question is why did you refused to do so when I requested it earlier? You have finally managed to dig up 3 cases all these time?

Because you should do your own research if you were that interested in it, otherwise it comes off as you're just stroking your own ego and love interacting with me. Like you have an internet connection so do it yourself.

If you were truly interested in it, then you would already have it weeks ago. But you wanted to confuse yourself for 9 pages over the course of nearly a month because you really aren't that interested in the topic, you're just more interested in "winning". So there is a question of what you are trying to achieve: intellectual broadening or winning an internet argument. I can tell its the latter, which is why I do not respect you.

Anyway, these 3 examples are inadequate. For the Iran vs. US case, can you explain how that was biased against Iran? Just because Iran didn’t win doesn’t necessarily mean that the court was being biased and unfair. I have earlier mentioned that the UK didn’t win against Iran in another case (1951), does that also mean that the court was biased against the UK in favour of Iran? (this would be against your paradigm). And lastly, the court didnt just rejected Iran’s claims, it also rejected the US counter claims as well, meaning, it rejected both countries’ claims, so how is that suppose to be a bias against Iran in favour of the US? The US would have won its claims if the court truly favoured it.

Sigh. If you take these examples together with academic papers, preexisting notions of bias in the courts, nonlinear examples, the rhetoric norms of the West, then you can get a clearer picture of what we're dealing with. Western media is an extension of their respective governments and are more often than not aligned with the idea of ensuring Western global dominance.

For the other two Libya vs. UK/US cases, the court didn’t even ruled anything in favour of the UK/US or against Libya. The parties agreed outside of court and issued a joint request to the court to discontinue the case:

“Whereas by a letter dated 9 September 2003, filed in the Registry on the same day, the Agents of the two Parties jointly notified the Court that “the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom have agreed to discontinue with prejudice the proceedings initiated by the Libyan Application filed on 3 March 1992”

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=9c&case=88&code=luk&p3=3

That doesn't matter, and it's a red herring. You can't think properly. Before they met outside court, you need to understand whether the court were in favour of a US / UK ruling.

So how is this suppose to be a bias against Libya in favour of the UK/US? All the parties jointly instructed the court to discontinue the case before it even made any final rulings.
And quite contrary to your paradigm, the court had earlier accepted Libya’s jurisdictional arguments and ruled against the UK/US objections.

No. The provisional measure were ruled against because there was a mismatch between the object of the application and the rights sought to be protected. They were just following legal protocols. So it doesn't prove any favour to Libya. You need to know the final outcome, which was not produced. What happens outside of court is irrelevant.

So these few examples are not even adequate. You had all these time but could only find these 3 inadequate examples. And this is why you have tried so hard to evade my requests to list the supposedly “many” cases, there are barely any that you could find. The reason why you have finally decided to post some funny examples is because I have quoted your earlier claims in my previous post showing your funny rhetorics that made you lose face.

They are fully adequate if you abstract from them and take these cases together with what has already been posted.
I posted those examples because you seemed to be throwing a tantrum. I don't think I should pander to your tantrum throwing anymore.

Its like you accusing your dad of stealing from your house...your dad then tells you to show the security video footage of your house to justify your accusation. You then absolutely refused to do so and just try to form “paradigms” and speculations from something else. Your dad asked you to just show the direct video footage of your house but you keep refusing to do so and insist that your abstract paradigm is enough and that he is being too concrete minded if he want to look at the footage. Do you see how funny this is? the evasion is blatant.

No, this is why I think you're not intelligent. Stealing from a house is a concrete, thus you need linear video footage of that. Claiming your dad is biased cannot be proven by video footage. Do you understand the difference? Probably not, since I don't expect anything logical coming out of you.

Look kid, there is nothing wrong with abstraction and forming paradigm. But when you are blatantly evading challenges and masquerading it as some form of intellectual abstraction ability, it makes for some very entertaining and comedic reading. So keep going at it

Like I said, you should do your own research if you were that interested.
Further, I noticed that you are plagiarising my vocabulary and also my ideas, so of course you would want me to keep responding to you. You're uncreative and concrete minded.

 

[Wolfwind]

Relax buddy, don’t get mad.

You claimed that there were many cases, so I asked you to list them...its not about being concrete or abstract. You have made claims that there are many cases, then you need to back it up. Previously, you have absolutely refused to list them, so your reply and evading was inadequate for my requests to have them listed.




So you have finally list a few cases. My question is why did you refused to do so when I requested it earlier? You have finally managed to dig up 3 cases all these time?

Anyway, these 3 examples are inadequate. For the Iran vs. US case, can you explain how that was biased against Iran? Just because Iran didn’t win doesn’t necessarily mean that the court was being biased and unfair. I have earlier mentioned that the UK didn’t win against Iran in another case (1951), does that also mean that the court was biased against the UK in favour of Iran? (this would be against your paradigm). And lastly, the court didnt just rejected Iran’s claims, it also rejected the US counter claims as well, meaning, it rejected both countries’ claims, so how is that suppose to be a bias against Iran in favour of the US? The US would have won its claims if the court truly favoured it.

For the other two Libya vs. UK/US cases, the court didn’t even ruled anything in favour of the UK/US or against Libya. The parties agreed outside of court and issued a joint request to the court to discontinue the case:

“Whereas by a letter dated 9 September 2003, filed in the Registry on the same day, the Agents of the two Parties jointly notified the Court that “the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom have agreed to discontinue with prejudice the proceedings initiated by the Libyan Application filed on 3 March 1992”

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=9c&case=88&code=luk&p3=3

So how is this suppose to be a bias against Libya in favour of the UK/US? All the parties jointly instructed the court to discontinue the case before it even made any final rulings. And quite contrary to your paradigm, the court had earlier accepted Libya’s jurisdictional arguments and ruled against the UK/US objections.

So these few examples are not even adequate. You had all these time but could only find these 3 inadequate examples. And this is why you have tried so hard to evade my requests to list the supposedly “many” cases, there are barely any that you could find. The reason why you have finally decided to post some funny examples is because I have quoted your earlier claims in my previous post showing your funny rhetorics that made you lose face.




No point in posting examples? First of all, you have claimed that there are many examples and cases, so I have the rights to ask you to list them. Secondly, you have previously claimed that past cases and examples are evidences for your “larger paradigm”, that they were also the basis of your speculations, but now you are trying to tell me there is no point in posting examples. or even more funnier, you are now telling me
“linear examples do not serve to validate nonlinear paradigms” after you have earlier said that past cases and examples are “evidences” for your larger paradigm.

And finally, why have you refused to present the data for the PHL vs. CN case to justify your “speculations” that the court is biased against China in favour of the Philippines? As I have said, these data have been made available to the public now. You don’t mind looking at the other past cases to form the basis of your specualtions and paradigm but you absolutely refused to look at the PHL vs. CN case itself.

Its like you accusing your dad of stealing from your house...your dad then tells you to show the security video footage of your house to justify your accusation. You then absolutely refused to do so and just try to form “paradigms” and speculations from something else. Your dad asked you to just show the direct video footage of your house but you keep refusing to do so and insist that your abstract paradigm is enough and that he is being too concrete minded if he want to look at the footage. Do you see how funny this is? the evasion is blatant.

Look kid, there is nothing wrong with abstraction and forming paradigm. But when you are blatantly evading challenges and masquerading it as some form of intellectual abstraction ability, it makes for some very entertaining and comedic reading. So keep going at it

Excuse me but you can abstract from what has been posted no matter how concrete it appeared to be. I could speak about many specific pigeons with yellow tails, but I'm still talking about birds in general.

You should do your own research if you were that interested in it, otherwise it comes off as you're just stroking your own ego and want to drag out a debate to gain favour. Like you have an internet connection so do it yourself. If you were truly interested in it, then you would already have it weeks ago. But you wanted to confuse yourself for 9 pages over the course of nearly a month because you really aren't that interested in the topic, you're just more interested in "winning". So there is a question of what you are trying to achieve: intellectual broadening or winning an internet argument. I can tell its the latter, which is why I do not respect you.

If you take these examples together with academic papers, preexisting notions of bias in the courts, nonlinear variables the rhetoric norms of the West, then you can get a clearer picture of what we're dealing with. Western media is an extension of their respective governments and are more often than not aligned with the idea of ensuring Western global dominance.

Why are you acting like I don't know what happened? I have read these cases a while ago now. It also doesn't matter what happens outside of court because that wouldn't prove that the courts favoured Libya. Before they met outside court, we need to understand whether the outcome would have favoured a US / UK ruling (independent of any objections from the defendants). You also need to understand what Libya were trying to achieve; they wanted a declaratory judgment concerning the application and interpretation of the Montreal Convention, rather than a violation of sovereign rights. With this in mind, and in my view, the ICJ were keen to confirm this declaratory judgement, rather than to evade it and announce they had no jurisdiction (or grant provisional measures).

And the provisional measures were ruled against because there was a mismatch between the object of the application and the rights sought to be protected. They were just following legal protocols. But more importantly, it doesn't matter because they seemed keen to confirm the application of the Montreal Convention. What happens outside of court is irrelevant.

With all this taken together, they are fully adequate, if you are able to abstract from them and take these cases together with what has already been posted. I also only posted those examples because you seemed to be throwing a tantrum. I don't think I should pander to your tantrum throwing anymore.

Stealing from a house is a concrete, thus you need linear video footage of that. Claiming your dad is biased cannot be proven by video footage. Do you understand the difference? Probably not, since I don't expect anything logical coming out of you.

Like I said, you should do your own research and interpretations of events if you were that interested. I haven't evaded anything at all, it's just that you keep confusing yourself. What I have posted (and what you saw as evasions) was extremely important for your understanding. I still maintain that there is no point fussing over petty concrete details because it's the main concept that you need to understand. And finally, I noticed that you are plagiarising my vocabulary and also my ideas, so of course you would want me to keep responding to you. You're uncreative and concrete minded.

 

[William Hung]

Because you should do your own research if you were that interested in it, otherwise it comes off as you're just stroking your own ego and love interacting with me. Like you have an internet connection so do it yourself.

If you were truly interested in it, then you would already have it weeks ago. But you wanted to confuse yourself for 9 pages over the course of nearly a month because you really aren't that interested in the topic, you're just more interested in "winning". So there is a question of what you are trying to achieve: intellectual broadening or winning an internet argument. I can tell its the latter, which is why I do not respect you.

Of course, telling me to do my own research was one of your old excuses. You have claimed that there are many past examples and cases so I asked you to list them and you’re telling me to do my own research.

Sigh. If you take these examples together with academic papers, preexisting notions of bias in the courts, nonlinear examples, the rhetoric norms of the West, then you can get a clearer picture of what we're dealing with. Western media is an extension of their respective governments and are more often than not aligned with the idea of ensuring Western global dominance.

The examples of the Libya vs. US or UK cases doesn’t even mean much. Those countries made an agreement outside of court to discontinue the cases before the court even reaches any final ruling lol, how was that suppose to support the idea that the court is biased against non-western aligned countries?

That doesn't matter, and it's a red herring. You can't think properly. Before they met outside court, you need to understand whether the court were in favour of a US / UK ruling.

And was the court in favour of the US/UK before they met outside the court?? there was no indications that they were. On the contrary, before those countries met outside the court, the judges rejected the US/UK’s jurisdictional objections and agreed with Libya’s arguments to proceed with the case. So I have no clue why you would use these two cases as “evidences” of your paradigm (ICj being baised against non-western countries).

No. The provisional measure were ruled against because there was a mismatch between the object of the application and the rights sought to be protected. They were just following legal protocols. So it doesn't prove any favour to Libya. You need to know the final outcome, which was not produced. What happens outside of court is irrelevant.

But it also proved that the court wasn’t biased against Libya by rejecting the case like what the UK/US was arguing for (and your “larger paradigm” says they would). Yes, the final rulings wasn’t issued due to the fact that all the countries agreed outside of court to discontinue the case, but I was asking how could you then try to use these two cases as examples of the court being biased against non-western countries???

They are fully adequate if you abstract from them and take these cases together with what has already been posted.

How are they adequate when the court wasn’t even able to issue any final rulings yet when those countries agreed outside of court to end the case lol.

I posted those examples because you seemed to be throwing a tantrum. I don't think I should pander to your tantrum throwing anymore.

lol this sounds more like: those examples were the best that I could come up with, I won’t post examples anymore.

No, this is why I think you're not intelligent. Stealing from a house is a concrete, thus you need linear video footage of that. Claiming your dad is biased cannot be proven by video footage. Do you understand the difference? Probably not, since I don't expect anything logical coming out of you.

I’m not asking you to justify your accusations/speculations with any video footage. I’m expecting you to bring up data like the jurisdictional rulings that the judges has already issued, the explanations that the court has given for such rulings (these are indepth and are already made public), show me how it was unfair and biased, similar to like what you have done with the UK vs. Albania case in post #72. Your absolute refusal to bring up those data is telling.

Like I said, you should do your own research if you were that interested.

Its not my duty to do those research. Its your obligations to back up your claims, thats if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.

Further, I noticed that you are plagiarising my vocabulary and also my ideas, so of course you would want me to keep responding to you. You're uncreative and concrete minded.

 

[Wolfwind]

Of course, telling me to do my own research was one of your old excuses. You have claimed that there are many past examples and cases so I asked you to list them and you’re telling me to do my own research.


The examples of the Libya vs. US or UK cases doesn’t even mean much. Those countries made an agreement outside of court to discontinue the cases before the court even reaches any final ruling lol, how was that suppose to support the idea that the court is biased against non-western aligned countries?

And was the court in favour of the US/UK before they met outside the court?? there was no indications that they were. On the contrary, before those countries met outside the court, the judges rejected the US/UK’s jurisdictional objections and agreed with Libya’s arguments to proceed with the case. So I have no clue why you would use these two cases as “evidences” of your paradigm (ICj being baised against non-western countries).

But it also proved that the court wasn’t biased against Libya by rejecting the case like what the UK/US was arguing for (and your “larger paradigm” says they would). Yes, the final rulings wasn’t issued due to the fact that all the countries agreed outside of court to discontinue the case, but I was asking how could you then try to use these two cases as examples of the court being biased against non-western countries???

How are they adequate when the court wasn’t even able to issue any final rulings yet when those countries agreed outside of court to end the case lol.

lol this sounds more like: those examples were the best that I could come up with, I won’t post examples anymore.

I’m not asking you to justify your accusations/speculations with any video footage. I’m expecting you to bring up data like the jurisdictional rulings that the judges has already issued, the explanations that the court has given for such rulings (these are indepth and are already made public), show me how it was unfair and biased, similar to like what you have done with the UK vs. Albania case in post #72. Your absolute refusal to bring up those data is telling.

Its not my duty to do those research. Its your obligations to back up your claims, thats if you want your arguments to be taken seriously.

1. It's absolutely true that you're not even interested in the topic because you didn't even research it for yourself. But rather, you are more selfishly concerned in trying to gain face. It's just a daily ego stroking session for you. Further, I don't know why you feel that it's necessary for me to do anything for you when you are fully able bodied and able minded to do it yourself. Well the able minded part is questionable.

2. Again it's your concrete mind speaking. I don't think you're a professor of any STEM field from any prestigious institution. It's adequate because the argument for Western bias can be construed from those examples. Libya wanted a declaratory judgment concerning the application and interpretation of the Montreal Convention, rather than a violation of sovereign rights. With this in mind, the ICJ were keen to confirm this declaratory judgement, rather than to evade it and announce they had no jurisdiction (or grant provisional measures to the USA).

3. And no, because there really is no sound logical reasoning in posting linear examples to support a nonlinear paradigm, so you're just wasting your own time. But I think you consider it time well spent because you really enjoy your ego stroking sessions on this forum, and you are picking up lots of new vocabulary and modes of thinking from me.

4. Of course I know you're not asking me to bring up video footage. But your entire thieving dad analogy is retarded, to put it politely. You cannot prove one's dad to be biased with video footage. Can you even abstract from that and apply it here? I don't think you have the capacity to. Even if you set up some sort of experiment with video footage, you need to account for a whole multitude of other variables. I think you're not familiar with designing scientific experiments.

5. Yes it's your duty to research because you are the one that is interested in it. Why should anybody else do research for you? Besides, people have already posted academic papers on impartiality issues within the ICJ. This is not my own novel idea, people have already put forth their ideas which were published in academic journals.

 

[William Hung]

1. It's absolutely true that you're not even interested in the topic because you didn't even research it for yourself. But rather, you are more selfishly concerned in trying to gain face. It's just a daily ego stroking session for you. Further, I don't know why you feel that it's necessary for me to do anything for you when you are fully able bodied and able minded to do it yourself. Well the able minded part is questionable.

Oh no, I have never considered this as a daily stroking session for me . Why would you come up with that idea.I just find it entertaining reading your responses, that's all. Like how I have requested you to post some data to back up your claims and you are now telling me to do my own research and that I’m not being interested in the tpoic if I don’t.

2. Again it's your concrete mind speaking. I don't think you're a professor of any STEM field from any prestigious institution. It's adequate because the argument for Western bias can be construed from those examples. Libya wanted a declaratory judgment concerning the application and interpretation of the Montreal Convention, rather than a violation of sovereign rights. With this in mind, the ICJ were keen to confirm this declaratory judgement, rather than to evade it and announce they had no jurisdiction (or grant provisional measures to the USA).

And how are those two examples be evidences to support your paradigm of western bias? Indeed that was what Libya was filing for. And the UK/US objected by arguing that the ICJ had no jurisdiction to do so and that there was no admissibility to the case. But the court agreed with Libya that they do have jurisdiction and proceed with the case, until all the parties requested the court to discontinue the case. So how on earth is this an example of the court being biased against non-western countries?? There is not even a slight hint of bias against Libya even if you were trying to use it as evidence in a non-linear way. If anything, it was the UK/US who were the ones that was not happy that the court agreed with Libya to proceed with the case.

3. And no, because there really is no sound logical reasoning in posting linear examples to support a nonlinear paradigm, so you're just wasting your own time. But I think you consider it time well spent because you really enjoy your ego stroking sessions on this forum, and you are picking up lots of new vocabulary and modes of thinking from me.

Not sure if you have short memory or just desperate. You keep insisting that there are many past cases and examples supporting your paradigm/speculation, you were still claiming that in number (2) in the previous quote, but when I asked you to list them, you keep replying that “linear examples cannot support non-linear paradigm” so no point for you to post them.

4. Of course I know you're not asking me to bring up video footage. But your entire thieving dad analogy is retarded, to put it politely. You cannot prove one's dad to be biased with video footage. Can you even abstract from that and apply it here? I don't think you have the capacity to. Even if you set up some sort of experiment with video footage, you need to account for a whole multitude of other variables. I think you're not familiar with designing scientific experiments.

Why did you ignore what I said about your post #72. You need to justify your “speculations” by explaining how the PHL-CN case is biased against China by doing what you have done with the UK-Albania case in post #72. In that post, you brought some data on that UK-Albania case and explained how that case and rulings was biased against Albania. So I was expecting you to do a similar thing with the PHL-CN case because data on that case are made public now. But you consistently refused to so the father son analogy is apt.

5. Yes it's your duty to research because you are the one that is interested in it. Why should anybody else do research for you? Besides, people have already posted academic papers on impartiality issues within the ICJ. This is not my own novel idea, people have already put forth their ideas which were published in academic journals.

You were the one who had made some concrete claims that the PHL-CN court case is biased against China so it you that needs to back it up. It was you who have claimed that there are many cases and examples so it is you who have the obligations to bring them up. Now you are telling me its my duty to research it because I’m the one that is “interested in it”.