Then get prepped, cause I did my postgraduate at MIT as well. There are no smarter guys than those graduating there. I knew you would now claim “where did I said we need support Taiwanese territorial claims mimimi”. Did you read the article and what it is about? What is the US and what is China’s point of conflict? Tell me, how can you say “we can’t appease China blabla…” to do what? Taiwan is the exact part of their sovereign terrorial claims. Opposing them on the fact that Taiwan becomes/remains independant is exactly enabling the territorial claims of the state on that island, ROC.
And now you backpedal, “I’m commenting on the article but in fact I do not support US point of view and argue without the context of any article we comment on!!!1! Its my isolated opinion from those events and blabla” or “Actually I meant we should oppose China but also make demands on Taiwan’s contitution and put conditions on their clams blabla…”. I know that if you would understand any of this conflict or history you wouldn’t actually call under the article of US warmongering, encirclement and violation of the One-China policy regarding China’s claim of Taiwan, an act of “CCP imperialism”. But know you backtrack and try to slip away like a oily snake. There is no escape from my superior arguing skills, and you’re critic of appeasing hypocritical is false even on the level of formal logics.
whatever your parents paid for that education, unfortunately it would appear to have turned out a poor investment.
You sound like Donald Trump lmao. “Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
A lot of words for saying you have no consistent logic. If you understand the claims of Taiwan and that the US is supporting this state, you can’t impossible speak of “CCP imperialism”, in the context of ROC’s claims, and call their right for their territory as appeasement. But I know that people outside of Harvard have liquid arguments.
Btw lmao I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke. Yes I think he said something along that with Harvard lol
You’re making a converse error again - A TV can’t turn on if it’s not plugged in. Therefore, if the TV can’t turn on, it’s not plugged in. The TV could be broken, there could be a power cut, etc.
You’re saying that the United States supports providing arms to Taiwan and the United States supports Taiwan’s territorial claims. Therefore, by supporting providing arms to Taiwan, that means I support Taiwan’s territorial claims.
No. I don’t. So I don’t have to defend their territorial claims. I am sorry if that makes it difficult for you to argue your preferred argument with me, but you’ll just have to engage with my argument on its own terms, not on the ones you imagined.
Article about US provocating a war with China and violating their One-China principle
“So we should just appease China or what?”
“If anything, you appease Taiwan by opposing China”
“No, I don’t, what do you mean, I have a 4D chess move on this, it is nuanced”
Lmao you stand for absolutely nothing. Saying let China exercising their right for their sovereign territory is appeasement is bs, a Western-centric point of view, and China’s claims are less and would result in more peace, as shown by my map above. Only thing you could attack was my sarcasm. Lmao, what a lib
I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin. I have addressed your arguments quite directly, respectfully and tried to encourage understanding, but you’re just continuing to hurl insults. Are you just trolling or are you so steeped in toxic internet culture that you can’t imagine a discussion without insulting your interlocutor?
We both know that Taiwan would stand no fucking chance if it was invaded. You’re basically saying, “if anything, you appease the Sudetenland by opposing Nazi Germany”.
Anyways, I’m done with this argument, I have proven you wrong countless times now and you just keep pushing me to defend a position that I do not hold and then you’re just getting mad about it. I wouldn’t be arguing with you if I didn’t stand for anything, would I? I support peaceful coexistence, reconciliation and the end of capitalism.
I guess you’re like an anarchist whose talking points just happend to align with the US department. I proved my case that the “appeasement” of China is the lesser “evil”, and there is nothing that they demand that is crazy and actually would result to more peace than even Taiwan’s constitution, which was the point of the map.
I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin.
I don’t think you have proved that case at all. How is increasing the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan the lesser evil, pray tell?
Who and why would anybody invade them? The elections are in January, the pro-mainland politicians will win, if one followed their general public opinion in the slightest, and will stop buying weapons from the US and work towards a solution to join like an autonomous region. The only difference? The claims above will disappear, and they will continue calling Taiwan a region like they do now.
The only way they will get invaded if the US creates a color revolution before January, keep this ROC alive with all it’s claims, and if you read the article, will increase their military presence on and around the island. In case of a successful provocation, they will throw Koreans and Japanese as well into the meatgrinder.
Then get prepped, cause I did my postgraduate at MIT as well. There are no smarter guys than those graduating there. I knew you would now claim “where did I said we need support Taiwanese territorial claims mimimi”. Did you read the article and what it is about? What is the US and what is China’s point of conflict? Tell me, how can you say “we can’t appease China blabla…” to do what? Taiwan is the exact part of their sovereign terrorial claims. Opposing them on the fact that Taiwan becomes/remains independant is exactly enabling the territorial claims of the state on that island, ROC.
And now you backpedal, “I’m commenting on the article but in fact I do not support US point of view and argue without the context of any article we comment on!!!1! Its my isolated opinion from those events and blabla” or “Actually I meant we should oppose China but also make demands on Taiwan’s contitution and put conditions on their clams blabla…”. I know that if you would understand any of this conflict or history you wouldn’t actually call under the article of US warmongering, encirclement and violation of the One-China policy regarding China’s claim of Taiwan, an act of “CCP imperialism”. But know you backtrack and try to slip away like a oily snake. There is no escape from my superior arguing skills, and you’re critic of appeasing hypocritical is false even on the level of formal logics.
This is the real strawman in this thread.
You sound like Donald Trump lmao. “Oh I went to Harvard got really good grades”.
I haven’t backpedaled on shit. I wrote a top level reply in an off-site comments section. I am not required to take an all-or-nothing position, either wholeheartedly agreeing or disagreeing with every claim in the article. The world has nuance.
Then next, guess where I did my PhD.
A lot of words for saying you have no consistent logic. If you understand the claims of Taiwan and that the US is supporting this state, you can’t impossible speak of “CCP imperialism”, in the context of ROC’s claims, and call their right for their territory as appeasement. But I know that people outside of Harvard have liquid arguments.
Btw lmao I neither studied at US nor UK, that only a joke. Yes I think he said something along that with Harvard lol
You’re making a converse error again - A TV can’t turn on if it’s not plugged in. Therefore, if the TV can’t turn on, it’s not plugged in. The TV could be broken, there could be a power cut, etc.
You’re saying that the United States supports providing arms to Taiwan and the United States supports Taiwan’s territorial claims. Therefore, by supporting providing arms to Taiwan, that means I support Taiwan’s territorial claims.
No. I don’t. So I don’t have to defend their territorial claims. I am sorry if that makes it difficult for you to argue your preferred argument with me, but you’ll just have to engage with my argument on its own terms, not on the ones you imagined.
It was funny, thanks for that.
Lmao you stand for absolutely nothing. Saying let China exercising their right for their sovereign territory is appeasement is bs, a Western-centric point of view, and China’s claims are less and would result in more peace, as shown by my map above. Only thing you could attack was my sarcasm. Lmao, what a lib
I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin. I have addressed your arguments quite directly, respectfully and tried to encourage understanding, but you’re just continuing to hurl insults. Are you just trolling or are you so steeped in toxic internet culture that you can’t imagine a discussion without insulting your interlocutor?
We both know that Taiwan would stand no fucking chance if it was invaded. You’re basically saying, “if anything, you appease the Sudetenland by opposing Nazi Germany”.
Anyways, I’m done with this argument, I have proven you wrong countless times now and you just keep pushing me to defend a position that I do not hold and then you’re just getting mad about it. I wouldn’t be arguing with you if I didn’t stand for anything, would I? I support peaceful coexistence, reconciliation and the end of capitalism.
I guess you’re like an anarchist whose talking points just happend to align with the US department. I proved my case that the “appeasement” of China is the lesser “evil”, and there is nothing that they demand that is crazy and actually would result to more peace than even Taiwan’s constitution, which was the point of the map.
gonna cry?
I don’t think you have proved that case at all. How is increasing the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan the lesser evil, pray tell?
I probably won’t cry, but it is harmful to my mental health, so I might have to block you if it continues.
Oh holy shit it’s you! The pray tell guy!
Can you sign my copy of 12 Rules for Life?
Who and why would anybody invade them? The elections are in January, the pro-mainland politicians will win, if one followed their general public opinion in the slightest, and will stop buying weapons from the US and work towards a solution to join like an autonomous region. The only difference? The claims above will disappear, and they will continue calling Taiwan a region like they do now.
The only way they will get invaded if the US creates a color revolution before January, keep this ROC alive with all it’s claims, and if you read the article, will increase their military presence on and around the island. In case of a successful provocation, they will throw Koreans and Japanese as well into the meatgrinder.
deleted by creator
oh my god he’s got the 1’s mixed in with exclamation marks, god thats old school childish
deleted by creator