Hong-Kong Protests

Wrought said:

Yes, the subject was Joshua Wong and you insisted you could read his mind and know his thoughts in contradiction with the judgement of the court. Then you asked for a single person who pleaded not guilty, and I gave you 14. Then you just started making up definitions about the definition of a legal plea. And no, the text of NSL 44(1) explicitly makes clear that it is up to HK judges to determine what is legal under said law.



In other words, you were wrong at the start, switched to being wrong about something else, and are wrong again now. You have not cited a single piece of evidence the entire time, and have instead relied on me to spoonfeed you the reality of what's happening in Hong Kong. And when it contradicts the nice pretty picture in your head, you blame me.

Click to expand...

What exactly is the question that you think there exist right or wrong? It's objective fact Joshua Wong tried and failed to escape, it's objective fact he disbanded his entire group and its objective fact he plead for leniency, if you insist that in his mind he's actually brave and all actions to the contrary doesn't reflect his thinking, sure, you do you, but your refusal to admit you were wrong does not change objective facts.

It's also objective fact that there does not exist a single person who stood by his views during sentencing, it's also objective fact that every single one plead for leniency. If you also insist that the legal method in which they plead leniency somehow shows they were actually brave, that is your prerogative, but there is no such thing as right or wrong when it comes to the content of their plea arguments nor can you change what anyone other than you views their character through those pleas.

iewgnem said:

What exactly is the question that you think there exist right or wrong? It's objective fact Joshua Wong tried and failed to escape, it's objective fact he disbanded his entire group and its objective fact he plead for leniency, if you insist that in his mind he's actually brave and all actions to the contrary doesn't reflect his thinking, sure, you do you, but your refusal to admit you were wrong does not change objective facts.

It's also objective fact that there does not exist a single person who stood by his views during sentencing, it's also objective fact that every single one plead for leniency. If you also insist that the legal method in which they plead leniency somehow shows they were actually brave, that is your prerogative, but there is no such thing as right or wrong when it comes to the content of their plea arguments nor can you change what anyone other than you views their character through those pleas.

Click to expand...

The objective fact is that you are wrong about criminal charges. The objective fact is that you are wrong about guilty pleas. The objective fact is that you are wrong about the NSL. All of those are objective facts because they can be verified with a few clicks. You are wrong in every objective sense, no matter how much you try to deny it.

What is neither objective nor factual is whether the actions of convicted people in Hong Kong represent any amount of courage. That is purely subjective, because it's an interpretation made by an observer. You cannot quantify the exact degree of bravery, you can only say what you subjectively believe. That is the difference between objective and subjective facts. And for the record, this started out as a comparison between Puyi and Joshua Wong, where I found that at least Joshua Wong demonstrated some level of courage at some point in his life (a very low bar). I certainly didn't set out to defend his character, but you just kept refusing to admit your mistakes when corrected.

What exactly is the difference between right and wrong? It's this. You are objectively wrong. But you can tell yourself you are subjectively right if it makes you feel better.

Wrought said:

The objective fact is that you are wrong about criminal charges. The objective fact is that you are wrong about guilty pleas. The objective fact is that you are wrong about the NSL. All of those are objective facts because they can be verified with a few clicks. You are wrong in every objective sense, no matter how much you try to deny it.

What is neither objective nor factual is whether the actions of convicted people in Hong Kong represent any amount of courage. That is purely subjective, because it's an interpretation made by an observer. You cannot quantify the exact degree of bravery, you can only say what you subjectively believe. That is the difference between objective and subjective facts.

You are objectively wrong. You can tell yourself you are subjectively right if it makes you feel better.

Click to expand...

If you think that's how NSL works, you're going to be in for a shock when those sentenced today gets sentenced to more time in jail before their terms are up.

iewgnem said:

If you think that's how NSL works, you're going to be in for a shock when those sentenced today gets sentenced to more time in jail before their terms are up.

Click to expand...

That is how the NSL works, and it's an objective fact proven by the text of the law which you haven't bothered to read.

Unlike you, I've read the entire law and I also know that NSL 65(1) allows the NPCSC to override judicial rulings via legislative interpretation. An article which was exercised already in 2022 during the trial of Jimmy Lai. So while it's entirely possible you will continue to be shocked by objective facts from the legal system, I will not.