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.

Kind of irrelevant news, but just wanted to point something out
I really can't stand the western spin of Apple Daily being "pro-democracy"
It was most well known locally for being a clickbait trash mag most well known locally for celebrity gossip and sex photos.
It was also losing money for many years (thanks to the long banned Gatekeeper for pointing it out)
I wonder how a money losing enterprise can just keep as an ongoing concern for so many years?

Wrought said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's not NSL you need to read, it's how NSL was created that you don't seem to understand

iewgnem said:

It's not NSL you need to read, it's how NSL was created that you don't seem to understand

Click to expand...

Why are you reviving this pointless discussion? You've already established that you don't know what you're talking about several times over. But if you want to make a serious argument, then bring some concrete evidence instead of just spouting vague claims for me to debunk.

Oh and I forgot to mention earlier, but you were asking for someone who specifically pleaded not guilty and also offered no mitigation.

D33 Ho Kwai-lam

262. D33 is now aged 34, a former journalist. She has one criminal conviction in 2021.

263. D33 did not wish to address this Court on mitigation.

264. For the role that D33 participated in the Scheme, we were of the view that 7 years (84 months) should be adopted as the notional starting point. D33 was convicted after trial. As no mitigation was put forward, for the offence D33 stands convicted, she is sentenced to 7 years’ (84 months) imprisonment.

Click to expand...

Wrought said:

Why are you reviving this pointless discussion? You've already established that you don't know what you're talking about several times over. But if you want to make a serious argument, then bring some concrete evidence instead of just spouting vague claims for me to debunk.

Oh and I forgot to mention earlier, but you were asking for someone who specifically pleaded not guilty and also offered no mitigation.

Click to expand...

Then I will grant you 3 people out of 47 who had an iota of bravery, see how easy that was? Also notice how Joshua Wong isn't on this list.

Anyway I felt compelled to remind you, for your own benefit especially, that NSL didn't exist at all in 2019, nor did its creation require the input or knowledge of anyone in HK, so you really shouldn't use NSL as a guidance on what can or cannot be a crime. Those sentenced made this mistake, don't make it yourself.

iewgnem said:

Then I will grant you 3 people out of 47 who had an iota of bravery, see how easy that was? Also notice how Joshua Wong isn't on this list.

Anyway I felt compelled to remind you, for your own benefit especially, that NSL didn't exist at all in 2019, nor did its creation require the input or knowledge of anyone in HK, so you really shouldn't use NSL as a guidance on what can or cannot be a crime. Those sentenced made this mistake, don't make it yourself.

Click to expand...

Your subjective measure of bravery is not an objective measure of bravery, which has already been covered. And no, you are making the exact same mistake I already corrected before. Those sentenced did not follow NSL; they broke it and were therefore charged accordingly. The legal input from HK comes in the form of Basic Law Article 23, and its promulgation in HK comes in the form of Article 18 (Annex III). It is perfectly correct as guidance for what can or cannot be a crime, because that's literally the definition of every criminal law everywhere.

The real irony is that you are parroting US propaganda talking points about China as a corrupt dictatorship without rule of law. But the fact is that laws which the US dislikes are still laws, and China follows them. Do yourself a favor and go study those laws instead of continuing to publicly embarrass yourself here.

Is there any way that Hong Kong can get some Taylor Shift concerts? The way they skipped Greater China was annoying.