Is the US shooting itself in the foot by banning Huawei?
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
- Status
Equation
Lieutenant General
Here's evidence of your trolling:
You asked me to discuss the "notion of freedom relative to the practices of how institutions are abused as a mean to oppress and control its citizens."
I asked you to define "abuse" and "oppression."
You accused me of "shifting the theme" when I simply asked you to clarify your question/request in order to engage it.
So I simply told you once again, define the terms you have used and wish to discuss.
I'm still waiting.
Brumby
Major
@Equation
The genesis of the conversation was me addressing hkbc.
Central to hkbc’s question is - the meaning of “freedom between two opposing worlds” (post#411)
You then picked up the conversation.
and you most recent
Having summarised the complete sequence of the interaction, I would now turn to address the most recent posts as they pertain to our dispute viz, my reply #495, your post #499, my reply #516 and your posts #518 and #572
Here’s the thing. In my post #495, I again reiterated the conversation was concerning a contrast between two different world views of oppression from institutions versus protection by institution. In your post # 499, you wanted a definition of oppression and abuse. I replied in # post 499 that you are digressing and you should revisit the genesis of the conversation as to the nature of it. By the way, I did not ask you a question. I ask that if you have a problem with my argument you are free to disagree. Please go back and read the relevant posts as to whether I asked you a question. You choose instead to focus asking me for definition of oppression and abuse and repeatedly asked for it instead of offering a rebuttal. If you are so interested go look it up in the dictionary. The real issue in meaning is what does “institution” mean.
You choose to ignore my replies but instead go off on a tangent to bring up frivolous matters (of definitions) and now accuse me of trolling. Let me remind you the meaning of trolling “the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and or controversial comments with the intent to provoke an emotional reaction. By that meaning your actions would fit the behaviour of trolling me based on the sequence of events outlined. You choose not to debate the underlying subject matter even after repeated attempts of presenting my position but you continue to press for definitions (which you can just look up in a dictionary). The facts speak for themselves.
The genesis of the conversation was me addressing hkbc.
Therefore to recap ;
Central to hkbc’s question is - the meaning of “freedom between two opposing worlds” (post#411)
You then picked up the conversation.
and you most recent
Having summarised the complete sequence of the interaction, I would now turn to address the most recent posts as they pertain to our dispute viz, my reply #495, your post #499, my reply #516 and your posts #518 and #572
Here’s the thing. In my post #495, I again reiterated the conversation was concerning a contrast between two different world views of oppression from institutions versus protection by institution. In your post # 499, you wanted a definition of oppression and abuse. I replied in # post 499 that you are digressing and you should revisit the genesis of the conversation as to the nature of it. By the way, I did not ask you a question. I ask that if you have a problem with my argument you are free to disagree. Please go back and read the relevant posts as to whether I asked you a question. You choose instead to focus asking me for definition of oppression and abuse and repeatedly asked for it instead of offering a rebuttal. If you are so interested go look it up in the dictionary. The real issue in meaning is what does “institution” mean.
You choose to ignore my replies but instead go off on a tangent to bring up frivolous matters (of definitions) and now accuse me of trolling. Let me remind you the meaning of trolling “the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and or controversial comments with the intent to provoke an emotional reaction. By that meaning your actions would fit the behaviour of trolling me based on the sequence of events outlined. You choose not to debate the underlying subject matter even after repeated attempts of presenting my position but you continue to press for definitions (which you can just look up in a dictionary). The facts speak for themselves.
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
Too long, didn't read. Your tact of being extremely circumlocutory in your answers hoping it would dissuade or bore people from responding to you is a form of trolling. Accusing others of being off topic or trolling when they asked you to clarify the terms you have used is trolling. Be succinct in your writing; it is a skill and a virtue. As Mark Twain said, "I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."
All I see is that you have still not provided the definitions required of you but instead asked me to look in the dictionary. I know how Webster defines these terms; the question is how do you define them. It is rather obvious that the disagreement here will be on their definition. We agree, everyone agrees, that every relevant country today requires its institutions to cooperate with the government in upholding the law. But which country pushes this to abuse and oppression? How much abuse and oppression? If you are adverse to personal definitions or interpretations, then I would simply say that, as per the revelations of one Edward Snowden, no country abuses the power of its institutions as much as the United States to bring oppression not only to its own citizens but around the world. China does not oppress its own law-abiding citizens but may use, to a lesser extent than the United States, its resources to gather intelligence in order to benefit them.
If this did not address your point, then it is because it was lost in your extremely wordy ramblings. Restate it with brevity if you would like it addressed.
Jura The idiot
General
Brumby I've now looked at what you summarized, and I think
(LOL with benefit of the hindsight)
you should've either
- reacted to
#499 Equation, Wednesday at 3:38 PM
by telling him (Equation) something to the effect that you assumed standard definitions;
for example google shows right on top for "oppression":
(since you didn't, Equation might've gotten an impression as if you were dodging), OR - ignored
#499 Equation, Wednesday at 3:38 PM
altogether
Brumby
Major
Their basic meaning in simple English. How is that so complicated? If you know what Webster says then get to the point instead of insisting that I define them. I am under no obligation to define it for you. So please get to your point if you have one or else you are simply trolling. .
No except to you because you are making a presumption that the disagreement lies in their definition. You have not provided any reasoning that they are definition related except through your brute reasoning driven by your own imagination.
You are entirely missing the point in my initial position of opposing worlds. In my latest lengthy reply which you did not bother to read and now I have to repeat it. You do not understand the meaning of "institutions" in the context of a regulatory regime in governance. Institutions are established norms of bodies such as the judicial branch, the legislative branch and the executive branch that regulates a society. They are separate yet hold equal power as checks and balances so that no single institution can solely operate and abuse its authority without accountability. In an oppressed society the government controls all branches of government. There is no accountability because of uncheckered power operating with limited or nil transparency of its actions and often based on opaque laws subject to its own interpretation through prescribed regulations drafted whichever way it choose to enforce it.
If you wish to debate the difference, let's have it but please don't waste my time if you do not bother to read what I write and then complain that I don't reply. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind. .
Brumby
Major
Isn't it obvious that everything is standard meaning of the word in English. If I am writing in Klingon I can understand it. The problem is if you read his reasoning is that he is making a presumption of a definition related issue simply because he thinks there is an issue and not because there is a reason in support of it.
Equation
Lieutenant General
We're here talking about Huawei and you're talking about institutions meaning separation of power within the government? You are completely off topic and wasting everyone's time. That combined with your unfocused and lengthy writing style led people to be unsure of what you were talking about and thus filled in the gaps with "imagination" based on what the topic is. But since you were completely off topic, it bore no fruit. You are showing improvement in the succinctness and coherence of your writing here. Keep it up.
To have several institutions split power such as in the checks and balances system in the US, it is more difficult to abuse power, but also, it creates vast inefficiencies in the system when it comes to decision-making. To hold power within a centralized government is a more risky model which can be disastrous under incompetent or black-hearted leadership but when implemented correctly by capable and well-meaning rulers, the results can be highly effective, beyond any other model for the rapid progress of a nation. The former is a conservative model of distrust in the leadership, with emphasis on diminishing it while the later is aggressive confidence in it, entrusting the reins of the nation into worthy hands to guide it forward with focus.
I liken it to a human body. If a man's arms, legs, torso, and head are commanded by different minds with different views, this person can barely rise out of bed. If his body works in unison commanded by his brain, he can achieve a world of good or evil dependent on the nature of that brain. Of course that is an extreme example; in reality, governments with checks and balances can still pull together under the right circumstances and move the nation forward while centralized governments still hunt for the members who are corrupt and remove them from the cabinet to prevent abuse of power.
This is as far as the modelling of hypothetical systems go. Of course, whether there is actual abuse or oppression, even in a system designed to prevent abuse, depends heavily on the people in charge. If you want to continue this off-topic rant and make it specific to the US and China, I can tell you right now I'm far more impressed by what's happening in China than in the US, both in terms of national progress and the true freedoms afforded to society. Would you like me to continue and expand on that, or is this enough for such a digression on this forum?
Equation
Lieutenant General
I'm sorry, I made the mistake of crediting you with the assumption that you were writing on the topic of the forum but did not imagine that you had completely drifted off into another dimension and asked me to follow you there. Of course, your writing didn't help at all; all you had to do was mention "separation of powers within the government to prevent corruption" and you would have been clear.
Brumby
Major
You guys are exercising double standard. If you refer to my lengthy post above, I did not start this so called "off topic" conversation. I was responding to hkbc in post #411. You guys go off topic all the time to suit your narrative of country bashing but then claim off topic when it suits you. This thread alone is full of stuff that is hardly Huawei specific. Be careful when you throw stones especially from a glass tower. Should I remind you in future every time you go off topic that you are in contravention of the "Equation" standard?
In other words you concede that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Efficiency and effecti9vess is a different conversation. I was referring to risk of abuse and consequently oppression when there are no checks and balances; no due process; no transparency and no accountability.
For example the contrast between the detention of Men WanZhou and Michael Kovrig respectively in the two different jurisdiction.. Should we discuss the due process, the transparency in either case; access to counsel or lack off as a contrast; the murky charges in one vs the other? The charges against Michael Kovrig has nothing to do with efficiency nor effectiveness and everything to do with abuse and oppression.
- Status