You are murdering the English language. Words convey meaning when constructed correctly. You did not call Brat out as being off topic in your post #409. I am reproducing below the full post so that there is no wriggle room.
.
Your first sentence says you are calling Brat out (in your opinion) for adding nothing to the topic. That is not the same as calling him out for being off topic. The meaning of "off topic" means precisely that and is different from non value adding comments. Are you adding another rule i.e."Meaning of words according to whatever Equation says it mean"?
Please refer to my reply above as to whom is having comprehension problem.
Systems are build upon concepts and they are meant to ensure outcomes are developed in a certain direction. When you build a system based on no checks, no accountabilities, no transparencies then you are likely to end up in a certain outcome rather than not. The outcome is an aggregate of 1.3 billion people interacting with a system and each individual will have a capacity to behave differently. How people behave is dependent on the system roadmap. Your position is trust the people in government to do the right thing who will not abuse the system for their own personal gains. Why do you think China is so corrupted? Where do you think corruption comes from? It is payment by people who wants to avoid being oppressed and abused by government officials acting with unchecked powers, no accountability and transparency to their actions.
You may know the street where you lived better than others but that is about how much of an authority you have on China based on that experience. It is fallacious because it is an argument of false authority. Your experience on China is 1 out of 1.3 billion and it would not even qualify as a statistical anomaly as representative experience let alone authority. How does your experience living in China accord you the authority to speak on Chinese laws? .
You are mischaracterising the topic of conversation. I am questioning your reasoning that having lived in China makes you an authority on China..
You ae making what I call an Utopian argument. You basically set up an utopian state as the standard and argue that it can't be reached and therefore it is not sound. The problem is you are resting an argument based on execution and not the design. Off course execution will always be messy because unscrupulous people will always be out to game the system to their advantage. Not having solid foundation of due process will even make it worst.
Michael Kovrig is a case that demonstrates precisely why China's legal system is so problematic and a source for corruption. There is no due process and no transparency in contrast to Meng's case. No transparency hides a lot of problems and why there are no information on MichaeI Kovrig's case. it is rule by law vs the western system of rule of law. It is a system where the government use the laws to control the people as opposed to protecting the people.
Your argument is basically the end justifies the means because it is for the common good until you are the one in the receiving end of the Chinese justice system. I am sure the mafia is much more efficient and effective in debt collection than a debt collecting agency but then I digress.. .
I murdered the English language? Says the person who defines "always" as "favorable odds" AKA 51%? Good one. Read in between the lines the last sentence:
"And he said absolutely nothing about your false freedoms, which, for some reason, you like to allude to in every conversation spanning from J-20 to trade war..."
Calling him out for mentioning "freedom" in "...every conversation spanning from J-20 to trade war..."
is saying that he is off topic and always so. I thought you'd catch that if your level of English was better than rudimentary. Are you fluent?
Once again, your hypothetical odds are useless because there is far less political corruption in China than in the US. You can use odds to figure that a larger fighter will have a better chance at beating a smaller fighter but when you are already told that the larger fighter is Bob Sapp and the smaller fighter is Fedor Emelianenko, your odds go out the window. There is "so much" corruption in China because the people put into the positions of trust violated them and the government hunts these officials, stripping them and replacing them every day. There is much more corruption in the US because the entire system, designed to prevent corruption, was circumvented by powerful black-hearted people in high places (some not even in the US), which is why the entire white-house is the circus freak show it is today. The common people don't even have a place to pay a bribe to avoid the abuse and oppression; opportunities to bribe are for the rich and powerful in America. They are told straight to their faces that they have a "democratically elected" president who lost the majority vote, was ushered in by foreign interference, is perfectly accustomed to criminal activity, and they can do nothing about it. Now that's
impressive corruption. And that will take it back to what I said in the first place: whatever the system is designed to do, still depends on the people doing them and that is how, despite having less legal mechanisms to prevent corruption in China, it is still much less corrupt than the US.
So this conversation is supposedly about the freedoms seen on the ground in comparison between the US and China. I'm not a Chinese lawyer and neither are you, so even if you have great knowledge about American law, you cannot compare it to something you are not familiar with. Living in China does not make me a legal expert on the Chinese process but it
does qualify me to comment on the level of freedom experienced by people on the streets in Beijing, Shanghai, Nanjing, Tianjin, Qingdao, Jinan, and possible some other places. They are very free compared to the US and the people there don't have a look of fear and helplessness whenever the police are summoned which is the norm in the US. In contrast, you have nothing to compare with; you know what the US is like and you have an imaginary picture of China based on Western readings. Basically, I've seen the person while you're painting a mental image of what he looks like based on what people (who hate him) tell you so if we're both supposed to pick him out of a crowd, I'd suggest you pipe down when I tell you that's not your man.
Not having a solid foundation will make things worse if all people are the same but if the Americans are just more corrupt than the Chinese, then it can easily overcome that design as demonstrated in real life.
You asked me what Michael Kovrig was charged with because that is how you would define fundamental transparency. I told you, and you are still harping about lack of transparency? I expected as much from someone of your caliber. Chinese law oppresses and confines the criminals and protects the law-abiding well-meaning citizens from their harm. That is the correct implementation of the law and that is how people like Kovrig should be treated. The Chinese can easily go through the motions, forge evidence if necessary, create documents, and even allude to nonsense laws like the Canadian ones to satisfy people like you and Kovrig will still be at the complete mercy of the court but why go through all that trouble pretending to give "due process" like the West? In the Chinese system, the efficiency is improved but the fairness is maintained.
I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. If I am in Chinese court, I am certain that after finding me innocent of wrongdoing, I will be released. No public trial needed. However, if I have actually done wrong and went through extraordinary means to destroy the crucial legally-condemning evidence hoping to be let off due to lack of evidence, I would worry. The Chinese won't let me off on a legal technicality. Of course, someone brain-washed by Western ideals may think that the Chinese are insane; they just lock up anyone for a perfect conviction record regardless of whether evidence suggests the person was a traitor or patriot. That quality of thinking wouldn't surprise me.
