Miscellaneous News

TK3600 said:

I will just answer it for you. It is because it is malicious bullying. Laws enforce this justice. If one day law change, it still don't make it right. You cannot equate legality with coercion or not.

Click to expand...

Oh, you'll answer your own questions cus I won't play your games? LOL Next time, just write this and don't waste posts asking stupid questions. What does discrimination have to do with coercion anyway?

TK3600 said:

The intention determines whether it is bullying or not, not action itself.

Click to expand...

Eh... no. A person who intends to bully others but does not have the power has bullied no one. I don't know why you would have said such a thing.

TK3600 said:

Same way US bully around other country by trade sanctions. It is a malicious coercion. It is intended to intimidate and break the society. Not because it was unprofitable to trade which would have been valid reason to not trade.

Click to expand...

Depends on the sanction. If the US simply said they don't want to trade their goods with someone, that's not bullying anyone. That's starting exactly a trade war and the receiving country will have to decide to fight back or request relief. It becomes bullying if threats that violate sovereignity are ever made (ie seizing shipments on the high seas, blocking trade routes, etc...) The US controlling oil through invading countries and using that energy control as leverage is a large part of American bullying. But there is nothing inherently wrong with the US simply saying they don't want to trade with you or share their tech with you.

TK3600 said:

That is not to say China's response to SK is unjustified. It is legal and has proper pretext. China is not doing it for nothing.

Click to expand...

Of course it was justified. China never violated SK's rights.

TK3600 said:

Not wanting to be friend with someone due to no shared interest is fine. Or you are too tired is also fine. Using it as an insult to put people down is not fine and frowned upon for a reason.

Click to expand...

LOLOL Not wanting to be someone's friend for any reason is fine. No reason is also fine. You are literally entering a place where you're violating people's rights to choose whom they want to be friends with.

TK3600 said:

Bruce Lee beat them up not because he REALLY want to enter a party. He did it because it is a malicious insult putting down Chinese in their own homeland.

Click to expand...

Right. I know that. In Chinese homeland is the key, as I said from the very first post. It's China's sovereign territory and China's the victim of their imperialism. But you can't go to other people's countries and start shit there over legal discrimination against the Chinese. It literally does not support your argument in any way.

manqiangrexue said:

No, demands are not bullying.

Click to expand...

Demanding SK not enter a trilateral alliance with US-Japan or else China will destroy SK businesses on mainland is..... economic coercion.

manqiangrexue said:

South Korea's rights are unchanged. They maintain their rights to deploy anything they want on their territory.

Click to expand...

But Moon Jae-in didn't deploy any additional US THAADs due to risk of Chinese economic retaliation. That's something you are not understanding. They nominally retain the "right" to commit economic suicide, but that's not truly unimpeded freedom of action is it?

manqiangrexue said:

Their rights are unaffected. But they can do so without Chinese business.

Click to expand...

Using your logic, US sanctions against Xinjiang is not economic bullying because Xinjiang retains the right to use whatever labor they want, just without U.S. businesses. US didn't even threaten to invade, so definitely not bullying. /s

manqiangrexue said:

I find it hard to believe you can't figure out the difference between telling someone you won't buy thier things or accept their diplomats vs threatening to invade them. Are you really struggling to understand the difference or are you just arguing to argue?

Click to expand...

I'll concede that threatening to invade SK if they don't remove THAAD is unhinged and bullying.
But I'll also make the point that threatening to embargo SK if they don't remove THAAD is proportion economic retaliation, coercion, and economic bullying as well, because it's well within their sovereign right to determine which alliances they enter, which security posture they adopt, and what miltitary assets they deploy on their soil, regardless of China's interference and economic pressure.

manqiangrexue said:

That's literally reading comprehension failure. "If you didn't violate anyone's rights, you didn't bully anyone." That means if China didn't violate South Korea's rights, China didn't bully South Korea. Of course it's about South Korea's rights. How did you miss that?

Click to expand...

Using this logic, US sanctions against SMIC is not economic bullying, because SMIC still has the right to independently develop technology, they can just do so without access to Western businesses and technology! It's also not bullying because US didn't violate it's rights, so not bullying. /s

That's some impressive mental gymnastics there buddy.

Phead128 said:

Demanding SK not enter a trilateral alliance with US-Japan or else China will destroy SK businesses on mainland is..... economic coercion.

Click to expand...

That's within China's rights to do. South Korea has no right to have any businesses in China; it is a privelige granted by China to do business in China.

Phead128 said:

But Moon Jae-in didn't deploy any additional US THAADs due to risk of Chinese economic retaliation. That's something you are not understanding. They nominally retain the "right" to commit economic suicide, but that's not truly unimpeded freedom of action is it?

Click to expand...

I understood that perfectly. Moon changed his choice but it was still his choice and China never violated SK's rights. Invading someone does violate someone's rights. This is successful persuasion.

Phead128 said:

Using your logic, US sanctions against Xinjiang cotton is totally not economic coercion, because Xinjiang's rights were unaffected, US did not invade Xinjiang, and they can do so without US business.

Click to expand...

This is a complicated issue; it was an attempt to destabilize China's muslim region. But that's not the point. I believe American sanctions against Xinjiang do not violate China's rights. It was a fair choice for America to make.

Phead128 said:

I'll concede that threatening to invade SK if they don't remove THAAD is unhinged and bullying.

Click to expand...

That's what the whole damn thing was about. What is there left to argue?

Phead128 said:

But I'll also make the point that threatening to embargo SK if they don't remove THAAD is proportion economic retailiation, coercion, and economic bullying as well, because it's well within their sovereign right to determine which alliances they enter, which security posture they adopt, and what miltitary assets they deploy on their soil, regardless of China's interference and economic pressure.

Click to expand...

Threatening to embargo, in the sense that it blocks all trade routes to SK so that no other nation may trade with SK is definitely bullying. But threatening to cut Chinese trade with them is not bullying at all; it's China's sovereign decision whom we trade with.

Phead128 said:

Using this logic, US sanctions against SMIC is not bullying, because SMIC still has the right to independently develop technology, they can do so without U.S. business. SMIC wasn't even slapped in face or invaded, so not bullying. /s

Click to expand...

You are correct; America has the right to not share its technology with SMIC. However, it goes into the grey zone when the US uses these sanctions to prevent other places like ASML from selling Dutch technology with China on the premise that it includes US technology. When the Dutch incorporated US tech into its chain in developing its lithographs, the stipulation of no Chinese sales was not entered into the agreement, therefore adding this amounts to unilaterally changing the contract adding restriction clauses after the deal was done. It's a gray zone and actually is more bullying the Dutch than the Chinese, however, in general, restricting US tech from going to China is not bullying at all. I wouldn't want my tech helping my rival to beat me either.

Phead128 said:

That's some impressive mental gymnastics there buddy.

Click to expand...

Well, you know when you're inept, just seeing someone else walk and turn around can look like gymnastics to you.

manqiangrexue said:

Oh, you'll answer your own questions cus I won't play your games? LOL Next time, just write this and don't waste posts asking stupid questions. What does discrimination have to do with coercion anyway?

Click to expand...

No you cannot explain away using your own logic. The British do not have to invite Chinese and dogs for a party, just like country do not have to trade with each other. When you cite laws, I answered laws are made to prevent this in first place. Why are laws made? You know the answer but you are afraid to say it, because it would be admitting you were wrong. Because it is malicious bullying.

manqiangrexue said:

LOLOL Not wanting to be someone's friend for any reason is fine. No reason is also fine. You are literally entering a place where you're violating people's rights to choose whom they want to be friends with.

Click to expand...

Here is the part you are dense about, it never about "being friend" and boohoo I am lonely and I need their approval. You think Bruce Lee care about being friend with racist scums? That is not why he is angry. The same reason American sanctions are evil, because it is not about making good business deal, it is about force other country not to trade with a country to try starve them out. Not just stop trading with US, but to force other country to pick trade with that tiny country or me the bigger economy. I suppose you can say "yeah, that is totally lawful, technically no rights violated". Then I will just concede, because at least you are being consistent.

manqiangrexue said:

That's within China's rights to do.

Click to expand...

Bullying has nothing to do with China's rights, but South Korea's rights.

manqiangrexue said:

South Korea has no right to have any businesses in China; it is a privelige granted by China to do business in China.

Click to expand...

South Korea has a right to enter any alliance, deploy any security posture, deploy any security asset on it's soil.

manqiangrexue said:

I understood that perfectly. Moon changed his choice but it was still his choice

Click to expand...

Holy shit, you are entirely clueless.

It's not truly Moon's un-impeded freedom of action if you are decision-making process is made under duress.

manqiangrexue said:

and China never violated SK's rights. Invading someone does violate someone's rights. This is successful persuasion.

Click to expand...

Bro, bullying can be verbal and non-violent. Look up the definition of bullying please. I'm sick and tired of your made-up definitions.

manqiangrexue said:

But threatening to cut Chinese trade with them is not bullying at all; it's China's sovereign decision whom we trade with.

Click to expand...

Again, it's not about China's rights, it's about South Korea's rights. Jesus Christ.

manqiangrexue said:

You are correct; America has the right to not share its technology with SMIC. However, it goes into the grey zone when the US uses these sanctions to prevent other places like ASML from selling Dutch technology with China on the premise that it includes US technology. When the Dutch incorporated US tech into its chain in developing its lithographs, the stipulation of no Chinese sales was not entered into the agreement, therefore adding this amounts to unilaterally changing the contract adding restriction clauses after the deal was done. It's a gray zone and actually is more bullying the Dutch than the Chinese, however, in general, restricting US tech from going to China is not bullying at all. I wouldn't want my tech helping my rival to beat me either.

Click to expand...

It's bullying the Dutch and Chinese, end of story!

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words, or more subtle actions. (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

Click to expand...

To say there is no harm or discomfort by SMIC due to Western restrictions is deeply disingenuous - it is technological bullying.

manqiangrexue said:

Well, you know when you're inept, just seeing someone else walk and turn around can look like gymnastics to you.

Click to expand...

The inept is saying US tech sanctions is bullying Dutch, not China.

Talk about no consistent standard and double-standards man.

All this debate over China and South Korea's rights is a total waste of air better spent discussing almost anything else. There are no true rights. Only privileges or concessions prettied up and labelled as such. Any and all of which can be revoked at any time when confronted by an adequately superior power.

“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”​

― Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

There are too many back and forth posts about "China bullying SK etc.", I won't reply to every individual one of them, instead I will just share what I think.

Using the word "bully" to characterize China's retaliation on SK, Netherlands or US etc is ignoring how all these back-and-forth actions come about. It is cherry-picking for moral cover.

Any vilence, force and actions have a cause and will have counter actions. The guy who punches first is bullying, is the guy who returning the punch also bullying? That depends on who is speaking for whom. If somebody put a bomb at my door-step and claims that the bombs is till in public property therefor his right to do so, then I will make his car on fire by accident. Anyone here would do differently? I doubt.

The bottom line is that forceful action is the same regardless. the aggressor is the bully, counter measure is not bullying. If anyone disagree, I think he just allows accident happening to his house, whatever he call that accident.

BTW, a person or country being coerced to harm another person or country is NOT inocent at all and deserves forceful action upon him. In law they are called "coerced accomplice" who is still punishable. In personal example, most Nazi war crimals clained following orders (otherwise will be killed themselves), that did not save their ass or neck. In example of country, many countries were only pardoned by the allies after they turned against Nazi Germany. "Being coerced" is not any excuse for what people do, being "bullied" or beaten up may be what they deserve. Being a small country is not enough a cover for innocence, it is called "皮痒痒欠揍".

CMP said:

All this debate over China and South Korea's rights is a total waste of air better spent discussing almost anything else. There are no true rights. Only privileges or concessions prettied up and labelled as such. Any and all of which can be revoked at any time when confronted by an adequately superior power.

“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”​

― Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War

Click to expand...

Or to put it another way, powerful nations behave like gangsters and weak nations behave like whores.

BBC only interests in reporting LGBTQ instead of why Chinese tourists are not returning and what can do about it.
At the entrance to a newly-built, 55-storey apartment block in central Bangkok, Owen, a Chinese property agent, waits to meet two new clients, Lincoln and Wonson, who flew in from Shanghai the evening before for their first ever visit to Thailand.

As a gay couple they say they want to experience the dizzying variety of LGBTQ+ entertainment in Thailand. But they have a more serious purpose. They want to raise a family, which is much harder for gay couples to do in China, and they are looking for a potential home.

Owen says Thailand is the first destination of choice for Chinese LGBTQ+ travellers, and those wanting to settle here now make up two-thirds of his clients.

"We saw a lot of gays, lesbians, and some transgender people here," Lincoln said. "So yeah, I think this is a very open country, and very free. When we got here we felt kind of liberated."

"I think the most important thing is the atmosphere here," Wonson added.

"The freedom, because you know it is hard for us to live in China, facing social pressure from family, from traditional culture. Maybe here we can have a life like in our imagination, which can not only fulfil our own needs, but also our children's. And here we can tell our children that we are very normal, like other people."

Chevalier said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

whats it called when the abused become the abusers?
it’s like Jewish Zionists took everything from the third reich and became caricatures of their oppressors.

Click to expand...

Talking about the vibes of Nazi Germany:
A clownish comparison:
Killing Israeli women and children is a crime against-humanity, but killing Palestinian women and children is not?
Nazi Germany: we had to exterminate the Jews because no one else in the world was willing to accept them!