You're a world beater. Putting religion in a discussion about tanks... No further questions.You mean like religious institution believers and non believers?The religious believers mental capacity can't handle the facts that a large non-believing nation such as the PRC could do so well at almost everything.
Russia's Tank Biathlon
- Thread starter SteelBird
- Start date
Blackstone
Brigadier
Conjectures, however reasonable, are not proof, they're opinions. You made two wild claims that Russia banned China from using PLL-05 in Tank Biathlon 2016, because it was too successful in last year's competition. If your opinions in post #117 are all you have to back up your accusations, then you have no real evidence.You have been shown evidence in post #117.
How about a little wager? Let's let a SDF moderator decide who is right. The loser agrees to stop posting for the rest of the year (until January 1, 2017).
The situation is this:
- You accused Russia of banning China from using PLL-05 in this year's tank biathlon because it performed too well in last year's biathlon, and I asked for proof.
- You offered post #117 as proof
- I said your post 117 is conjecture and not proof
- Our argument in this case is I say your conjectures in post 117 aren't proof and you say otherwise
- Any SDF moderator is acceptable as judge. His or her decision is final
How about it Engineer, what to put your money where your mouth is?
Engineer
Major
That's just your personal opinion. I on the other hand, have presented facts in response to your request for evidence, facts that you are yet unable to dispute. Calling facts something else isn't going to make what I presented any less factual.
Equation
Lieutenant General
That's your opinion, but that's fine. Because that's what it all boils down to is group superiority. Like I said before on the other thread if atheist PRC can prove to the world that one doesn't need to believe in institutional religion to be successful (uplifting 800 million people out of poverty and hundreds of millions more into middle class status - better than any government or god in human history), that spells doom and gloom to all those institutional believers. As a result their interpretation of values became meaningless.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Sounds like you're confidant of your position, but do you have the courage of your own convictions? Let's let an unbiased arbitrator decide. I again list the terms:That's just your personal opinion. I on the other hand, have presented facts in response to your request for evidence, facts that you are yet unable to dispute. Calling facts something else isn't going to make what I presented any less factual.
Let's let a SDF moderator decide who is right, the loser agrees to stop posting for the rest of the year (it means one can still read the forums, but can't post until 1/1/2017).
The situation is:
- You accused Russia of banning China from using PLL-05 in this year's tank biathlon because it performed too well in last year's biathlon, and I asked for proof.
- You offered post #117 as proof
- I said your post 117 is conjecture and not proof
- Our argument in this case is I say your conjectures in post 117 aren't proof and you say otherwise
- Any SDF moderator is acceptable as judge. His or her decision is final
How about it Engineer, shall we put it to the test?
Engineer
Major
No. The situation is that you have no argument. Also, the point of contention is whether Russian banned PLL-05, not whether your view of post #117 as conjecture has validity. Nice try with the bait-and-switch tactic.
Blackstone
Brigadier
Just as I thought, you know you were wrong and you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it. My offer of asking forum moderators to decide stands open, your refusal speaks loudly of your lack of confidence in your stance.
To wit, let's let a SDF moderator decide who is right, the loser agrees to stop posting for the rest of the year (it means one can still read the forums, but can't post until 1/1/2017).
The situation is:
- You accused Russia of banning China from using PLL-05 in this year's tank biathlon because it performed too well in last year's biathlon, and I asked for proof.
- You offered post #117 as proof
- I said your post 117 is conjecture and not proof
- Our argument in this case is I say your conjectures in post 117 aren't proof and you say otherwise
- Any SDF moderator is acceptable as judge. His or her decision is final
Full aware that I might be sanctioned for saying this.
Can moderators on a western centric forum like SDF really serve as unbiased arbitrator? Don't get me wrong SDF is better than many other western military forums in term of moderating politics/(IMO) arguments with detectable racial undertones.
Still there are many instances of china bashing, inflaming snipe at Chinese government, numerous accusations of propaganda/fanboys against members that hold less western centric views on Chinese military, economic as well as scientific matter without any consequences.
Is appealing to moderator arbitration really a neutral proposition for both western centric members as well as china centric members?
Can moderators on a western centric forum like SDF really serve as unbiased arbitrator? Don't get me wrong SDF is better than many other western military forums in term of moderating politics/(IMO) arguments with detectable racial undertones.
Still there are many instances of china bashing, inflaming snipe at Chinese government, numerous accusations of propaganda/fanboys against members that hold less western centric views on Chinese military, economic as well as scientific matter without any consequences.
Is appealing to moderator arbitration really a neutral proposition for both western centric members as well as china centric members?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you are deliberately being ironic, as opposed to that being an astonishingly ill-informed post boardering on being brainwashed.
The role and scope of China's censors are vastly overplayed in the west to score cheap points and to use as a convenient excuse for them to speak on behalf of 'ordinary Chinese people'.
If a topic deemed worthy by the west isn't getting any traction/support in China, well it's the Chinese censors keeping the story suppressed, if it weren't for those pesky censors, they would be 2 billion likes!!!
On the other hand, anyone posts anything offensive and/or silly on the Chinese Internet and suddenly they are the exclusive spokesperson for the Chinese government.
The reality is that there are a few core banned subjects which are actively blocked, and the censors check new topics for things to add to that list, but beyond that, it's much like the Internet in any other country.
Similarly for the Chinese media, on core national policy matters everyone needs to tow the party line, but beyond that, there is a degree of freedom most westerners force fed by the western media would find astonishing.
Engineer
Major
More like I know I am right. Quit projecting your own incompetence onto others. You are the one who can't form proper counter-argument to the facts that I have presented.
You are engaging in black-and-white fallacy. You see, there are many reasons for me to refuse your offer. For one, I have no need to participate in something which has no legitimacy to begin with. For two, your proposal is just lame.
No. The situation is that you have no argument. Also, the point of contention is whether Russian banned PLL-05, not whether your view of post #117 as conjecture has validity. Nice try with the bait-and-switch tactic.