Russia's Tank Biathlon

Blackstone said:

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:

1. 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.
   
2. You offered post #117 as proof
3. I said your post 117 is conjecture and not proof
4. Our argument in this case is I say your conjectures in post 117 aren't proof and you say otherwise
5. Any SDF moderator is acceptable as judge. His or her decision is final

Click to expand...

• Moderator is to maintain the order of the forum, that is preventing abuse of the forum.
• Moderator is not to be act as a judge of the subject in discussion. Moderator has the authority to stop a member from further posting if that member break rules, but not to judge who is right on that subject.
• On the specific subject, Moderator only hold his/her own personal opinion which can be right or wrong.
• The only judgement of the subject is by facts and logics. Or may not be possible due to the lack of them. In that case, all we can do is agree to disagree.

taxiya said:

I don't understand why you try to bring in moderator. Inviting anyone (including the moderator) into the discussion to share their opinion on the subject is alright, but making one person authority of the matter (even the moderator) is not warranted, and sounds like a subtile threat. Will you ask the court of law to make a verdict on whether black hole is fact or pure science fiction?

• Moderator is to maintain the order of the forum, that is preventing abuse of the forum.
• Moderator is not to be act as a judge of the subject in discussion. Moderator has the authority to stop a member from further posting if that member break rules, but not to judge who is right on that subject.
• On the specific subject, Moderator only hold his/her own personal opinion which can be right or wrong.
• The only judgement of the subject is by facts and logics. Or may not be possible due to the lack of them. In that case, all we can do is agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Engineer said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. 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.
   
2. You offered post #117 as proof
3. I said your post 117 is conjecture and not proof
4. Our argument in this case is I say your conjectures in post 117 aren't proof and you say otherwise
5. Any SDF moderator is acceptable as judge. His or her decision is final

plawolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

Equation said:

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.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

You either don't understand speculations and suppositions aren't proof or you don't care. Either way, you're simply wrong.

Click to expand...

Engineer said:

Too bad for you, it is neither situation.

You asked for proof of PLL-05 being banned from competition. That request was met with me pointing out PLL-05's attendance last year, and how it is not in the same competition this year. That is despite China showing strong preference on using her own equipments. That's what a ban means.

Click to expand...

1. officially or legally prohibit:
   "he was banned from driving for a year" ·

A quote from China's state media has also been included which politely stated Chinese team with PLL-05 finished ahead of other teams by a wide margin, and that the organizer (Russia) proceeded to fudged the score.

So, the situation is that you are rejecting proofs that you asked for. You see, that's called denial. The rest is just you throwing baseless accusation around, reflecting the fact that you have no argument.

Click to expand...

Like I have pointed out several posts ago, this discussion isn't really about proving or disproving the banning of PLL-05 despite the appearance. This is really about you being salty about Chinese team out performing others with Chinese equipments. The Russian ban would cermet the whole thing, which is why you venomously denying it ever took place.

Click to expand...

1. 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.
   
2. You offered post #117 as proof
3. I said your post 117 is conjecture and not proof
4. Our argument in this case is I say your conjectures in post 117 aren't proof and you say otherwise
5. Any SDF moderator is acceptable as judge. His or her decision is final

Blackstone said:

Your understanding of the word "ban" is wrong. Here's the dictionary definition:

[ban]
VERB

1. officially or legally prohibit:
   "he was banned from driving for a year" ·

So, what's your evidence Russia officially banned China from using PLL-05 in this year's Tank Biathlon?

Click to expand...

1. China shows a preference on using her own equipments.
2. Chinese team employed PLL-05 last year.
3. PLL-05 is not in competition this year, despite #1 and #2.

Blackstone said:

I reject your conjectures, because they are not proof.

Click to expand...

Blackstone said:

Real proof means you link an official statement from a generally accepted Russian or Chinese media source. If you had produced that to start with, we wouldn't be arguing. So, once again, I ask you to produce proof. Not your theories, not your suppositions, but real and tangible evidence from an official site or from a generally accepted media source.

Click to expand...

proof
pruːf/
noun

1. 1.
   evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Click to expand...