nCov19 Development and Prevention Discussion Only

[C T]

And Trump was playing golf throughout Jan, Feb and early March. 

 

Whats your point again? 

 

[Earl Grey]

2 minutes ago, C T said:

And Trump was playing golf throughout Jan, Feb and early March. 

 

Whats your point again? 

 

 

[C T]

5 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

Way to show that not only are you not familiar with RAW and his writings, but trying to use my own signature against me is an exercise in futility, given that I can see how others see the world, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

Likewise, so why are you being insistent that my read on China is skewed? Just because its not aligned with yours? 

I don't attempt to impose my perspectives on anyone, nor arrogant enough to insult other's informed opinions.  Im just asking questions and trying to understand why you and others view the CCP in a particular light. 

 

 

[Earl Grey]

5 minutes ago, C T said:

And Trump was playing golf throughout Jan, Feb and early March. 

 

Whats your point again? 

 

 

Woman: "Look at the atrocities going on in Timor-Leste and what has happened to Indonesia under Suharto!

 

Man: "So what? Look at what America does in Latin America. Look at what Japan did in WWII. You can't talk about that without making comparisons." 

 

Woman: "THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!"

 

Man: "Oh, of course it does, you can't have a rational conversation or fair one because you're targeting Indonesia unfairly. They've done a lot of good too, you know. You're just following the narrative against them. You aren't even mentioning what is wrong with Nixon."

 

Woman: ...

[Walker]

6 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

Way to show that not only are you not familiar with RAW and his writings, but trying to use my own signature against me is an exercise in futility, given that I can see how others see the world, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with them.

 

It's also a ridiculous last ditch attempt to win a debate by throwing down a flake-O trump card, on some old bullshit like, "well, thus far I have failed at logic, stonewalled to ignore all counterpoints and evidence, temporarily quit the debate, switched opponents, stooped to whining about people having potty mouths, thrown up straw men, tried to veer off into false dichotomies and non sequiturs, and yet I've still failed to convince anybody. Hmm, well, last chance, here's the old, 'you guys are all wrong because you're not enlightened enough' card. This is a spiritual discussion forum, it ought to work a charm!"

 

Wait...

[Earl Grey]

7 minutes ago, C T said:

Likewise, so why are you being insistent that my read on China is skewed? Just because its not aligned with yours? 

I don't attempt to impose my perspectives on anyone, nor arrogant enough to insult other's informed opinions.  Im just asking questions and trying to understand why you and others view the CCP in a particular light. 

 

 

 

I mentioned facts about China's debt diplomacy. You posted videos from Kishore and then made false equivalences and misdirections. Now you're putting more words in my mouth. 

 

Non causa pro causa, plurium interrogatorium, non sequitur, cum hoc ergo propter hoc...IGNORATIO ELENCHI.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Earl Grey

[C T]

26 minutes ago, Walker said:

 

It's also a ridiculous last ditch attempt to win a debate by throwing down a flake-O trump card, on some old bullshit like, "well, thus far I have failed at logic, stonewalled to ignore all counterpoints and evidence, temporarily quit the debate, switched opponents, stooped to whining about people having potty mouths, thrown up straw men, tried to veer off into false dichotomies and non sequiturs, and yet I've still failed to convince anybody. Hmm, well, last chance, here's the old, 'you guys are all wrong because you're not enlightened enough' card. This is a spiritual discussion forum, it ought to work a charm!"

 

Wait...

 

If I had not gone with my initial but now evaporated inclination to pay attention to your views based on what I had gleaned from your posts in the past, I wouldn't have bothered to try and understand where you're coming from wrt the CCP. But after the first few exchanges, its clear that all you can offer are platitudes and put-downs, and you wonder why the discussion veered off the way it did, albeit in the main because your mind's already made up, whereas I was being open in questioning some of the things you mentioned. Evidently this did not/does not sit well with you, so you may carry on with that trajectory. Woe be it for such a lofty mind to even entertain the possibility that you may not be absolutely correct in all the assessments made. I could be wrong, but this is how you come across in this conversation thus far, which, btw I have no interest to 'win' anything, let alone what you insist on perceiving as a debate, which it is not (as clarified above). Despite this being further attempt to make my position clearer, Im sure you're already prepared for more snarky remarks, so really, this is not going anywhere, something which was already in plain sight when I bade you goodbye earlier. 

[C T]

47 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

 

I mentioned facts about China's debt diplomacy. You posted videos from Kishore and then made false equivalences and misdirections. Now you're putting more words in my mouth. 

 

Non causa pro causa, plurium interrogatorium, non sequitur, cum hoc ergo propter hoc...IGNORATIO ELENCHI.

Yeah, facts can be quite funny things, ain't it. Depends on who's presenting them, I guess. 

 

You even take offence to a video being posted? Isn't that a bit reactionary? Or was it because there was substance to what he said? I don't know, I mean, Walker took offence to his eyebrows, so maybe you concur with such a heroically flippant tendency. 

Edited April 6, 2020 by C T

[Earl Grey]

17 minutes ago, C T said:

But after the first few exchanges, its clear that all you can offer are platitudes and put-downs, and you wonder why the discussion veered off the way it did, albeit in the main because your mind's already made up, whereas I was being open in questioning some of the things you mentioned.

 

Um, no. There weren't any platitudes on his part, and this is what I could see even without my prior respect for Walker.

 

You, however, did bring up platitudes, and your openness for questioning were full of loaded assumptions because you set the parameters with false dichotomies. 

 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

Evidently this did not/does not sit well with you, so you may carry on with that trajectory.

 

What did not sit well with him (and me too) is that you are insisting that you were acting with decorum, fairness, and impartiality. This is not the case and you are doing a very good job at denying it.

 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

Woe be it for such a lofty mind to even entertain the possibility that you may not be absolutely correct in all the assessments made.

 

Right, a "lofty mind" is someone who sees things as you do, which is stonewalling facts and using misdirection and the same logical fallacies quoted again and again even after they've been pointed out.

 

Yawn.

 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

I could be wrong

 

You are.

 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

I have no interest to 'win' anything

 

Except you keep pressing the matter and ignoring direct questions or facts cited.

 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

Despite this being further attempt to make my position clearer

 

Your position is about as clear Helen Keller's eyesight. 

 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

Im sure you're already prepared for more snarky remarks

 

Snarky remarks come because you've been dancing around the issue instead of getting to the point.

 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

so really, this is not going anywhere

 

That's because you've got your feet planted firmly in the ground and we're showing you the logical fallacies and facts so you can get out of the quicksand, but you insist it's a good place to see all perspectives more clearly. 

 

17 minutes ago, C T said:

something which was already in plain sight when I bade you goodbye earlier

 

And yet your'e still here...

 

12 minutes ago, C T said:

Yeah, facts can be quite funny things, ain't it. Depends on who's presenting them, I guess. 

 

And it also depends on who is ignoring them too. 

 

12 minutes ago, C T said:

You even take offence to a video being posted?

 

I never took offense to it. I disagreed with it. How you made this logical leap is baffling. What, I have to be offended in order to disagree? Hilarious. Makes me wonder if you're a part of the younger generation. 

 

12 minutes ago, C T said:

Isn't that a bit reactionary?

 

 

12 minutes ago, C T said:

Or was it because there was substance to what he said?

 

It had about as much substance in it as the Pope has. 

 

12 minutes ago, C T said:

I don't know, I mean, Walker took offence to his eyebrows, so maybe you concur with such a heroically flippant tendency. 

 

Your feeble attempts to insult are almost as amusing as what you see as insults and disrespect towards you. Reminds me of those wonderful self-professed proponents of Confucianism who don't like being challenged or questioned for their authority as elders as they cite filial piety, but have never read the Analects or the fine part that discusses how it is the moral obligation of children to correct their parents when they stray from the path of virtue, in other words, questioning them when appropriate is just as Confucian. 

 

Or perhaps more simply, your ethical code works until someone shows you that they know more about what code you based yours on and so you change it to suit your views, then when someone says it's no longer part of that original code, you then say that their understanding is wrong because your view of the code is more correct. 

 

And it goes beyond ethical codes: you can cite facts that are unrelated to an argument because you think you'll win the original argument with those facts. Then, when someone shows they know just as much about that new argument and brings it back to support the original argument, those people are disrespectful and they don't understand the facts you've cited. 

 

Lame.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Earl Grey

[GSmaster]

@C T is a great master who have scanned my humble minor persona but denied talking about scan results

 

might be too strong and too intelligent for our community of beginners in cultivation

 

@Earl Grey @Walker

[C T]

34 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

 

Um, no. There weren't any platitudes on his part, and this is what I could see even without my prior respect for Walker.

 

You, however, did bring up platitudes, and your openness for questioning were full of loaded assumptions because you set the parameters with false dichotomies. 

 

 

What did not sit well with him (and me too) is that you are insisting that you were acting with decorum, fairness, and impartiality. This is not the case and you are doing a very good job at denying it.

 

 

Right, a "lofty mind" is someone who sees things as you do, which is stonewalling facts and using misdirection and the same logical fallacies quoted again and again even after they've been pointed out.

 

Yawn.

 

 

You are.

 

 

Except you keep pressing the matter and ignoring direct questions or facts cited.

 

 

Your position is about as clear Helen Keller's eyesight. 

 

 

Snarky remarks come because you've been dancing around the issue instead of getting to the point.

 

 

That's because you've got your feet planted firmly in the ground and we're showing you the logical fallacies and facts so you can get out of the quicksand, but you insist it's a good place to see all perspectives more clearly. 

 

 

And yet your'e still here...

 

 

And it also depends on who is ignoring them too. 

 

 

I never took offense to it. I disagreed with it. How you made this logical leap is baffling. What, I have to be offended in order to disagree? Hilarious. Makes me wonder if you're a part of the younger generation. 

 

 

 

 

It had about as much substance in it as the Pope has. 

 

 

Your feeble attempts to insult are almost as amusing as what you see as insults and disrespect towards you. Reminds me of those wonderful self-professed proponents of Confucianism who don't like being challenged or questioned for their authority as elders as they cite filial piety, but have never read the Analects or the fine part that discusses how it is the moral obligation of children to correct their parents when they stray from the path of virtue, in other words, questioning them when appropriate is just as Confucian. 

 

Or perhaps more simply, your ethical code works until someone shows you that they know more about what code you based yours on and so you change it to suit your views, then when someone says it's no longer part of that original code, you then say that their understanding is wrong because your view of the code is more correct. 

 

Running out of patience then? Or is it your sense of self-righteousness coming to the fore now? 

How many times in exchanges with others here where you passed the tipping point in discussions in the past only to calm down later and offer to mitigate perceived misunderstandings? Before that potential is actualised, let me assure you there's no necessity for such a move in this case because you and I don't have any history of conflict (as far as I recall), and over the years, I have been mainly appreciative of your views, and you know this too, i hope. I have made my position clear, but it seems from this latest retort you prefer to skew it to fit your own narrative. So be it. 

 

The difference between our positions are quite clear: I engage with you and Walker to understand where both of you are coming from, but you mistook my questions as platitudes, and accuse me of dodging unnecessary and mistaken premises that the both of you had presented, and when I asked to for verification as to where China's foreign policy is as atrocious as alleged, you then cited anecdotes as if these were all there was available to help you make your mind up regarding the CCP's failings in this matter. And when I wanted to get you to see a wider perspective by alluding to the foreign policies of the US as a comparison, you again took offence that I can only deem is a result of feeling that I had slighted your unassailable anecdotal evidence. 

 

Despite this, there's no ill will on my part because I know this is not your real nature. I could be wrong of course, but so what. You see this as a contest of wills, and there's no way you'd give an inch as evidenced by your increasingly emotional comebacks, whereas for me, I don't really care to win since I never intended to argue that I'm right and you're wrong to begin with. Hence, I am not able to accept your gracious words intending to portray me as a condescending adult out to discipline unruly kids. Thats simply your own projection... which is:  

Edited April 6, 2020 by C T

[C T]

17 minutes ago, GSmaster said:

@C T is a great master who have scanned my humble minor persona but denied talking about scan results

 

might be too strong and too intelligent for our community of beginners in cultivation

 

@Earl Grey @Walker

 

Lol I was wondering when you couldn't resist to poke your nosey self in here

[Earl Grey]

7 minutes ago, C T said:

Running out of patience then?

 

Speaking for yourself, aren't you?

 

7 minutes ago, C T said:

Or is it your sense of self-righteousness coming to the fore now? 

 

More like your sense of self-importance is being threatened by people who actually know what they're talking about versus your conjecture.

 

11 minutes ago, C T said:

How many times in exchanges with others here where you passed the tipping point in discussions in the past only to calm down later and offer to mitigate perceived misunderstandings?

 

Oh right, try to use my history of blowing up as a means to discredit anything I say. Just because I'm the messenger doesn't change the facts.

 

12 minutes ago, C T said:

Before that potential is actualised, let me assure you there's no necessity for such a move in this case because you and I don't have any history of conflict (as far as I recall), and over the years, I have been mainly appreciative of your views, and you know this too, i hope

 

You seem to think I am getting inflamed by your views. I'm actually more amused and laughing aloud, giggling and making my pets look at me keenly. I only giggle aloud this much when reading things like A Confederacy of Dunces or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. 

 

18 minutes ago, C T said:

I have made my position clear, but it seems from this latest retort you prefer to skew it to fit your own narrative.

 

I should be saying this to you given how you're twisting this to suit your view that you're receiving disrespect.  No disrespect here, just bemusement given you're not responding to anything actually being said.

 

19 minutes ago, C T said:

The difference between our positions are quite clear: I engage with you and Walker to understand where both of you are coming from,

 

No you didn't. You focused on creating false dichotomies. I wonder if you know what those are.

 

19 minutes ago, C T said:

but you mistook my questions as platitudes,

 

You did say a few platitudes already.

 

20 minutes ago, C T said:

and accuse me of dodging unnecessary and mistaken premises that the both of you had presented

 

You did because you haven't directly answered anything.  

 

20 minutes ago, C T said:

when I asked to for verification as to where China's foreign policy is as atrocious as alleged, you then cited anecdotes as if these were all there was available to help you make your mind up regarding the CCP's failings in this matter

 

I gave examples of countries affected by debt diplomacy and you said that that's just how things are. 

 

20 minutes ago, C T said:

And when I wanted to get you to see a wider perspective by alluding to the foreign policies of the US as a comparison, you again took offence that I can only deem is a result of feeling that I had slighted your unassailable anecdotal evidence. 

 

Show me where I took offense because nothing I felt in this exchange shows I took offense, I even showed you there was a good long list both China and the US have for their atrocities--but what I said was that it wasn't the point. 

 

Do you have comprehension issues when it comes to rhetoric? I know you enjoy literature as much as I do, but none of what you are saying sounds remotely close to anything I said with all the projections and conjecture you're making.

 

22 minutes ago, C T said:

Despite this, there's no ill will on my part because I know this is not your real nature.

 

Then you should stop alleging that it is. 

 

23 minutes ago, C T said:

You see this as a contest of wills, and there's no way you'd give an inch as evidenced by your increasingly emotional comebacks

 

Emotional? Playful, yes, but emotional? Nah. You were the one who was bemused by my calling Walker someone who embodies a heroic spirit. And I've simply responded. Ergo, a dialogue, yes?

 

23 minutes ago, C T said:

whereas for me, I don't really care to win since I never intended to argue that I'm right and you're wrong to begin with

 

Except you keep moving the goal posts. 

 

23 minutes ago, C T said:

Hence, I am not able to accept your gracious words intending to portray me as a condescending adult out to discipline unruly kids

 

You don't have to accept a Razzie Award to be a recipient of it, but you will be remembered for being the winner. 

 

 

 

[C T]

So now that you've answered for both Walker & yourself and found the exchange amusing, perhaps even feeling a bit chuffed and self-congratulatory (as per the tone in the above post indicates) at your smug comebacks and strong winning attitude, there's little left to be said. Thanks for affirming that being right is extremely vital to you. You'd wrestle this position at any expense, regardless of opinions. Whereas my approach to life has in the main been one where nothing is what it seems, and there's no positions that will be absolutely right or wrong, and I have tried to carry this into my exchanges with others as much as I can, but sometimes there's bound to be unavoidable situations where this can be misunderstood as a weakness. Being aware of this, I will know well to steer clear of future dialogues here and elsewhere. I have more urgent matters to attend to. Thanks for the insight all the same. 

[Earl Grey]

2 minutes ago, C T said:

So now that you've answered for both Walker & yourself and found the exchange amusing, perhaps even feeling a bit chuffed and self-congratulatory (as per the tone in the above post indicates) at your smug comebacks and strong winning attitude, there's little left to be said.

 

 

 

This is your favorite toy, isn't it? You love playing with this and others right now.

 

4 minutes ago, C T said:

Thanks for affirming that being right is extremely vital to you

 

Has more to do with the fact that you did not answer any questions asked directly and instead kept misdirecting. Not winning. 

 

5 minutes ago, C T said:

You'd wrestle this position at any expense, regardless of opinions.

 

 

5 minutes ago, C T said:

Whereas my approach to life has in the main been one where nothing is what it seems, and there's no positions that will be absolutely right or wrong, and I have tried to carry this into my exchanges with others as much as I can, but sometimes there's bound to be unavoidable situations where this can be misunderstood as a weakness.

 

Your false dichotomies and loaded questions indicate otherwise.

 

5 minutes ago, C T said:

Being aware of this, I will know well to steer clear of future dialogues here and elsewhere.

 

 

5 minutes ago, C T said:

I have more urgent matters to attend to

 

Translation: "I am trying to sound way more important than I actually am in spite of how invested I was in this derailment that I myself started." 

 

6 minutes ago, C T said:

Thanks for the insight all the same

 

Somehow, I question the sincerity of this statement. 

[C T]

Amazing! Lol

[Earl Grey]

 

[Earl Grey]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52184497

 

Air BnB hosts are defying lockdown laws with lockdown retreats...

[SirPalomides]

Essential quarantine viewing

 

 

[ralis]

Ohio State Rep Tavia Galonski is filing crimes against humanity charges against Trump. Charges are being filed in The Hague.

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by ralis

[SirPalomides]

Yeah that's totally not an empty performative gesture.

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

Yeah that's totally not an empty performative gesture.

 

If The Hague Court finds Trump guilty then he will never be able to leave the US to visit his  properties in Europe or elsewhere.

[ralis]

The Orange Virus blob pressured several Federal agencies to supply Hydrochloroquine to hospitals. He must own stock in the manufacturer. 
 

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/04/trump-personally-pressured-cdc-fda-nih-to-allow-untested-malaria-drugs-to-be-used-to-treat-coronavirus-report/

[Earl Grey]

It's happening: death not from coronavirus, but the government. It's also bullshit given it's a similar setup and too convenient to have a 63 year-old threatening everyone with a scythe that brave policemen do their job to protect others...(Sarcasm in case nobody caught that). 

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/man-shot-dead-philippines-flouting-coronavirus-rules-200405072915819.html

 

Scare tactics too: https://www.rappler.com/nation/257130-police-storm-community-kitchens-tear-down-protest-posters-quezon-city-april-6-2020

 

People are saying they aren't going to take it on social media though: https://www.rappler.com/move-ph/257149-student-publications-raise-hell-after-ue-campus-journalist-forced-apology

 

And to the surprise of no one, the lockdown is going to extend to April 30. https://www.rappler.com/nation/257192-duterte-inclined-extend-luzon-lockdown-until-april-30-2020

[Earl Grey]

China's trolls dominate the social media dialogues and zeitgeist: https://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2020/04/02/chinese-virus-conspiracy-theories-picked-up-by-thai-media/

 

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/via-local-commie-underlings-beijing-officially-disapproves/news-story/491b415795fbbdc526d33d5b569134a4?nk=0a245a8c9b5472b683be4575380e6116-1586229021

 

And Boris Yeltsin Johnson has moved to the ICU...https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52192604