- Jun 2014
- Lisbon, Portugal
Initially I knew what I was criticizing for, and then you provided new information and new insight, which I accepted, and there is no problem at all if me or you failed some basic knowledge on the subject being discussed. This is a public forum and changing opinions and trying to educate or show other people information that they might not have is the entire point of a discussion, so I don't know why you have to react in such a way.you are supposed to know what you are criticize for, you should present the source for your criticism.
this is the simple rule, you should not have turn the job upon me.
you should not pretend it is about who is not cool-head
And I don't clearly know what you are talking about me presenting sources...do you remember what we were talking about earlier? I said that one of the demands of the protesters was having universal suffrage. That's one of their demands, and by reading your other posts on this thread you are clearly aware of the demands of the anti-government protesters, so why should I give you sources of something that you already know?
I'm sorry but this was a completely unnecessary point that you have to make and this borderline strawmanning, in my view.
This is strawman fallacy 101. You are not debating with me and my points and I think you don't really want to understand my point, you are using a strawman.perhaps, it is not even clear to yourself. just like many others in this forum, you have a prejudgment that a chinese is not rightful to support PRC, so it should *always* be the chinese poster to provide sources for debate.
You are making a lot of unfounded judgments.
A totally pointless remark.....however, that is not the fact, if one uses the actual academic standards, who raised the criticism, who is responsible for finding sources.
When did I claim that the PRC did not provide general elections? Another strawman detected. I just politely asked you to give me the source stating that, it was not because I doubted your statement, it's because I wanted to see and read it for myself.you claim PRC did not actually provide the general election, which a severe criticism since the general election is known to be part of the basic laws. then you are supposed to give the sources for your claim.
Please, please, don't put words on my mouth.
Strawman again...like many, you turned for me to provide sources, is it possible you think it is always the "common sense" ”PRC does not provide rights to its citizens”?
In fact it is a proper sentence. The electors are the voters, the voters elect the elected officials. In the Hong Kong Legislative Council, only 40 of the 70 seats in that branch are elected by the majority population (the common electors) with the rest of 30 elected by 28 traditional functional constituencies. Those traditional functional constituencies are generally designated legal entities such as organisations and corporations which will have a tremendous power in choosing lawmakers and that's a contradiction to the idea of universal suffrage." the electors only have the power to elect a portion of the legislative elected officials"
this is not even a proper sentence.
Public Consultation on the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive and for Forming the Legislative Council in 2012, Constitutional & Mainland Affairs Bureau, Government of Hong Kong, 18 November 2009
When I said "legislative elected officials" I really meant "legislator" or "lawmaker" - you can correctly refer that political position by those three names. Maybe you got a little bit confused by the term "official" and maybe I should have used a more commonly referred term in order to not cause misunderstanding. For that I apologize.officials are not elected, just like Secretary of State of US is not elected. the chief of hk is elected. officials are just employees of the hk government.
HK lawmakers are not just employees of the HK government and the Secretary of State of US is not a lawmaker - although that's besides the point.
You are beating a dead horse here, seriously...this is getting trivial, and you are completely missing the point and on the top of that you want to insist on your misunderstanding of my analogy. I'm sorry but this is not making you look good.you should not make terrible analogy that does not fit the context.
this thread is about hk. not how secondary sources are useful in Holocaust.
any human proposed rule of nature of human society only works under specific context, for example, the newtons law only works under classic mechanics
your claim that secondary is more evident than first hand, and your cheap analogy of Holocaust has its special context.
the background of lack of survivor is not applicable in hk
it does not matter whether i got or miss your memo, if you fail to establish a logics, your analogy is not useful
My initial point to other historumite that I was discussing with is: the 1967 riot, as violent as it was, made the colonial authorities to change their policy regarding the welfare and civil rights of the Hong Kong subjects. It transformed the relations between the British colonial elite with the Chinese majority. Do you want to comment on that or not?
Yes, you are making an assumption. I said that I'm a foreign national living in China. You literally said that my stay in Hong Kong wouldn't be a problem because of my "foreign face". Those were your words. You made an assumption of what I look like without me ever stating to you what I look like or you ever seeing my pictures or portrait. Being a foreign national doesn't at all denotes that I will have a certain look that will make me stick out from the crowd if I am in Hong Kong. You made a racial remark actually, assuming that I at least didn't look Chinese or Asian, and I never disclaim to you my racial or ethnic background whatsoever.i am not making assumptions.
you are not chinese, yourself have claimed many times in the forum you are a foreign person lived (lives) in china and other countries.
i just have a good memory about who said what.
i don't have to make the assumptions.
Please, I will politely ask you to retrieve that comment and apologize for it. I'm asking you this in a respectful way.