Well spotted again.

You asked me that question before and I have already answered you. – I’m having a bit of fun poking at the rednecks/bigots to see them twist and turn, dribbling more incoherent nonsense and exposing their true nature.

If my actions made them better human being and save their souls, it was truely unintentional.

@ stoogie: ah, thanks. THAT’S why you are here!

hope the cheap arse rum didn’t distroy the last bit of brain cells you
had.

Since when has this place been a forum for anything rational or “reasonable discussion”?

To prove a self confessed shit-stirrer a shit-stirrer, How many steps of logical induction do you need to come to the same conclusion?

how hard could it be ? Retard !

I think I’ve seen Stoogie’s type around before.

Three words: Mark Anthony Jones.

Although I don’t have as much knowledge of the famous twat that calls himself Mark Anthony Jones, it doesn’t take much for me to think that Stoogie and he are the same “small brained wiper of other people’s bottoms.”

Furthermore, how serious can you take someone who calls him self something akin to Larry, Moe, or Curly?

Finally, Neddy, I’m not as nice as I used to be and insignificant fucktards (by the way, MyLaowai, I hope you don’t mind my use of your word) like Stoogie don’t even register on my radar. He’s the reason they invented abortion.

I don’t think that either the West nor China can make a case in their own defence (or of their own glory) that would be merely based on reason. The undeniable differences between East and West (and the East isn’t only the CCP itself) involves an uncertain element of fear, too – just that neither side likes to acknowledge that publicly, and many of us may not even do so to ourselves. I’m simplifying here, but let me put it this way: The Chinese know all to well what people can do to each other. It is human to project fears on foreigners before looking at your own people – but I believe that those who are honest with themselves will think as much of the Cultural Revolution, as they may think of the Japanese War or Western semi-colonisation. Actually, the older Chinese ppl are, the less hypocritical they tend to be, as far as I can see. The Communist leadership can’t make a solely reasonable case for its own stance, because it fears both its own people and foreigners (some more, some less so).

We Westerners may fear for the values that we hold dear, when looking at a certain class of business people, who never believe in Papa Christmas in their daily routine, but want to do so once it is about “trade begets openness and trust between China and the West”.

But then, individual responsibility comes at a price. We can’t “discipline” OUR “sellouts” (please mind the quotation marks”) the way the Chinese “discipline” theirs.
Then again, I think this is a price worth paying. Antagonism between China and its neighbours / the CCP and its subjects is usually silent, and when it becomes spectacular, it seldom happens in public. Uniformity and coercion doesn’t lead to more stability. The fear that all of China may “break up” once you allow the Taiwanese to make their own choices indicates that.

We should accept the weaknesses that come with pluralism and individual responsibility. Collective coercion is much weaker. Meantime, Chinese and Westerners do business with each other. That is no warrant for peace – but locking each other out wouldn’t be, either.

I’m using my gut feeling here, rather than reason. After all, I don’t think that reason is everything. But where reason is available, we should make use of it.

Nota bene: before you think of yourself as a moral higher being for not “defending the indefensible” – @ stoogie – ask yourself what you are doing on this website yourself. What’s its appeal to you? You aren’t here because you think your remarks can turn us into people as great and insightful as you are yourself, are you?

And I’ll listen, I really will, to anyone who wants to make a case, for anything at all. In fact, chances are I can make a case for pretty much anything in human history. I don’t always agree with it, but I can make a case for it.

Morality is concerned not with whether or not you choose to defend a certain position, but how it is you defend it. I’ll even concede that the Party (and their current Chairman, Butcher Hu) could make a reasonable case in their own defence for the way in which they have behaved. The fact that they can’t (or worse, won’t) is a sorry reflection on the way in which they operate. I.E. in the shadows.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you, whether you agree with me or not, whether you like me or not, for at least having the balls to take a position.

I don’t have a problem with extreme points of view – it has been my experience that extreme people are the people that are most easily convinced by superior arguments (and superior martini’s). My real issue is with the people who sit in no man’s land, thinking that they needn’t get involved. Those are the people who put Hitler in power, those are the people who are currently signing away the moral strengths of the West in general, and those are the people who will support the Red Gods, even as their own lives are devalued on a daily basis.

If I could achieve but a single thing with this blog, it would be that someone got involved.

Hopefully someone on the right side of the Force…

@ stoogie:
Well, that may be your opinion, my friend. Seems to me the “Economist” called the Chinese claim on Taiwan “morally indefensible” some time ago, while you commented on an Australian politician that he tells everyone “the truth”, somewhere on this blog – and his position is opposite to the one mentioned above.
So, “indefensible” may be hurled into many directions, and is basically too big a word for a reasonable discussion. Every killer gets a public defender. In certain places, anyway. In others, a confession maybe tortured out of him. Indefensible?

BTW, meet stoogie, our resident troll, a.k.a. “living example of inverse relationship between the size of a mouth and that of a brain”. He ain’t got much of anything, let alone class, but then, as our host says, this is only a modest blog. You take what you can afford, and even a semi-eloquent parrot must do in a crunch. On your part, you may choose to ignore him, or piss on him, but whatever you do, do not make a mistake of trying to debate with him… How shall I put it? I know: Have you ever tried to argue with a pre-recorded telephone message? Also, keep our host’s sensitivities in mind; he is fair, but he may not approve of the Sinocidal-style shock therapy!

My, my, stoogie, that “International Retard Association – Founding Member” medal I gave you must have stuck in your gullet. Your neck must be quite scrawny compared to your big mouth. Or shall I take your imitations for a flattery? No, I don’t think so. You repeat yourself too much, like that pre-recorded message.

But I should finish on a more positive note: Your gracing us with your presence here, makes us rightists look all so much more palatable. Though I am sorely tempted to suggest that you keep Australia beautiful, and go away. Anyplace.