At that point you could call it a P2P action.Lootifer wrote:Come on P&P (patches and PS), don't you know that if you want to get rid of homeless people you simply just need to ban them?!?! Durrr!
#instinctivereactionsftwright?
Moderator: Community Team
At that point you could call it a P2P action.Lootifer wrote:Come on P&P (patches and PS), don't you know that if you want to get rid of homeless people you simply just need to ban them?!?! Durrr!
#instinctivereactionsftwright?
aage wrote: Maybe you're right, but since we receive no handlebars from the mod I think we should get some ourselves.

1) Too many rich people from China driving up the cost of living in Hong Kong is one of the issues being protested.shickingbrits wrote:Considering it has been widely reported in China as a plot coordinated by the US against China, then 99%.

That's true. I've never heard of a major economic power shutting down trade and travel to a small island nation nearby to it, purely for political reasons. And that could certainly not last for decades, economically crippling said small island nation.DoomYoshi wrote:They could also nuke it. What is the likelihood of these events?
Wow, sab, you're so worldly.shickingbrits wrote:1. Nonsense, the cost of living was at its height in 96-97. [citation needed]
2. China issues the permits and if you had any practical knowledge of how it works, you would understand that China limits access, not HK. [because sabotage says so]
3. China ousted its own spies within the US consulate by publishing recordings exposing the US's role in leading the movement. If you can't invalidate the recordings, then the recordings must be taken as evidence of the US's role. [Argumentum ad McNamara] If you wish to point to historical precedent, then there is a plethora of examples of the US using the exact tactics elsewhere, differing only in the strength of the country that they were used against. [A did X in place Y; therefore, A must have done X in place Z. PFFTTTT!!!]
Hong Kong was never democratic. The British only began creating a democratic ideology when the transition of HK approached. Democracy wasn't a part of the British plan for British HK, it was part of the British plan for a destabilized Chinese HK.
Since HK reverted to China, the once safe colony has become extremely safe. The Chinese government subdued the a Triads by holding a meeting and setting limits on their activities. [Does sabotage have the crime statistics to at least mildly support his claim?]


In other words, it depends on "Central People's Government" (PRC?) and their talks with "the government of the Region" (HK)? This doesn't seem to support your one-way claim about it being 100% up to the PRC.shickingbrits wrote:http://www.immd.gov.hk/en/services/hk-visas/overseas-chinese-entry-arrangement/mainland-china.html
"For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region."
I'm not really understanding the relevance of this graph. If we're talking about "expenditures for living," then how does measuring a price-to-income ratio reflect that? For example, suppose a subset of goods (producer goods? consumer goods?) increases in price--e.g. big yachts. The price-to-income ratio rises, but it's not like most people buy yachts, so the price-to-income ratio really isn't reflecting the overall expenditures on living in HK.shickingbrits wrote:
It's not clear that the PRC takeover is responsible for the decline. There's already a trend of declining crime (homicide rate) before the PRC takeover. Since then, has the trend increased or decreased? And what relevant variables are missing? Is there a substitution effect at play (less homicides but more thefts/assaults)? etc.shickingbrits wrote:
I'd love some clarity from you, but you--by evidence of your posting--do not.shickingbrits wrote:BBS,
You don't want it to be clear. [1]
China makes the decision after consulting with HK. HK can say, we are completely overrun by tourists and then China can make whatever decision it wants. After consulting with the region means nothing when HK gives China no reason to care about their opinion. [4]
Perhaps ask Macbone about crime in HK [3]. It would be hard to quantify with a graph or statistics because few people were actually arrested during triad battles [4]. From 1998 triad battles ended, triad leaders instructed members to avoid being a public menace and areas which had been thug hang outs, vanished. [4]
I'm sorry you can't read graphs [1], and I don't think me explaining them would help. [2] Jimmy Lai is the guy being accused of orchestrating the protests, I've known his son for 17 years. [3]
(1) I'm genuinely interested in your claims, and (2) I wanted another opportunity for you to expose your thinking. It's been rewarding to see how conspiracy theorists tend to think.shickingbrits wrote:Sorry dude, if I were asking you about whatever place you were from and you gave me some basic info on it, I'd take your word, or look into myself.
The only reason you asked me to publish some data is so you could find fault, sorry to disappoint you.
Right, I forgot Cuba was part of the Texas Republic.Metsfanmax wrote:That's true. I've never heard of a major economic power shutting down trade and travel to a small island nation nearby to it, purely for political reasons. And that could certainly not last for decades, economically crippling said small island nation.DoomYoshi wrote:They could also nuke it. What is the likelihood of these events?
C'mon in boyDoomYoshi wrote:Right, I forgot Cuba was part of the Texas Republic.Metsfanmax wrote:That's true. I've never heard of a major economic power shutting down trade and travel to a small island nation nearby to it, purely for political reasons. And that could certainly not last for decades, economically crippling said small island nation.DoomYoshi wrote:They could also nuke it. What is the likelihood of these events?

The Tea Party took care of that in my state when they were in power. We had a severe problem with police confiscating everything in sight, at times even trumping up bs charges, just because they wanted something someone else had badly enough. Now, in Minnesota, your stuff only gets confiscated if you plead guilty or are found guilty of the crime. Rand Paul is pushing the same basic concept at the Federal level.patches70 wrote:Yeah, and as absurd it is to mess with the guy, this sort of thing isn't anywhere near the worst things that the police do "legally". Ignoring the shootings that police do often enough to make people wonder, the little publicized practice of civil asset forfeitures ranks up there as one of the most insidious.Phatscotty wrote:
Good to see ya around Patchy. That guy arrested for feeding the homeless, actually has been arrested 3 times. But I think the first 2 times he was just closed down and ticketed. Love his attitude 'I don't give a crap what your dumb law says, I'm setting up shop again tomorrow morning and feeding the homeless"
inb4 muythaiguy: "HK has been a full democracy for decades now"shickingbrits wrote:Hong Kong was never democratic. The British only began creating a democratic ideology when the transition of HK approached. Democracy wasn't a part of the British plan for British HK, it was part of the British plan for a destabilized Chinese HK

Really? The mainlanders are about as etiquettic as AoG.The difference in social customs (with isolated but much-publicized events of queue jumping, or defecating in public space, etc) distinguishing locals from mainlanders became contentious.
Ha! I knew it!Jiang stipulates that the British were shrewd at “winning the hearts and minds” of Hong Kong people during their colonial rule, and Beijing should learn from the British experience. It is noteworthy that Jiang translated “winning hearts and minds” into “xinao yingxin,“ which literally means “washing the brain and winning the hearts,” deviating from its original English meaning (Jiang 2008: 31). Jiang’s thesis is tantamount to saying that all Hong Kong Chinese are inherently Chinese “patriots-in-themselves” waiting to be transformed by the vanguard patriots in Beijing into “patriots-for-themselves.” It suggests that Beijing’s ideological work in Hong Kong is essential to overcoming local identities. In retrospect, Jiang’s diagnosis coincides well with Beijing’s agenda for Hong Kong in the wake of his tenure there, as shown by the 2012 attempt to introduce the compulsory National Education curriculum in all schools.
Jiang argues that the “one country, two systems” arrangement in Hong Kong, whose origins can be traced to the “Seventeen Point Agreement” between Beijing and the Dalai Lama government over Tibet in 1951, is significant not only because it anticipates Hong Kong’s reunion with China, but also because it presages the revival of China as an empire (Jiang 2008: 123-58). To Jiang, the Chinese empire, which reached its pinnacle in the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), was grounded on the radiation of Confucian civilization and successive incorporation and transformation of its peripheral zones into its core territory.
lolwatDoomYoshi wrote:This is most likely due to rice growing demanding a cohesive community wheras Western farmers can just grow whatever on their own land and not worry about their neighbors.
Efficient rice growing demands that fields be kept flooded. This requires co-operation among the community to ensure that all fields get adequate water (i.e. my water drains to your field and not to a random hole).mrswdk wrote:lolwatDoomYoshi wrote:This is most likely due to rice growing demanding a cohesive community wheras Western farmers can just grow whatever on their own land and not worry about their neighbors.
That's all very well, except that only a minority of Chinese farmers grow rice.DoomYoshi wrote:Efficient rice growing demands that fields be kept flooded. This requires co-operation among the community to ensure that all fields get adequate water (i.e. my water drains to your field and not to a random hole).mrswdk wrote:lolwatDoomYoshi wrote:This is most likely due to rice growing demanding a cohesive community wheras Western farmers can just grow whatever on their own land and not worry about their neighbors.
Subsistence farming was the norm through Western culture for all the important years (i.e 1700 to the Gilded age).