Conquer Club

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?

At that point you could call it a P2P action.

shickingbrits wrote:Considering it has been widely reported in China as a plot coordinated by the US against China, then 99%.

1) Too many rich people from China driving up the cost of living in Hong Kong is one of the issues being protested.
2) The Hong Kong borders required a permit to enter, specifically to keep the Chinese out (although that was before Nixon went there, so it doesn't matter).
3) Any disturbance is widely reported in China as a plot coordinated by some foreign power against China. The CCP has used identical tactics since before it even took power. It supports a cohesive society since the citizens can unite against a common enemy.

1. Nonsense, the cost of living was at its height in 96-97.
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.
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. 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.

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.

--Andy

DoomYoshi wrote:They could also nuke it. What is the likelihood of these events?

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.

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?]

Wow, sab, you're so worldly.

http://www.immd.gov.hk/en/services/hk-v ... 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."

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."

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:

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.

The normal ways of measuring 'living expenditures' is using consumer price indices and controlling for inflation. Then you weight them by taking an average bundle of goods for the average household, so the data becomes more relevant to the average population. Now, you've got the Aggregate Price of an Average Bundle of Goods. Then you get averages of real income and use the price-to-income ratio, but the graph says nothing about how it got its numbers... (is this omission about methodology a pattern of yours?).

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.


All I'm saying here is that the evidence for your claims still isn't clear.

BBS,

You don't want it to be clear.

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.

Perhaps ask Macbone about crime in HK. It would be hard to quantify with a graph or statistics because few people were actually arrested during triad battles. From 1998 triad battles ended, triad leaders instructed members to avoid being a public menace and areas which had been thug hang outs, vanished.

I'm sorry you can't read graphs, and I don't think me explaining them would help. Jimmy Lai is the guy being accused of orchestrating the protests, I've known his son for 17 years.

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]

I'd love some clarity from you, but you--by evidence of your posting--do not.

General pattern: (1) insert logical fallacy (ad hominem and straw man, usually), (2) ignore questions about methodology, (3) use smoke screens, (4) fill in further unsubstantiated claims, (5) ????, then finally the implied conclusion: (6) PROFIT: insist your unambiguous evidence definitely supports your strong priors without sufficiently explaining why.

Excellent work, sabotage. Very similar to your nonsensical claims about lobbying. With more data, we can update your posting pattern and make predictions.

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.

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.

(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.

If you are genuinely interested in my claims, then you might be keen to know that difficulty for mainlanders obtaining a HK visa is a common theme for people living in the PRD, a place where I used to live. Everyone knows that China dictates the rules.

China has been exceptionally gracious with HK for several reasons and I expect it to continue unless HK bites the hand that feeds them too publicly.

Metsfanmax wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:They could also nuke it. What is the likelihood of these events?

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.

Right, I forgot Cuba was part of the Texas Republic.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:They could also nuke it. What is the likelihood of these events?

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.

Right, I forgot Cuba was part of the Texas Republic.

C'mon in boy
Have a cigar
You're gonna go far

patches70 wrote:

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"

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.

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.

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

inb4 muythaiguy: "HK has been a full democracy for decades now"

Alice Wu seems to hit the nail on the side in this article:
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1650960/hong-kong-paying-price-protest

I have long claimed that Asians are the most evolved humans since they are so neotenous. However, they are also the most intrinsically subservient. 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. The Hong Kongers had a choice to live a real life. They instead have chosen to be Asian. They can now go back to memorizing digits of pi, or whatever they consider fruitful endeavors.

In related news, I would like to define non-violent protests as a form of terrorism, but make violent acts not terrorism.

Might equals right. If you don't fight for your rights, then you have none. This is why the second amendment is so important.

http://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/viewpoint/three-views-local-consciousness-hong-kong

Great review, but some things jump out at me:

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.

Really? The mainlanders are about as etiquettic as AoG.

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.

Ha! I knew it!

For the length of US history it has interfered with China. During China's history, the US is a passing flu. Let's see who is subservient over the next few centuries.

During the Triad wars in the late 90s in Macau, a lot of the hits stemmed from decades olds problems all quenched in a deluge. The Chinese are more deliberate and less reactionary. China holds a centuries old grudge that the West has long forgotten exists. The west has long since assumed they got the better of it.

DoomYoshi 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.

lolwat

mrswdk wrote:

DoomYoshi 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.

lolwat

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).

Subsistence farming was the norm through Western culture for all the important years (i.e 1700 to the Gilded age).

It's just the sort of annoying crap that tends to define our various cultures.

DoomYoshi wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

DoomYoshi 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.

lolwat

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).

Subsistence farming was the norm through Western culture for all the important years (i.e 1700 to the Gilded age).

That's all very well, except that only a minority of Chinese farmers grow rice.

And even in the case of rice farmers, I don't get why co-operation with other rice farmers would translate into a culture of subservience to authority.