Posting something you havent watched or read isnt a response
I can see you are not serious
The video isnt even a response to the video i posted.
I canât help it that very few people take this guy seriously, and arenât bothering to respond to everything he says. This is something I donât understand about people who accept a guy like as an authority, or whatever you want to call him, that is, how many errors or untruths or misconceptions does it take before you start to question him? I can see how you could start out thinking he might have some logical train of thought, but donât you stop and just check a definition, or look up a name he references? I canât see how you can accept his conclusions unless you accept most of his details that he strings together. And you should never accept a string of details as long as the videos he makes, not from anyone.
That should read in your case
âArenât bothered to respond to anything he saysâ
If you cant be bothered then theres no reason to post unless of course its just being argumentative aâ hole
Iâve bothered with you quite a bit.
There are a couple ways this could go. I could increase my knowledge of Chinese history and go through more and more points that you make and analyze them. Or, you could address all the people in the world, like Taiwanese citizens, their government, the UN, etc. You could acknowledge that not everyone agrees with you. You could understand that just because you say something is true, that doesnât make it true. But you arenât doing any of that, so why should I think that if I increase the amount of time I spend responding to you, it will make any difference?
You know @michaelcrowford, trolling is against the rules.
What makes you think he cares?
He is one of the new order where he sets rules according to Michael!
For those not bothering with the video, I donât blame you, but hereâs how he presents himself, starting before the 8th minute, âFor those of you not reading the relevant documents, and letâs be honest, you didnât. So, I read it for you. This is what it says.â
What he calls relevant is an agreement between 3 superpowers at the time, The Cairo Convention. Itâs not binding. No living person would consider it law. He constantly says âChinaâ as if there are some boundaries defining a nation that goes back thousands of years. This is the kind of rhetoric that authoritarians use to claim sovereignty over territories. Itâs the same as claiming that something Madison wrote is the opinion of âThe Founding Fathersâ or an interpretation of The Book of Mark is âChristianityâ.
Sounds familiar: Putin - Ukraine
Or âMake America Great Againâ for white people, whereas America was made great on the backs of slaves.
I loved it when Michelle Obama said: âI wake up every morning in a house that was built by slavesâ
That sense of satisfaction felt so right and just, I applauded the TV when I heard her say it.
If you were serious and had been paying attention you would have come across nathanâs anticipated response of such claims by people who think they know what they are talking about. Are these same people also saying Manchuria is not a part of China which was also given back to China from the cario convention???
I did hear that. It doesnât respond to what I said at all. The Convention is not binding, so whatever it says or doesnât say is not as important as all that has happened with governments and people since. I donât base Manchuriaâs status on that document, thatâs my point.
Often, the problem with trolling is, the troll is just not good at evaluating videos like these, so they take them seriously, and accuse others of being ignorant because they donât agree with them. You can believe whatever you want, but you canât call people names because they donât agree with you.
Calling the other a troll is the get out of jail card when ones position can no longer be maintained. Posting a hatchet job, video unwatched and "just because " answers is trolling .
The interpretations and practices of relevant countries after the war also prove that the Cairo Declaration is a legally binding instrument
According to what law? What practices?
Iâm maintaining my position just fine. Quit telling me what i didnât read. That would be trolling.
the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan of 1952.
Those arenât laws. International agreements change over time
Recognised by all countries that all land handed back post 1943 are part of china as a result of these agreements Dont blame me for other countries acting in accordance
How are they acting?
In accordance with these agreements