|
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
KHF
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 100
Location: ON, Canada
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Since there has been numerous replies directed at me I will respond them all in one post.
| admiral wrote: |
 If someone tries to specify his post on someone another's post by quoting an overdosis of his posting, then it's aggressive. And such a discussing should be done in a peaceful way.
And something becomes not objective if it's writer becomes addicting to some other member's post to create an one-against-one discussing battle, where each member uses some points in the previour one's, to challenge the other. |
It's being specific not being aggressive. Or would you rather me giving a general statement without telling you which point in your post I was focusing on? Objectivity is also not *being polite*. It is being logical and unbiased. It has nothing to do with the way I participated in this thread (which IMHO is perfectly normal anyway).
| admiral wrote: |
And according to KHF: I didn't want you to feel addressed, and I didn't doubt your knowledge about China because it's every guy's right to build up his own opinion.
And so I showed you my opinion about Iraq: We all know that there is no ABC weapon in Iraq. And we know that the reason of Bush doing the war was because of the history of the manifest destiny.
But China didn't have such manifest destiny thought, so it could be one of the misunderstanding europeans could make. |
I am not European, nor American, nor Canadian. I lived in Taiwan for more than fifteen years and only hold the Taiwanese citizenship. The reason of why Bush decided to give green light to Operation Iraqi Freedom is also most likely not as easily explained by simply *manifest destiny*. However, I do agree that Bush probably didn't go to war with destroying weapons of mass destruction in mind in the first place. Presuming that every European/North American would make the same misunderstanding because of his race though, is racism. It might not be as shocking and disgusting as the enslavement of African Americans or the apartheid, but it is racial nevertheless.
| admiral wrote: |
| The other misunderstanding is to think that the taiwan policy of China was purely for their own interest. And that's why I suggested that the world should grow together, to let the history of every country become one. Because at this time a fair judgement could be made. |
I don't get what you mean by "[letting] the history of every country become one". Are you suggesting to make it an international affair? If that's the case, it already is since the US has always been involved (which also means you should welcome ideas from Europeans/Americans or whoever else even more). Or do you mean to unify every country in the world? That is way beyond the scope of this thread and frankly, the world is not ready for it yet.
| admiral wrote: |
| The last misunderstanding was concerning the manifest destiny. This is, I wonder you don't know, the hidden ideal of americans to conquer other countries, to free them and to set the idea of free trade at work. |
You are right. I didn't know this before and now I've learned something new. That's the merit of discussion, right? 
| admiral wrote: |
| And now I wanted to tell you that something which doesn't seem propable doesn't mean that it's impossible. I would recommend you searching for stuffs concerning Johan Galtung. And maybe, if you think that's ok, you could recommend it to other guys. I think it's an good idea: Peace by peaceful solutions, because war can not set peace. I think that Hu Jing Tao's opinion could also be this. And that's probably why he still insists in a peaceful solution, although USA, Russia and many of the countries started supporting China. |
I thank you for your recommendation. Do realize that I have never advocated for war. I am just a supporter of the independence of Taiwan and I only advocate a referendum on the issue without interference from China. The possibility for peace depends on the reactions from both PROC and ROC. At the current state though, it seems that PROC is the only one advocating on the use of war. Also, Hu supports peaceful solutions on the condition that Taiwan unifies with China. I have already explained why this does not show any sincerity and will not repeat myself again.
| admiral wrote: |
| Oh, and maybe a last misunderstanding: NATO is not the ruling body, because it's the instrument of the ruling body to achieve it's aim. |
Which is what I have said (the very fact that it is a defense pact). This is probably a misunderstanding on wording, thus I apologize here.
| admiral wrote: |
I guess the problem is the following:
I guess you personally, because you have this manifest destiny spirit of american people, are thinking that chinese people would think so.
And according to this guess, my advice to you is to be more tolerant in discussing, see my last posting. |
Thanks to the link you provided, I now know what manifest destiny is. However, I've never thought the Chinese people would think the same as I do to begin with. Why do I bother posting the entire background history on the issue, write up pages of analysis on the situation, explain to just about every person who participated in this thread the merits or mistakes in their arguments? Because I want to give them another angle to think about something they have always taken for granted. Finally, why should I be more tolerant just because I disagreed with you or other Chinese? What is it that you want me to be tolerant about? Isn't the entire point of a discussion hearing different opinions and arguing upon them? If you meant for me to be more tolerant about my stance on the "disregard foreigner's ideas" strategy. You are right, I am intolerant about all forms of racial discrimination, no matter how trivial it may seem. And no, I will not be tolerant about it.
| admiral wrote: |
| The problem is that China is not USA, and HuJingTao is none of the American presidents. |
I am well aware that China is not USA and HuJingTao is not the American president. However, that does not constitute him or the PROC to violate human rights.
| RedRose wrote: |
KFK, of all people here who are discussing the issue, you are the biggest hypocrite! as a foreigner, you hope another country gets taken apart, and you call a country, who wants another part of hers back, "bully strategy", and you make you look like an avatar of integrity. haha! once again! who are you? who do you think you are? you are not the qualified one who should tell us how to deal with TaiWan Issue.
fortunately, your desire, I mean you hope China gets separate, will never come true. I guess that would be a fine blow for you. I don't wanna waste my time with such an airhead anymore. take care! |
Take a good look at this fine example of intolerance, admiral. All of a sudden only the Chinese are fit to think about this issue and voice their opinions according to her. Unfortunately for her, she also didn't bother reading the posts carefully and thus had the wrong assumption on my background. Those emotional and therefore biased lines were quite amusing to read, too, heh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
admiral
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I really envy you that you spend so much time in answering the posts. Though I really think that being polite is not something anyone should choose not to be, because we are talking here in a society, and not directly with each other.
| Quote: |
| It's being specific not being aggressive |
The problem is: Everything has a definition range. If you overstep the definition range, you don't have to wonder that other people don't understand things like you do.
And that was part of the point for my suggestion why all nations should grow together. With more and more understanding between human being, there will be lesser war.
What you show to us is not understanding, but anger and aggression. Remember, we are living in a society, so your point is not to present us your feelings, but to lower these aggressive feelings, to let us understand the objective point of your discussion.
About your quotation concerning red rose: Sorry, but who do you think you are, that you can spread your anger over others, but others can not? If you put a big drum in front of some other guy's house, and play, you really should not wonder that the neighbour critisizes.
To tell you the truth: If you could be able to live in a society, then you will be able to see exactly what I was talking about, that anger can only let more anger happen.
_________________
If I say "I love you" to someone, then I also have to say "I love inside you everyone else. I love the whole world because of you. I also love myself inside you" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KHF
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 100
Location: ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| admiral wrote: |
Well, I really envy you that you spend so much time in answering the posts. Though I really think that being polite is not something anyone should choose not to be, because we are talking here in a society, and not directly with each other.
[Being polite] was part of the point for my suggestion why all nations should grow together. With more and more understanding between human being, there will be lesser war.
What you show to us is not understanding, but anger and aggression. Remember, we are living in a society, so your point is not to present us your feelings, but to lower these aggressive feelings, to let us understand the objective point of your discussion.
About your quotation concerning red rose: Sorry, but who do you think you are, that you can spread your anger over others, but others can not? If you put a big drum in front of some other guy's house, and play, you really should not wonder that the neighbour critisizes.
To tell you the truth: If you could be able to live in a society, then you will be able to see exactly what I was talking about, that anger can only let more anger happen. |
You didn't address my points in the argument. Instead, you chose to think that I try to promote anger in the thread. Well, I merely tried to express my opinion in the clearest way possible by dissecting your post down to a point form format. Let me inform you this is widely practiced and warmly accepted over just about every international forum on the Internet. Have you thought about the possibility that the anger you felt came from disagreements not some non-existent insults from me?
As for my response to RedRose, you can go back and check my post. I told her her analogy is hypocritical, not herself. Hypocrisy can be used to describe biased acts in the English language. I have also told her the reason behind. Instead of addressing that, she gave me a typical 5-liner without telling me any reasons just like dancefish did. However, I do agree it was perhaps too strong a word, so hereby I formally apologize to her.
And finally, I am perfectly able to live in a society. In fact, I am doing it just now. Can we now get back on track instead of some boring finger pointing about who is angry or not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
admiral
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
 Very good.
However, it's obvious that too many long quotation-specialised postings take a long time to read. And because not many guys have so much time, this is the point which creates anger, if the other guys feel forced to answer the long-specialised posts also by such posts. I hope my analyse is right and let's hope that anger will be banned.
Now, to say something according to the track, I don't think that changing the opinions of our forum members is possible, because every one has a different life background. I wanted to make this clear by the discussion about manifest destiny.
But even if this changing happens, I don't think that a revolution here in the forum could change the reality happening in the world.
And I don't like to set such a great store in something which neither brings profit nor money to me.
I wish this discussion could be peaceful from now on. And greets to all, merry Christmas.
_________________
If I say "I love you" to someone, then I also have to say "I love inside you everyone else. I love the whole world because of you. I also love myself inside you" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KHF
Joined: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 100
Location: ON, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 24, 2005 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see your point. I have been detached from the ESL programs for so long I have already forgotten how intimidating a long post could be. I should've picked it up from dancefish's reaction. Sorry! 
I can understand that sometimes it is hard to change people's minds, especially on sensitive issues like this one. But there really is no harm in trying, right? Even if they don't change their point of view, I could perhaps learn something from the discussion (like how you have demonstrated) or even change my own belief. As for the effect of the discussion, yes, it looks pretty trivial. However, great achievements often result from seemingly trivial causes. Even if we achieve nothing, at least it will be a good exercise for our brains. 
And finally Merry Christmas to you, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
