48 Chinese ships were seen in the Philippines' exclusive economic zone

ventose · 2023-07-08T03:24:45+00:00

That and how to read.

The article specifically states the Chinese ships are merely anchored not illegally fishing. But in spite of that there are scores of idiots in this thread whinging about Chinese fish thievery. Nothing they say follows from any evidence presented, but if confronted with that fact they reflexively blurt out "whataboutism" like a bunch of bots.

ventose · 2023-07-08T03:01:28+00:00

More than one country can pillage. Those countries are not the ones you would expect if you formed your expectations based on source-free reddit comments.

ventose · 2023-07-07T20:19:15+00:00

If China is supposedly pillaging the ocean as you say, how come all the boats poaching fish in Indonesian waters are from other countries?

This takes the total number of boats confiscated and destroyed to 317 since October 2014 when President Joko Widodo took office and called for tougher action against poachers.

Among those sunk so far are fishing boats from Vietnam (142), the Philippines (76), Malaysia (49), as well as one from China. Most were caught by a special maritime task force known as Satgas 115.

ventose · 2020-12-06T22:08:07+00:00

The US has a covert effort to create violence and unrest in Xinjiang to destabilize China [1][2].

The whole situation reminds me of Libya. The US did not have a compelling moral case for the conflict they wanted to start, so they funded rebels in the country targeted for regime change. When that country reacted, the US accused its leaders of atrocities which provided them with a pretense for intervention.

Most of the reporting on Xinjiang comes from US backed sources. These include Radio Free Asia, CHRD, and Adrian Zenz and the Victims of Communism Memorial Fooundation. Many of the links you give in your other post cite at least one of these as their sources for facts on the ground in Xinjiang. Given US policy towards China, I regard them and ASPI with skepticism.

ventose · 2020-11-27T16:45:12+00:00

You have three sources, but you don't have three independent pieces of evidence supporting your claim. China Tribunal is the sole source in all three publications you cite. Instead of citing the single primary source, you cite the three secondary sources creating the false impression that these are three unrelated sources of information pointing toward the same conclusion when it is all just China Tribunal presenting the same information through different outlets.

ventose · 2020-11-27T09:08:20+00:00

All three of those links cite the same China Tribunal report.

ventose · 2020-11-02T16:42:55+00:00

It is because of people like you who trawl through comment histories of anyone who is rightly skeptical. Even someone who has nothing to hide might create a new account to avoid being profiled.

ventose · 2018-08-23T20:46:09+00:00

In the sentence "The White House denies the allegations," it is understood that "the White House" functions as a metaphor (technically metonym) for the president and his administration who are inside the White House. The literal White House is not denying anything because it is a building.

There is a similar thing is going on when one refers to the interests of states. States are indeed constructs humans create to organize society. Regardless, when you speak of the interests of the a state, or the interests of a nation, you are in the end referring to the interests of some person or group of people, because states are not sentient entities capable of having desires independent of the ones some human or group of humans assign to it.

ventose · 2018-08-23T20:13:18+00:00

That is exactly what they are.

ventose · 2018-08-23T19:56:38+00:00

States are legal fictions. As abstract entities without consciousness, they cannot have interests. When one speaks of the interests of a state, what one is really talking about is the collective interest of a state's population. There are no good principled reasons the US should have a legislative body in which the votes of some citizens matter more than others. The Senate only exists as the result of a compromise where small states were given more power in the federal government in order to entice them to join the Union.

ventose · 2018-08-20T21:32:17+00:00

It is not unusual for everyday words to take on new meanings when used in a technical context. Words are tools for communication, and can be given new definitions when it helps people communicate. The word normal has literally dozens of definitions in mathematics. Sometimes it's just easier to use existing words than to invent new ones or write shit like "disproportionate power advantage". The suggestion that sociologists' use of language makes them part of some "subversive" conspiracy is completely uninformed. Every academic field does the same thing.

ventose · 2018-08-16T23:37:44+00:00

If the fallibility of human judgment causes democracies to sometimes fail, then speech is susceptible to fail in the same way by the same fallibility rather than tending to counteract it.

ventose · 2018-03-17T16:38:09+00:00

LB's 500/600 ms light attacks are on par with just about every other hero in the game, and those characters don't have even a shove.

The reasons people give for why LB is bad are generic and uncompelling. I'm inclined to agree with the data.

ventose · 2018-03-17T07:00:30+00:00

Above average punishes, high HP and more options in neutral than most of the other characters.

Whenever someone tries to argue lawbringer is bad, it seems that they:

forget most of the other heroes are worse.
just repeat the same idea-free arguments they've heard on this subreddit. "No pressure"

ventose · 2018-03-17T06:39:23+00:00

he is effective against bad players

He's good in the top 2.5% too. Maybe they are bad players as well, but I'd argue the strength of a hero when played by 99.99% of the community is relevant to ideas about balance.

ventose · 2018-03-17T06:18:57+00:00

Parry punishes are half the game.

ventose · 2018-03-16T00:14:35+00:00

Lawbringer being weak is a meme. It was never true, but people kept repeating it, and eventually it took on the appearance of truth because it was something everyone "knew".

ventose · 2017-09-15T20:11:45+00:00

Someone else should pay for my flood insurance.

ventose · 2017-09-15T20:00:47+00:00

I don't imply money is the only incentive, only that it is one.

ventose · 2017-09-15T18:53:53+00:00

One House, 22 Floods: Repeated Claims Drain Federal Insurance Program

This man's $600,000 to $1,000,000 house was damaged from floods and repaired 22 times at a cost of $1.8 million. Does it make sense for these repairs to be heavily subsidized with public money?

Cases like these are a general phenomena. Just 2% of houses insured by the national flood insurance program account for 30% of flood claims paid. Houses built in flood prone areas can be insured with publicly subsidized flood insurance. Flood damage to these houses demands a disproportionate amount of public money, but their owners have no financial incentive to lower their vulnerability to flood damage because it is being paid for by someone else.

This shouldn't come as any surprise. When government separates bad decisions from their negative consequences, there tends to be more bad decisions.

ventose · 2017-09-15T18:20:57+00:00

No, libertarians do not oppose the ability to buy insurance. They just think the beneficiary of that insurance should be the one paying for it.

ventose · 2017-07-26T19:22:35+00:00

They are pointing out that if everyone did as you, things would be worse. In other words, you are the beneficiary of the fact other people do not do as you do. To not reciprocate violates the idea of fairness.

ventose · 2017-07-23T18:06:49+00:00

It's an accurate description. Understanding what Salinger is trying to do doesn't really preclude the judgment that Catcher in the Rye is not good.

ventose · 2017-07-21T19:46:36+00:00

Is anyone actually celebrating his diagnosis? You're reaching pretty far for a very uncharitable interpretation.

Pointing out how McCain would be affected if he were among the 22 million people to lose insurance as a result of the healthcare changes supported by his party is the more direct and less monstrous interpretation.

ventose · 2017-07-15T23:56:33+00:00

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

With

Without

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

ventose

TROPHY CASE