3 ms·

> hardline nationalistic remarks If by hardline you mean balanced instead o flow effort western echochamber hot takes then sure. I literally just submitted a p

> hardline nationalistic remarks If by hardline you mean balanced instead o flow effort western echochamber hot takes then sure. I literally just submitted a post on Chinese rural surveillance program today. Prior to that a post on US company sentiment about Chinese tradewar using both US and Chinese commerce department data. So maybe use some common sense before throwing accusations. I also post in health and construction related stuff when it comes up, or Chinese geopolitics. The latter just happens to be more popular and filled with misinformation. Also you're literally a 1 comment throwaway account used to throw shade. I'm not concerned with my partiality. E: forgot to address your low effort, no contributory appeal to authority retort: highlighting the greater context and atypical nature of formal death sentences is not an appeal to authority but provides actual information relevant to the subject matter. CPC could executed any of the 13,000 terrorists it claimed to have caught since Strike Hard escalation in 2016, instead it chose to execute these two? Why? The reasons are worth considering. And it's not even that I don't believe CPC wouldn't trump up charges or that the situation in XinJiang is grossly unnecessary, but I also don't think that these two couldn't also be both excellent academic scholars but also maybe have funded or sheltered Turkmenistan terrorists on the side. They're not incompatible notions.

dirasddf1 7y ago
This is attacking the straw man fallacy. It seems like you like to go on personal attacks when questioned. > I'm not concerned with my partiality. You obviously are despite what you claim. > If by hardline you mean balanced Like Fox News is fair and balanced. Purposefully presenting fallacies to sway the audience is not balance. Its deceitful. > low effort Yup and also to the point. It would be great if @dang kept an eye on @dirtyid.
- dirtyid 7y ago
  You replies have been nothing but low-effort ad hominem accusations. My replies are factual context relevant information to the article. They're not so much as pro China as not explicitly anti China, but anything less is deceitful to you. You're not even using fallacies properly. If you're not going to provide useful information, at least get your attacks correct.
dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
> Why? The reasons are worth considering. Since China decided to make the reasons secret, we will never know, and can only speculate.
- dirtyid 7y ago
  > only speculate You can speculate more accurately based on past trends in absence of transparency. In both Tashpolat Tiyip and Halmurat Ghopur, the sentence was "death sentence with a two-year reprieve" which is almost always commuted life imprisonment [I think somewhere in 2], unless the accused is found to have intentionally commit further crimes. >This unique sentence is used to emphasize the seriousness of the crime and the mercy of the court, and has a centuries-old history in Chinese jurisprudence [1]. We'll have to wait and see if these two actually get executed, if they aren't (likely) then it's possibly political theater by Chen Quanguo. Hence timing is interesting aka suspicious. If they are, then they likely committed something serious. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_sentence_with_reprieve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_sentence_with_reprieve [2] https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1758492017ENGLISH.PDF https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1758492017ENGL... Particularly relevant section on Xinjiang executions post Strike Hard in section 6.3.
  - frogpelt 7y ago
    I read the whole original article assuming he already been executed. Has he not?
yorwba 7y ago
I've noticed you posting well-informed comments and I realize that it's annoying to be accused of bias for that, but I've also noticed you responding aggressively to ad hominem attacks and I think that's unnecessary. There are many more people reading comments than posting, and for them it would be better if you kept only the informative part and cut the confrontational rest out. I would keep the following: > If by hardline you mean balanced instead o flow effort hot takes then sure. I literally just submitted a post on Chinese rural surveillance program today. Prior to that a post on US company sentiment about Chinese tradewar using both US and Chinese commerce department data. > I also post in health and construction related stuff when it comes up, or Chinese geopolitics. The latter just happens to be more popular and filled with misinformation. > E: highlighting the greater context and atypical nature of formal death sentences is not an appeal to authority but provides actual information relevant to the subject matter. CPC could executed any of the 13,000 terrorists it claimed to have caught since Strike Hard escalation in 2016, instead it chose to execute these two? Why? The reasons are worth considering. And it's not even that I don't believe CPC wouldn't trump up charges or that the situation in XinJiang is grossly unnecessary, but I also don't think that these two couldn't also be both excellent academic scholars but also maybe have funded or sheltered Turkmenistan terrorists on the side. They're not incompatible notions.

dirasddf1 7y ago

This is attacking the straw man fallacy. It seems like you like to go on personal attacks when questioned. > I'm not concerned with my partiality. You obviously are despite what you claim. > If by hardline you mean balanced Like Fox News is fair and balanced. Purposefully presenting fallacies to sway the audience is not balance. Its deceitful. > low effort Yup and also to the point. It would be great if @dang kept an eye on @dirtyid.

dirtyid 7y ago
You replies have been nothing but low-effort ad hominem accusations. My replies are factual context relevant information to the article. They're not so much as pro China as not explicitly anti China, but anything less is deceitful to you. You're not even using fallacies properly. If you're not going to provide useful information, at least get your attacks correct.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

> Why? The reasons are worth considering. Since China decided to make the reasons secret, we will never know, and can only speculate.

dirtyid 7y ago
> only speculate You can speculate more accurately based on past trends in absence of transparency. In both Tashpolat Tiyip and Halmurat Ghopur, the sentence was "death sentence with a two-year reprieve" which is almost always commuted life imprisonment [I think somewhere in 2], unless the accused is found to have intentionally commit further crimes. >This unique sentence is used to emphasize the seriousness of the crime and the mercy of the court, and has a centuries-old history in Chinese jurisprudence [1]. We'll have to wait and see if these two actually get executed, if they aren't (likely) then it's possibly political theater by Chen Quanguo. Hence timing is interesting aka suspicious. If they are, then they likely committed something serious. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_sentence_with_reprieve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_sentence_with_reprieve [2] https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1758492017ENGLISH.PDF https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ASA1758492017ENGL... Particularly relevant section on Xinjiang executions post Strike Hard in section 6.3.
- frogpelt 7y ago
  I read the whole original article assuming he already been executed. Has he not?

yorwba 7y ago

I've noticed you posting well-informed comments and I realize that it's annoying to be accused of bias for that, but I've also noticed you responding aggressively to ad hominem attacks and I think that's unnecessary. There are many more people reading comments than posting, and for them it would be better if you kept only the informative part and cut the confrontational rest out. I would keep the following: > If by hardline you mean balanced instead o flow effort hot takes then sure. I literally just submitted a post on Chinese rural surveillance program today. Prior to that a post on US company sentiment about Chinese tradewar using both US and Chinese commerce department data. > I also post in health and construction related stuff when it comes up, or Chinese geopolitics. The latter just happens to be more popular and filled with misinformation. > E: highlighting the greater context and atypical nature of formal death sentences is not an appeal to authority but provides actual information relevant to the subject matter. CPC could executed any of the 13,000 terrorists it claimed to have caught since Strike Hard escalation in 2016, instead it chose to execute these two? Why? The reasons are worth considering. And it's not even that I don't believe CPC wouldn't trump up charges or that the situation in XinJiang is grossly unnecessary, but I also don't think that these two couldn't also be both excellent academic scholars but also maybe have funded or sheltered Turkmenistan terrorists on the side. They're not incompatible notions.