Well you're a hypocrite! Good faith would be if you would answer the question and you undoubtedly are avoiding it. Why? Because you're grasping at thin air. And I've already destroyed your pitiful answers of what China is getting for free just by giving you the definition of a freeloader which doesn't match what you're charging. All you do is point out the investments China has at risk. How is that free again? How hard is it to point out what's free China is getting as you've charged? You even told people to have a broader definition of words in general and you still can't do it. You can't even meet your own requirements. So quit your whining, aka demanding.
The following are the series of exchanges leading to my comment that you are not acting in good faith.
Post #34 to Xiabonan
I mentioned that hiding behind the veil of non-interference will just reinforce the notion of the behaviour of a free loader.
Post #50 to Equation
I commented the notion of perception by others - either as a free loader or a country stepping up and shouldering a share of the problem in line with its status.
Post #55
Counterprime challenge the notion was free loading. I gave 2 reasons why it is in China’s interest to participate. The reasons inherently automatically explain the benefits.
Post # 56
I challenge your assertion that the media were making demands on China. In that post I stated the media does not have authority to make demands because the meaning of demand suggest some kind of authoritative basis and clearly a media does not have on a sovereign nation. I then stated that the media were questioning in their editorial why China was not participating given its vast interest in the region and their terrorist issues in Xiajiang.
Post #57
You disagree with the notion that China was free loading but did not offer any substance in support of your assertion or any defeater to my statements to-date (post #34, post #50, post #55). Instead you posed a number of questions or made a number of statements which are just rants in my view. If you disagree, we can revisit but statements like "You broke, you fix it!" is beyond me as how that constitute a reasonable rebuttal.
Post #59
I reference to the benefits of participation by China basically echoing my earlier post #55
Post #64
I responded to your issues raised in post #63 reiterating again the benefits that China is deriving on the back of efforts of others in dealing with ISIL.
Post # 67
You basically asked the same question again as to what China is getting for free and therefore a free loader. I have already dealt with this question in different forms in post #34, 50, 55, 59, and 64. There are 2 conclusions I can draw from this continuous circular discussion either : (i) You do not understand the issue under discussion; or (ii) You are being disingenuous in wanting to engage in a meaningful conversation.
Post # 73
I communicated my conclusion. This is based on the series of exchanges that I have outlined above.
You are free to rebut or challenge any of the above but they are on public record.
May be if I were to simplify the issue it may help. Imagine you live in a gated community. There are some security issues that require additional security measures. Some residences don't feel it is a threat; others will take their chances and some don't like the person making the arrangements. So those who are willing paid for the additional measures. The rest who doesn't wish to contribute enjoyed the same security.
