Chinese General news resource thread

[shen]

Actually post #329 is essentially what I said but phrase differently from yours and I quote :

"There isn't anything in your reasoning that excludes the possibility of score settlement and whatever else that may get thrown in into the heap other then the fact that you said is baseless."

If you note the content, I was not asking for proof - just reasoning.

-----

 

[Blitzo]

I think you have got it backwards from what I actually said. This is what transpired to put it in perspective :

- Plawolf said the purge story was fantasy cooked up by western media (post #328)
- My post questioned the assertion made and the categorical exclusion on a range of possibilities (#329)
- You responded instead (#330) and I clarified my view regarding exclusion (post #340)
- You responded (#341) which I confirmed a meeting of mind that there is room to accommodate a range of factors rather than any singular reason (post #341)
- You acknowledged the point (post #344)
Since then that had been further posts but nothing I have said has really changed.

The facts are :
i)I did not comment on what the western media has said because I don't know what had been reported.
ii)I did not discount contrarian views and did not ask for proof of such a view
iii)I am simply asking for the reasoning of holding a position that categorically excludes a range of possibilities which is contrary to the law of excluded middle and a foundation to basic logic.

The reason I am confident is not because of facts or proof but simple logic because in this discussion topic only a person who is Omniscient can make such exclusions. The onus is not on me to defend why being more inclusive is possible and plausible but rather on the other camp why being exclusive is more reasonable and plausible.

I see.
I think the discussion regarding plawolf's post can be framed in two ways:
A: whether or not a purge of some sort is a component of this anti corruption campaign (i.e.: whether it may or may not exist)
B: whether or not the western media (BBC, CNN, and the usual suspects) are portraying this as a purge without much evidence

Regarding point A, I agree that it is impossible to say yes or no either way.
Regarding point B, which I think was the main thrust of plawolf's post, I would say the answer is on a meaningful tilt towards the "yes" camp, but that depends on who one reads and when one has read them. I try to follow foreign reporting on China to the point where it won't give me a migraine, and the overall tone does tend towards one of suggesting this is a purge -- all without much evidence, as we agreed that evidence is lacking.

 

[Blitzo]

so what, US military kill squads often receive faulty intelligence from people looking to settle score. does that mean they should stop killing terrorists?

Rofl as much as I appreciate analogies and going on the "offensive" in these kind of discussions, I think we should be aiming to tone down rhetoric rather than exacerbate it.

 

[Brumby]

I try to follow foreign reporting on China to the point where it won't give me a migraine, and the overall tone does tend towards one of suggesting this is a purge -- all without much evidence, as we agreed that evidence is lacking.

I actually don't follow China news much beyond those making the headlines and so the purge angle was new news to me.

Personally my view is Xi's anti corruption drive is necessary and the right thing to do for China. Whether there are secondary motives, I have no opinion as I don't know enough about Chinese politics to form an intelligent one.

 

[broadsword]

Whether there are secondary motives, I have no opinion as I don't know enough about Chinese politics to form an intelligent one.

Hmmm...........

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sounds like they weren't Chinese which means they should've known better if they were foreign nationals.

 

[Blitzo]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sounds like they weren't Chinese which means they should've known better if they were foreign nationals.

At least it demonstrates there is a prompt readiness and good detection and tracking capability to deal with small drones, especially ones that just appear in airspace but is able to be IDed quickly as being one without permission

 

[balance]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sounds like they weren't Chinese which means they should've known better if they were foreign nationals.

Some comments mention about the term "mapping drone?" Doesn't it sound odd a little bit? Digital surveillance aircraft is a better and more descriptive term, right?
The nationalities of the controllers are not mentioned.
I wonder who they are.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Balance Digital surveillance is a loaded term and you should know that. Mapping or land survey via air is a real commercial industry. Where as Digital surveillance would indicate that they were operating in a intelligence gathering capacity. Until there is confirmation of espionage, the most likely back story is that these guy were hired by someone to map for commercial purposes, but they botched crossing there Ts and didn't file the proper paperwork. Same for the cameras drone guy.

 

[solarz]

Not sure where you are heading with this.
Putting transparency in perspective.

In other words, you have nothing concrete to point out. Reality is a lot more messy than ideology. Corrupt officials are not necessarily incompetent, and honest officials are not always competent.

China has multiple levels of judicial courts. Courts in backwater countryside will obviously have less media exposure than high-profile cases handled by higher courts. This is not indicative of anything other than the fact that there are still huge economic gaps in China.