Quote:
Originally Posted by GoChina!
man i strongly suggest you stop your fallacy game in order to make yourself less laughable.
|
What's a fallacy game? You commit a fallacy, so how else can I answer than by pointing out it's a fallacy? Of course you don't listen and continue in your tangent. If that's a game, I don't see the fun in it. And what's funny about you committing a fallacy?
Quote:
Article 156 of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 transferred German concessions in Shandong, China to Japan rather than returning sovereign authority to China, despite Chinese protests.
Sovereignty huh???
|
I said except Manchuria and Shandong. MAN YOU REALLY NEED TO START READING MY POSTS!!!!!!!
Quote:
|
whats ironic is, this treaty directly led to the birth of the Chinese Communist Party. so, the great US+UK+France= Treaty of Versailles= the birth of Chinese Communist Party? LOL
|
What's ironic about it? OHHHHhhh Because US+UK+FRANCE made it, ergo I MUST support it as some sort of all revealing liberalist ideology.
Ya, it's not because these states were behind it that I was arguing in favour of it as a method against communism. The Trueman doctrine appeared 40 or so years later.
Quote:
|
yes YOUR bias is very obvious, hehe, proof is above. now who is ignorant? hey i dont think i even mentioned the word westerner. oh once i did, as i said " a bunch of western countries". westerners= western country?
|
Everything I have stated has been backed by facts and logic. I wish I could say the same about you and your crappy pictures and fallacies.
Quote:
|
i dont have stereotype towards westerners, and i dont have sereotype towards western countries either, because forming stereotype toward western countires is IMPOSSIBLE, why? the US government sometimes supports the most authoritarian military government in the world ( like what they did in South Korea before 1980s), sometimes becomes the vanguard of freedom. i CANT form a stereotype toward it!!
|
You form a stereotype on what you perceive to be "western" perceptions of China. How else can you explain your outrageously out of context arguments?