Wang Shuo is a Chinese author and screenwriter who has achieved remarkable success in China. Some of his works have been banned here, but not for political reasons; rather, because of the “hooligan” writing style he’s made his trademark. Still, Wang isn’t averse to a little political commentary, as evidenced in this quote of his that’s being passed around on Chinese microblog sites and SNS right now (though the quote itself may be old, I’m not sure).
A people without elections, without property ((Technically, all real estate in China is leased from the state for 70 years, not owned outright by the buyer)), and without political rights getting together and having lofty discussions about the downsides of democracy…it’s like seeing a group of court eunuchs saying ‘having a sex life hurts the body, thank god we’re castrated’ or seeing a group of beggars saying ‘money is such a dirty thing, our way of begging for food is much cleaner.’
[h/t to Brendan for this one, link here (and many other places)]
chinageeksarchive 
“—1 and 2 aren’t premises. They are facts. Premises can be wrong. Facts can’t. 3 is true IFF (if and only if) 1 and 2 are also true.”
No, 1, 2 are typical premisses. I am not going to argue with you what premisses are.
Argument 1
““We know the combination AB is not funny, because if it were funny, Wang would have no need to use an analogy.”
—wrong. Who says AB is not funny? Wang is explaining why he thinks it’s funny. And he thinks it’s funny in the same way that A2B2 is funny (ie. as an analogy).”
Argument 2
“C alone is not sufficient to imply that AB is funny.”
—oh really? Then what else makes AB funny, if it isn’t funny due to C?”
Let me talk about argument 2 first.
Argument 2 is wrong. In your mind, C always makes AB and A2B2 funny, regardless of the contents of B or B2. I have given your numerous examples why this is false. It won’t hurt if I give you one more example:
The eunuchs are discussing the fact that oversex is not good, because old eunuchs told them, and they observed themselves, that a lot of the emperors had oversexed and died early.
Is the eunuchs’ discussion really funny? No. Whether A2B2 is funny is actually B2 dependent.
In general, someone criticizing something that they do not have experience with does not make their criticism funny. C does not make AB funny. It is the reasoning that determines whether a discussion is funny or not. If B is reasonable, then AB tends to be less “funny”. If B is unreasonable, then AB tends to be more “funny”. In fact, C is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition, for a discussion to be funny. People makes plenty stupid and “funny” discussions about things with which they have experience.
The fact that AB and A2B2 is laughable to you is because you implicitly assume that whatever Chinese intellectuals discuss about democracy , and whatever eunuchs discuss about sex life, would be unreasonable, not because C applies. You assumption is of course wrong.
Argument 1 is wrong, pretty much for the same reason as why argument 2 is wrong.
Argument 3
““As in the case of Toyota, the similarities between AB and A2B2 must be sufficient to infer the conclusion, implicitly or explicitly.”
—and they obviously are. In the Toyota case, old Toyotas and new Toyotas are both made by Toyota, with similar engines, transmissions, yada yada. In Wang’s case, AB and A2B2 both involve people speaking about things in which they have no experience (and please note that I’ve pointed this out at least 3 or 4 times now, so it really is high time that you got that through your skull).”
Argument 4
““Generally, if A and A2 are dissimilar,”
—you are back to the idiotic argument that intellectuals and eunuchs are dissimilar. I’ve already explained (again, multiple times) why that is completely irrelevant. In your convoluted and unnecessary parlance, it is the common characteristic C (“some people are discussing the disadvantages of something that they do not have experience.”) that forms the basis of the analogy.”
Argument 5
““it is difficult, or improbable, to establish the combinations AB and A2B2 are similar.”
—good god. For the n’th time, there is no stated, implied, actual, or imaginary suggestion that AB and A2B2 are “similar”. The analogy does not hinge on them being “similar”. The basis of the analogy has been stated to you in no uncertain terms multiple times, in this comment, and in at least 3 or 4 earlier ones. Osmosis into your brain is evidently a glacial process.”
Argument 6
““Since finding more similarities between AB and A2B2 is improbable, the argument is improbable.”
—irrelevant, and your premise that you need to find “similarities” between AB and A2B2 is flat-out wrong.”
In argument 3, you claim there is a similarity between AB and A2B2, which is C. In argument 4, 5, 6, you claim similarities between AB and A2B2 is irrelevant. Actually, C is indeed not important, as I said before. Whatever, at least I won’t comment on how and how fast osmosis occurs through your skull.
LikeLike
“C always makes AB and A2B2 funny, regardless of the contents of B or B2.”
—you really are slow, like any typical CCP apologist. Once again, for I don’t know how many times I’ve said it, the “contents” of B or B2 are irrelevant. You continually miss the forest for the trees. What’s wrong with you? We don’t need to be talking about “democracy”, or “sex”. It is the relationship of A to B, and of A2 to B2, as summarized by C (ie. someone with no experience of what they’re complaining about) that makes it funny. It could be a blind person saying the Mona Lisa is a lousy painting (where blind person=A and Mona Lisa=B), and it would be funny for exactly the same reason. How can a blind person criticize a painting he/she has never seen? Again, this is not complicated, but it seems even the most basic things are complicated for CCP apologists.
“The eunuchs are discussing the fact that oversex is not good, because old eunuchs told them, and they observed themselves, that a lot of the emperors had oversexed and died early.”
—ummm, aren’t you taking the expectations of Wang’s analogy a little too far? You are no longer criticizing the analogy; you are offering up potential scenarios where a eunuch could develop some opinion about sex in the absence of direct experience. Or you might say a beggar has a wealthy relative who is miserable, so the beggar can on that basis decry the problems of wealth. Or maybe the blind person read an art critique in Braille that was particularly unflattering of the asymmetrical background landscape of the Mona Lisa, and is critical of the painting on that basis. Those are all possible. But the point of an analogy is to not exhaust any possible contradictory perspective. It is merely to identify the commonalities…in this case, a rather humourous one. Like I said, if you want to criticize Wang, you are wasting your time trying to criticize the analogy, since you are getting nowhere. And like I also spelled out for you, what you need to do is to tell us why/how a Chinese intellectual could reliably develop a dislike for democracy in the absence of direct experience, sorta like your curious eunuchs who were keen to discuss sex, apparently.
“In general, someone criticizing something that they do not have experience with does not make their criticism funny.”
—you are under no obligation to find it funny. Wang does not state that the analogy should be funny. He doesn’t use “funny”, “laughable”, or anything like that in his quote. He merely states the analogy, which is clear as the sky is blue. I happen to find it hilarious. If you don’t, power to you. Like I always say, to each his own.
“It is the reasoning that determines whether a discussion is funny or not.”
—are you trying to rationalize humour, or determine what other people can and can’t find funny? Seriously? You need a hobby or something, cuz you’re taking yourself WAY too seriously. BTW, nobody cares if you find it funny or not. Your lack of a sense of humour is your loss, not mine nor anyone else’s.
“In fact, C is neither a necessary, nor a sufficient condition, for a discussion to be funny.”
—do you realize how ridiculous you sound? You are becoming funnier than Wang’s analogy.
“whatever Chinese intellectuals discuss about democracy , and whatever eunuchs discuss about sex life, would be unreasonable, not because C applies. You assumption is of course wrong.”
—says who? You? LOL. And it’s not that it would be “unreasonable”. It’s because they wouldn’t know what they’re talking about ie. the point of Wang’s analogy.
“Argument 1 is wrong, pretty much for the same reason as why argument 2 is wrong.”
—says who again? You? Listen, your lack of a sense of humour is hardly my problem, nor is it my affliction, nor is it my cross to bear.
“In argument 3, you claim there is a similarity between AB and A2B2, which is C. In argument 4, 5, 6, you claim similarities between AB and A2B2 is irrelevant.”
—oh brother. “C” is not the “similarity” between AB and A2B2. It defines the common relationship that links A to B, and A2 to B2. In “argument 3”, I said “both involve people speaking about things in which they have no experience”, which summarizes their common relationship. In “argument 4”, I called it the “common characteristic C”. In #5 and #6, it should be clear to anyone with a brain that C is not a “similarity”, it is obviously referring to the comparable relationship of A to B as with A2 to B2. Eunuchs are not similar to blind people. And sex is not similar to the Mona Lisa. But eunuchs criticizing sex would share the same characteristic as a blind person criticizing the Mona Lisa. How stupid are you, and how many times does it need to be spelled out for you? Read, for god’s sake. I’ve said it many times already. Why is logic, and reading, such elusive human qualities for CCP apologists like you? If you have special needs, you should really say so now so I take it easy on you. Otherwise, I think you’re quite the numbskull already, but I’m prepared to further lower that assessment if necessary.
But listen, I’ve seen your type before. When you find yourself in a hole, you like to keep digging. When your “logic” has been ripped to shreds, you lack the depth of character or quality of upbringing to acknowledge it and move on. Instead, you persevere…which I suppose is the one quality you seem to have, and which you share with your fellow CCP apologists. So you do what you gotta do, and we can do this again and again if that’s what you require. I aim to please.
LikeLike
To conclude our little conversation, I will be brief. Here is Wong’s original statement:
“A people without elections, without property1, and without political rights getting together and having lofty discussions about the downsides of democracy…it’s like seeing a group of court eunuchs saying ‘having a sex life hurts the body, thank god we’re castrated’ or seeing a group of beggars saying ‘money is such a dirty thing, our way of begging for food is much cleaner.’”
The statement is improbable, or illogical, because Wong attempted to set up analogies between what Chinese intellectuals would discuss about the disadvantages of democracy, which is not specified in his statement, with eunuchs and beggars’ SPECIFIC discussions.
The problem is, instead of attacking what specifically the Chinese intellectuals discussed about the disadvantages of democracy, Wong attempted to attack ALL discussions the Chinese intellectuals attempt. As I said before, Wang behaved like a bully, but instead exposed his own stupidity.
Those who find Wang’s statement amusing most likely do not have a clue about logic, are probably barely literate, or semi-educated at best. And quite plausibly, they are stupid, because a smart person would intuitively sense something wrong in Wong’s idiotic tirade, even if they do not have the most basic knowledge of logic. Most Americans probably fit this profile, if one agrees with the opinions of some American intellectuals, which I do. Hope you are not a typical American.
LikeLike
“The statement is improbable, or illogical,”
—there is nothing “improbable” about it. In fact, there is nothing “probable” about it either. His analogy does not rely on “probability”, either in a scientific or even in a layman’s sense. Analogy relies on a common characteristic; it does not make any stipulation about the mathematical likelihood of said common characteristic holding true (or not) in all scenarios. It is utterly ridiculous and belies a persistent inability to grasp the concept of “analogy” for you to repeatedly bring this up.
The “logic” of the analogy has been stated (and re-stated) many times. In your silly variables, it’s C. Look it up. Rather than me scrolling up and cutting-and-pasting it yet again, why don’t you scroll up and read it. Maybe at some point, it will percolate through your skull.
You are correct that Wang give no examples of what these intellectuals might offer as “downsides of democracy”, while he gives a specific version of why sex is bad, and why money is bad. However, it does not change the analogy one iota. If Wang had said “eunuchs talking about the downsides of sex” and “beggars talking about the downsides of money”, the analogy works in the same way. The analogy does NOT hinge on the specifics of what they say; it hinges on the fact that all three groups are discussing downsides of something with which they have no experience. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this line of argument, and it’s getting you no farther than before, to no one’s surprise.
“Wong attempted to attack ALL discussions the Chinese intellectuals attempt. As I said before, Wang behaved like a bully,”
—huh? He just made an analogy. I thought it was hilarious. Apparently, you failed to see the humour. Oh well. But if you didn’t even think it was funny, how do you derive the interpretation that Wang is “attacking” and being a “bully”? An analogy is identifying a common characteristic. There is no stated nor implied derision from identifying this characteristic. That’s up to the reader’s own interpretation. It seems you’re getting your knickers in a twist over nothing, or possibly over your own inability to properly grasp analogy as a linguistic device. Time to learn more about it. In the meantime, calling him a “bully” over this is patently ridiculous and meaningless. There is nothing stopping those Chinese intellectuals from carrying on discussions about the downsides of democracy. However, as I already told you days ago, you still need to show us how they can reliably and accurately do so without any prior experience (kinda like the eunuch, you know).
“Those who find Wang’s statement amusing most likely do not have a clue about logic”
—that could conceivably be true, if only because of the fact that we’re talking analogy, not logic. What is abundantly clear is that you have no clue about analogy. Seems also that you have a pathetic sense of humour. And based on the limp-wristed “arguments” you’ve offered to date, i don’t hold out much hope for you capacity in logic either. None of which surprises me, for I have just described the vast majority of CCP apologists. No, I am not a typical American. In fact, I’m not even American. But you are most certainly a prototypical CCP apologist, which might win you kudos on one blog that comes to mind, but not so much here.
LikeLike
The statement is improbable, because the probability is low for Chinese intellectuals’ discussion about democracy to be as ridiculous as the way eunuchs talk about sex, and beggars talk about money, as Wong describes. Can I say with 100% certainty that Chinese intellectual will not talk nonsense? Of course not. It’s all about probability implicitly.
“If Wang had said “eunuchs talking about the downsides of sex” and “beggars talking about the downsides of money”, the analogy works in the same way.”
No, it does not. I even gave you an example in the post on October 9, 2011 at 04:08 why it does not. In fact, Wong seems slightly better than you on this regard, because he probably had some inkling that general statements like you quoted were not automatically unreasonable or very funny . Therefore, he made up the specifics of the conversations. As I said, he put words in the mouths of eunuchs and beggars.
“The analogy does NOT hinge on the specifics of what they say; it hinges on the fact that all three groups are discussing downsides of something with which they have no experience.”
Wrong. In general, someone criticizing something that they do not have experience with does not automatically make their criticism unreasonable. It all depends on the content. I have give you numerous examples why this is the case, including the one about high school students condemning the Holocaust. Actually, what material things one possesses, what education one received etc do not matter. It solely depends on the content of their discussion. The attempt to emphasize the persons, such as what they have, instead of what they say, is called “personal attack”.
Using your words, the “analogs” are not comparable. Any sweeping statements about the discussions of Chinese intellectuals simply cannot even be probable, let alone correct, no matter how many specific examples or analogs one uses to “explain”.
The debate is getting repetitious. It’s only fair you will have the last say, because I started the first post.
P.S. You do not have to be an American to behave like one.
LikeLike
“because the probability is low for Chinese intellectuals’ discussion about democracy to be as ridiculous as the way eunuchs talk about sex, and beggars talk about money”
—on what basis do you say that the probability is low? The mere fact that they are “intellectuals” does not mean that they will be in any way well informed when discussing things about which they have no direct experience. That notwithstanding, again for what seems like the hundredth time, the content of that discussion is not a factor in the analogy. The analogy works on the basis that they’re all people discussing things about which they have no direct knowledge. It’s funnier to assume that they would be ignorant of their respective subject matter, but that’s the assumption of the reader, and not being implied by the writer (since it’s not the crucial element of the analogy). I must say, when you start barking up the wrong tree, you don’t easily stop. It’s that perseverance thing you CCP apologists all seem to share.
“Can I say with 100% certainty that Chinese intellectual will not talk nonsense? Of course not. ”
—that’s fantastic. Still matters not one iota when it comes to the analogy.
“I even gave you an example”
—sure, a stupid one I had already addressed in paragraph 2 of October 9, 1556hrs. You’re imagining how eunuchs might have formed an opinion about sex, by talking to elders and watching emperors. That’s wonderful. But a eunuch hearing it from other eunuchs is NOT the same as direct experience, which (for the 101st time) is the point of the analogy.
And for the second time, Wang is merely making an analogy. I find it hilarious. But he leaves it to the reader to draw that conclusion. You are like the typical CCP apologist. When confronted, you no longer know what you’re arguing. In the previous post (Oct 10 0452hr), you criticize Wang for using specifics when it came to the eunuch and the beggar. Now, you’re saying it’s good that he used specifics. In the span of 2 posts, you’ve managed to contradict yourself. I must say, that takes some talent. That is the kind of talent you seem well-endowed with, like many of your brethren.
“In general, someone criticizing something that they do not have experience with does not automatically make their criticism unreasonable.”
—oh brother. Seriously, can you read? If you can, do you think you can take temporary leave of your creative reading? Where does Wang state that the intellectuals, the eunuchs, and the beggar, are being “unreasonable”? He merely offered an analogy. The analogy hinges on the common characteristic, which is that they do not have experience with whatever they’re criticizing. So, why do you assume that those criticisms are unreasonable? If so, then we agree at least about one thing. However, if you are disgusted by the assumption that such criticism is unreasonable (which BTW would mean that you should be disgusted with yourself…and that’s something you’ll have to sort out with your psychologist on your own time), then as I’ve told you previously (for at least the 4th time if memory serves), what you need to do is to tell us how a CHinese intellectual might reasonably formulate the legitimate bases for criticizing democracy in the absence of direct experience with same. You’ve had several days to stew over this challenge, and I must say the silence is rather deafening.
“I have give you numerous examples why this is the case, including the one about high school students condemning the Holocaust”
—and I’ve already told you there are universal values and morals that one can call upon to condemn the holocaust. What universal values and morals exist for one to condemn democracy in the absence of actual knowledge and experience of same? There’s that challenge for you again. The thing about CCP apologists is not that they don’t have answers for questions, cuz your position is understandably brutal to try to defend (glad you’re doing it and not me); it’s that they simply run away and hide and refuse to acknowledge questions for which they have no answer, like adults would. It’s as though CCP apologists mimic the child-like petulance of the mother ship.
“what education one received etc do not matter. It solely depends on the content of their discussion.”
—education per se may not be the be-all and end-all. However, I don’t share your optimistic view of the content of discussion of people who know not of what they speak.
“Using your words, the “analogs” are not comparable.”
—um, where and how have you misquoted me now? I do recall other words of mine, like the observation that you need to educate yourself about the ins and outs of an analogy. After all this time, it seems those words still hold true.
“Any sweeping statements…”
—would clearly be the figments of your deranged imagination, since Wang made no sweeping statements, and offered what, to most people, would be a simple and self-evident analogy. Clearly, CCP apologists are not “most people”. And the reason I say you are a CCP apologist is because you behave and “debate” in identical fashion to those who’ve come before you. It seems the teaching regimen has not improved over time.
LikeLike
“—on what basis do you say that the probability is low?”
It is based on the words Wang put in the mouths of eunuchs and beggars. For how long have I pointed out to you that Wang is an embarrassment for both eunuchs and beggars, because Wang deliberately made the conversations so ridiculous unreasonable and stupid, probably not a single eunuch or beggar said something even remotely resembling what Wang made up, in one thousand years? In other words, the probability that eunuchs and beggars actually would have said those is extremely low. Now, as I said before, the topic of the disadvantages of democracy is a serious one. What is the probability that Chinese intellectuals would say something as unreasonable and stupid as Wang made the eunuchs and beggars say about sex and money? Still lower, IMHO.
“—that’s fantastic. Still matters not one iota when it comes to the analogy.”
I was trying to explain the word “improbable”, not “analogy”.
“… you criticize Wang for using specifics when it came to the eunuch and the beggar. Now, you’re saying it’s good that he used specifics. In the span of 2 posts, you’ve managed to contradict yourself. I must say, that takes some talent…”
What are you talking about? I neither criticized nor praised Wang for his use of detailed conversations. All I said in effect was that it was improbable that Wang could set up analogy between what Chinese might have said and what eunuchs and beggars had said exactly.
Your post is getting quite repetitious now. I have no patience to read the rest of your post in detail, because there seems nothing new. Repetition does not make your post more reasonable. It only makes your post very boring. BTW, I strongly suggest that you should cut the personal attack BS. I would have told you why if you had been even slightly more reasonable.
LikeLike
“It is based on the words Wang put in the mouths of eunuchs and beggars.”
—oh brother, here we go again. Back to complaining about what the eunuchs and beggars supposedly said. Like I’ve said before, the eunuchs and beggars were discussing the “downsides” of sex and money respectively. THe concept is the basis of the analogy, not the specific imaginary quotes. And how on earth is Wang an embarrassment to eunuchs and beggars? Wang could conceivably be an embarrassment to himself (though not in this case). He could be an embarrassment to eunuchs and beggars only if he himself was a eunuch or beggar. But as far as I know, he’s not either of those things. Your statement (“Wang is an embarrassment for both eunuchs and beggars”) is utterly ridiculous. You are quite the expert at saying utterly ridiculous things.
“In other words, the probability that eunuchs and beggars actually would have said those is extremely low.”
—you really are too stupid for words. The analogy is not based on what they supposedly said; it is simply based on them saying something about which they have no direct experience. Your skull must be dense and thick (bad combo), since it is clearly impermeable to logic.
“What is the probability that Chinese intellectuals would say something as unreasonable and stupid as Wang made the eunuchs and beggars say about sex and money?”
—the specifics of what they might say don’t matter, cuz whatever they do say would still not be derived from direct experience (since they have as much direct experience with democracy as eunuchs with sex and as beggars with money), and that’s sufficient for the analogy.
I could say that you are an embarrassment to CCP apologists, but on further contemplation, I realize that you are in fact quite typical of one.
“I was trying to explain the word “improbable”, not “analogy”.”
—reading comprehension, buddy. It’s not necessarily a jaw-dropping skill when you have it; but it’s certainly unbecoming when you don’t. And you clearly can’t read. It doesn’t matter if you were trying to explain “improbable” (and besides, why do you need to explain a word? You can simply define it. And it’s not an elusive definition) or quantum physics. It still doesn’t factor into the analogy. And when I say “Still matters not one iota when it comes to the analogy”, that’s what I’m telling you. Like I said before, maybe you’re just stupid, and you know what, someone has to be, otherwise there would’ve been no reason to coin the term. But as a CCP apologist, I suspect you’re being stupid on purpose, and trying to argue nothingness in order to avoid conceding the discussion. And that’s just pathetic. But you do what you gotta do.
“I neither criticized nor praised Wang for his use of detailed conversations.”
—“The statement is improbable, or illogical, because Wong attempted to set up analogies between what Chinese intellectuals would discuss about the disadvantages of democracy, which is not specified in his statement, with eunuchs and beggars’ SPECIFIC discussions.” (Oct 10, 0452hrs)
Then “Wong seems slightly better than you on this regard, because he probably had some inkling that general statements like you quoted were not automatically unreasonable or very funny . Therefore, he made up the specifics of the conversations.” (Oct 10, 1138hrs). So, first it was kinda lousy, then not so much. That’s the great thing about blogs. It’s there in black and white. So it’s even better (and more ludicrous) when you try to deny if after the fact. But nice try anyway.
“it was improbable that Wang could set up analogy between what Chinese might have said and what eunuchs and beggars had said exactly.”
—for the umpteenth time, “improbable” is irrelevant. Wang is not trying to emulate exactly what the intellectuals, eunuchs, or beggars might say. The analogy simply hinges on the fact that, whatever they say about their respective subjects, they’re saying so in the absence of direct experience. Why are CCP apologists so slow on the uptake, over and over again?
“Repetition does not make your post more reasonable.”
—indeed. It was as reasonable as it needed to be from the very beginning. What was required was for someone reasonable, or equipped with reasonable intelligence, to read it. Clearly, you’re not that person. Not a big surprise for a CCP apologist to not be reasonable, nor possess reasonable intelligence. As for needless repetition, you should note that you are making the same stupid arguments over and over again. That’s why I shoot them down the same way over and over. Make a different stupid argument, and I’ll shoot it down in some original way. And hey, no one is asking you to read what I write. In fact, on several occasions now, you’ve said you were done. Yet here you still are. So perhaps what you need to do is to mean what you say, and say what you mean. Yet another flaw among CCP apologists. I must say, assuming that you all aren’t in fact one and the same person, that you guys are all quite alike. Too bad that’s not a good thing in this case. And you can save the advice. I don’t take advice from stupid people. Now, you seem to think of such things as personal attacks. They are not. They are the conclusions I’ve drawn about you based on observations of what you’ve said here. It would be a “personal attack” if I said you were fat, or ugly, since I have absolutely no basis for making such conclusions. But there have been myriad reasons for me to conclude that you are a good and proper idiot.
LikeLike
It seems that you started to argue with me line by line. While I appreciate the attention you paid to my post, I have to say that it is too bad, because using your own words, you only see the trees and miss the forest.
Here is the “forest”:
While you can compare what one actually said about something to what another actually said about another thing, it is utterly illogical to draw parallels between what one MIGHT say about something, and what another actually said about something else.
This should be clear as blue sky, again using your own words, by now. Wang gave himself the mission impossible. Wang set up himself for failure. Yet you wasted all this time to defend the indefensible. Please do not tell me again that there is no logic in Wang’s statement, because there is no need for logic. Of course there is no logic, because Wang butchered it. There is no need for you to repeat something I already know in the first place.
By now, you post is pretty much filled with petty “arguments”, triviality, and tangentiality. The only thing worth mentioning is that you repeatedly claim I am a CCP apologist. Yet all I did was to debunk what Wang said. The fact that you can make someone who debunks what Wang said equivalent to a CCP apologist, without a shred of evidence, indicates your capability for reasoning – which is next to none.
LikeLike
Hey, you’re still here. Like I said, you really should learn to say what you mean, or mean what you say. But no matter, I enjoy paying attention to your posts, since it is jam-packed with funny bits. Please keep them coming. If laughter is good for me, then you are fantastic medicine.
“While you can compare what one actually said about something to what another actually said about another thing”
—you are one mentally slow dude. We are NOT COMPARING what they said, or might have said. The point of the analogy is that they are all saying things about subjects about which they have no direct experience. How can a human be as stupid as you seem to be?
“it is utterly illogical to draw parallels between what one MIGHT say about something, and what another actually said about something else.”
—but the analogy (or “parallel”, as you now seem to like to call it. You throw out a whole bunch of terms, but seem to not have a grasp of any of them) has nothing to do with what they MIGHT say, or what they actually said. Whatever they might say, or actually said, they’re doing so in the absence of direct experience. That is the basis of the analogy. Lost count of how many times I’ve drawn out the intestines for you, yet you’re still clueless. I must say, it is not often that I come across someone as stupid as you, and I’ve come across quite a number of CCP apologists. You might be the dumbest one yet, and that’s saying something.
“Wang set up himself for failure”
—huh? His analogy was perfectly comprehensible for anyone with a brain. That appears to exclude you. Too bad, so sad.
“Of course there is no logic, because Wang butchered it.”
—LOL. Next time you go back to CCP training school for a refresher, remind them to teach you about analogy, so you can spare yourself from making such a fool of yourself in the future. That would be my Good Samaritan suggestion for the day.
“Yet all I did was to debunk what Wang said.”
—actually, you’ve done nothing of the sort. All you’ve done is repeatedly make an utter fool of yourself. In that regard, you’ve been incredibly successful.
“The fact that you can make someone who debunks what Wang said equivalent to a CCP apologist,”
—like I said before, you’re not a CCP apologist for trying and failing to make an argument. You’re a CCP apologist because of the way you try to smear the messenger (Wang) instead of offering any actual argument in opposition of his point (that you can’t criticize something when you have no direct experience with it); because of how you repeatedly make the same illogical arguments over and over again after they have been destroyed; because of your inability to incorporate any rebuttals I’ve offered in order to modify (and make more reasonable) any possible argument you might have; and because all of those traits are typical of every other CCP apologist I’ve encountered before you. Like I said, you guys are all the same.
You know, on Oct 5 at 1453 hours, out of immense charity, I had already pointed out what you needed to do. Rather than your silly and unfounded infatuation with the analogy, you simply had to make an argument (any argument) as to how Chinese intellectuals could in fact criticize democracy in the absence of direct experience. That’s what any half-decent debater with a hand-full of brain cells would have done from the very beginning. Yet despite the hint, you’ve spent over a week still fixated on the analogy that you apparently still don’t understand. That’s why you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Now let me really rock your world. The opposite of Wang’s analogy can also be true. Someone could just as easily say “Chinese intellectuals applauding the benefits of democracy IS LIKE Hugh Hefner discussing the benefits of abstinence or LIKE Amy Winehouse discussing the benefits of sobriety”. The essence of the analogy is exactly the same: people talking about stuff with which they have no direct experience. So, just in case you’re still too stupid to figure it out, the analogy itself is not what the crux of the discussion should be about. Even the dimmest idiot would’ve figured out by now that the more intelligent discussion should focus on how, and whether, Chinese intellectuals are adequately equipped to discuss the pros AND cons of democracy, in the absence of direct experience. And even more important, how that discussion could expand to involve all Chinese people. That would be a worthwhile discussion. But you didn’t have the intellectual capacity to realize it, nor do you have the intellectual capacity to participate in it. Isn’t that just too bad. Anyhow, look forward to what you have to say next. Daily laughter is good for me, so I’m counting on you.
LikeLike
“—you are one mentally slow dude. We are NOT COMPARING what they said, or might have said. The point of the analogy is that they are all saying things about subjects about which they have no direct experience. How can a human be as stupid as you seem to be?”
“—but the analogy (or “parallel”, as you now seem to like to call it. You throw out a whole bunch of terms, but seem to not have a grasp of any of them) has nothing to do with what they MIGHT say, or what they actually said. Whatever they might say, or actually said, they’re doing so in the absence of direct experience. That is the basis of the analogy. Lost count of how many times I’ve drawn out the intestines for you, yet you’re still clueless…”
Full of personal attacks, but there is no reasoning. Zero. I neither have the interest nor the patience to answer your senseless mumblings.
“—huh? His analogy was perfectly comprehensible for anyone with a brain. That appears to exclude you. Too bad, so sad.”
Again, only personal attacks, not worth answering
“You’re a CCP apologist because of the way you try to smear the messenger (Wang) instead of offering any actual argument in opposition of his point (that you can’t criticize something when you have no direct experience with it); because of how you repeatedly make the same illogical arguments over and over again after they have been destroyed; … and because all of those traits are typical of every other CCP apologist I’ve encountered before you…”
None of what you said is specific to CCP apologists. In fact, it is a perfect description of yourself.
From the paragraph before your last paragraph:
“You know, on Oct 5 at 1453 hours, out of immense charity, I had already pointed out what you needed to do. Rather than your silly and unfounded infatuation with the analogy, you simply had to make an argument (any argument) as to how Chinese intellectuals could in fact criticize democracy in the absence of direct experience. That’s what any half-decent debater with a hand-full of brain cells would have done from the very beginning. Yet despite the hint, you’ve spent over a week still fixated on the analogy that you apparently still don’t understand. That’s why you can’t see the forest for the trees.”
From your last paragraph:
“Even the dimmest idiot would’ve figured out by now that the more intelligent discussion should focus on how, and whether, Chinese intellectuals are adequately equipped to discuss the pros AND cons of democracy, in the absence of direct experience. And even more important, how that discussion could expand to involve all Chinese people. That would be a worthwhile discussion.”
Why should I have followed your idiotic “advice”? The task at hand was to point out what was wrong in Wang’s statement, not justifying why Chinese could discuss democracy. I told you in the 1st day that eunuchs, beggars, and Chinese intellectuals could talk anything they want, no justification was needed. To follow your stupid “advice” would be a tacit admission that what Wang said was right, and a total waste of time in justifying something no need for justification. Seriously, you should avoid repeating stupid things you said before, and stop lecturing someone who is more capable than you in reasoning.
From your last paragraph:
“… The essence of the analogy is exactly the same: people talking about stuff with which they have no direct experience. So, just in case you’re still too stupid to figure it out, the analogy itself is not what the crux of the discussion should be about…”
No clue what you are talking about: In the first sentence you are talking about the “essence” of the analogy. In the last sentence you say that analogy is not important. Self-contradiction like this exposes the fact that you do not know what are you talking about. Instead of rock my world, you just sunk your own boat.
LikeLike
You know, it’s not often when people “write” comments in which 75% of the content is constituted by cut-and-paste, with the odd smidgeon of actual commenting sprinkled in. I will say this: you are very good at cutting-and-pasting entire paragraphs. Well done indeed. Finally, I believe we’ve identified a task for which your mental faculties are uniquely and ideally suited.
“I neither have the interest nor the patience to answer your senseless mumblings.”
—correction. Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? You don’t have the intelligence, capacity for logic, or grasp of the concept of analogy to respond. No shame in that, per se. But the inability to acknowledge those facts and the penchant to keep digging when you find yourself in a hole really bespeak the dearth of character or deficiency in upbringing to which I have previously alluded.
Your failure to grasp the concept of analogy is self-evident almost every time you open your mouth. THis includes repeatedly mistaking the crux of the analogy for a literal comparison of what those people may or may not have been saying. It’s just comical. But like I said, you have fantastic medicinal properties.
“None of what you said is specific to CCP apologists.”
—the confluence of those characteristics IS LIKE the DNA of a CCP apologist (notice that I used an analogy there…which likely means you will have no idea about what I just said).
“Why should I have followed your idiotic “advice”?”
—because that advice could’ve led you onto a more useful discussion. Instead, you’ve spent more than a week making a fool of yourself almost entirely based on your inability to comprehend the most basic feature about analogy (which in itself is not exactly a complex literary device to begin with). But as I always say, whatever floats your boat.
“The task at hand was to point out what was wrong in Wang’s statement,”
—there’s nothing wrong with his analogy (or “statement”, as you seem to be calling it today).
“not justifying why Chinese could discuss democracy.”
—ah very true. Which is why my initial piece of advice was “you simply had to make an argument (any argument) as to how Chinese intellectuals could in fact criticize democracy in the absence of direct experience.”. So in case you’ve lost count, you completely missed the point the first time I said it. Then you again missed the point when I repeated it yesterday. Then you missed the point a third time by cutting/pasting it without realizing what it was you were cutting/pasting. Really, by any objective measure, you are a massive bumbling idiot. And before you whine again about personal attack, this is simply the cumulative and ongoing assessment of a week’s worth of your idiotic statements (and if there is a god, I’m counting on a lot more from where those came).
“eunuchs, beggars, and Chinese intellectuals could talk anything they want, no justification was needed.”
—and Wang’s analogy does nothing to deny them of those rights. So your point is…?
“total waste of time in justifying something no need for justification.”
—and just when I think you couldn’t possibly say anything more stupid, you out-do yourself yet again. Even among CCP apologists, you are “special”. No one is asking for a justification of their right to say whatever they want (that hogwash is simply a figment of your retarded imagination). But the analogy (for the millionth time) is of people discussing things about which they have no experience. If you think CHinese intellectuals discussing democracy is DIFFERENT from eunuchs discussing sex or beggars discussing money, then you should try to tell us WHY/HOW they are different. Which is to say: “make an argument (any argument) as to how Chinese intellectuals could in fact criticize democracy in the absence of direct experience.” But like I said, it looks like you don’t have the intellectual capacity for this type of thing.
“stop lecturing someone who is more capable than you in reasoning. ”
—LOL, you’re not trying to suggest yourself as that “someone”, are you? Cuz that would be the best medicine yet.
“No clue what you are talking about”
—that just might be the smartest thing you’ve ever said. Shows a level of self-awareness that was not previously in evidence. Perhaps we are getting somewhere…
“In the first sentence you are talking about the “essence” of the analogy. In the last sentence you say that analogy is not important.”
—and just as quickly, reality returns with a thud. The “essence” of the analogy is simply the common characteristic which is espoused (in this case, people speaking about stuff for which they have no experience). That essence does not pre-determine whether an analogy is important or not to the crux of a discussion. In this case, the essence is as I’ve stated. But what’s important in this discussion (if you were smart enough to realize it, which you clearly are not) is whether Chinese intellectuals are adequately equipped to meaningfully discuss the pros and cons of democracy. There is no contradiction except for people who don’t understand English. I can only imagine where you went wrong. Maybe you mistook the “essence of the analogy” for the ‘essential analogy’, and figured that “essential” and “not important” are contradictory…which they are, but that’s not what I said. You really are too stupid for words.
“Instead of rock my world, you just sunk your own boat.”
—and as the cherry on top of the ice cream lathered over a chocolate brownie, you leave us with some funny English as well. Thanks for that. I feel much healthier than before I read your comment, and I had already been to the gym today. Well done yet again. Many thanks.
LikeLike
Upon re-reading, I wrote one section poorly, and will correct it here:
““The task at hand was to point out what was wrong in Wang’s statement,”
—there’s nothing wrong with his analogy (or “statement”, as you seem to be calling it today).
“not justifying why Chinese could discuss democracy.”
—ah very true. Which is why my initial piece of advice was “you simply had to make an argument (any argument) as to how Chinese intellectuals could in fact criticize democracy in the absence of direct experience.”. ”
Instead, with corrections:
“The task at hand was to point out what was wrong in Wang’s statement, not justifying why Chinese could discuss democracy.”
—“there’s nothing wrong with his analogy (or “statement”, as you seem to be calling it today).” [But if you disagree with his analogy/statement, then you disagree with the assertion that people cannot intelligently discuss things about which they have no direct experience.] (new part for clarification). “Which is why my initial piece of advice was “you simply had to make an argument (any argument) as to how Chinese intellectuals could in fact criticize democracy in the absence of direct experience.”.”
It can carry on thereafter as originally written.
LikeLike
Your post has become longer and longer, but less and less reasonable, almost to the extent of incoherence. Yet you insist to break up your already messed-up post further with irrelevant personal attacks, bizarre tangentialities, and boring trivialities.
“You know, it’s not often when people “write” comments in which 75% of the content is constituted by cut-and-paste, with the odd smidgeon of actual commenting sprinkled in. I will say this: you are very good at cutting-and-pasting entire paragraphs. Well done indeed. Finally, I believe we’ve identified a task for which your mental faculties are uniquely and ideally suited.”
The personal attack in this statement is both trivial and tangential.
“—and as the cherry on top of the ice cream lathered over a chocolate brownie, you leave us with some funny English as well. Thanks for that. I feel much healthier than before I read your comment, and I had already been to the gym today. Well done yet again. Many thanks.”
This tangentiality is bizarre.
In between these two quotes, it is just a pile of mumble-jumble I do not think you understand either.
In addition to tangentiality, your thought also seems quite concrete. There are numerous examples of concrete thinking that probably cannot be explained by your lack of ability to reason alone. Both tangentiality and concrete thinking are disorders of the thought process, which may imply underlying psychiatric problem. Since your thought is quite concrete, I think it is prudential for me to point out to you explicitly that by no means I am accusing you a lunatic – at least not yet. Of course you do not have to be a lunatic to display some features of thought disorder. It is just like that you do not have to be an American to be stupid. But this do hints at why our little discussion may end soon.
LikeLike
You are just too dumb for words. Unlike you, I write in English. There is an intro, a body, and a conclusion. The intro is to point out that someone who cuts-and-pastes 75% of their “comment” is probably an idiot. The body is constituted by a step-by-step deconstruction of each of your idiotic points which goes to show just how much of an idiot you are. And the conclusion wraps up the whole discussion by pointing out that you are indeed an idiot, but giving you just a glimmer of hope that you might find a calling in life by providing amusement for others.
In any event, I see you’ve given up all hope of contesting any of the actual points, which is the smartest thing you’ve done to date. It demonstrates that, despite being as pig-headed of a CCP apologist as you are, self-preservation instincts do emerge at some point. Darwinism is a powerful force indeed.
In your last paragraph, I think someone is trying to pretend that they know of what they speak. Except for the fact that you clearly don’t. Furthermore, you’ve again demonstrated your juvenile grasp of the English language when you say ” I think it is prudential for me to point out to you explicitly that by no means I am accusing you a lunatic”. “Prudent”, perhaps; but not “prudential”. You might accuse someone OF BEING a lunatic, but you don’t just accuse someone a lunatic. Even your smack-talk is laughable, and in crappy English as well. Perhaps it is your limited grasp of the English language that limits your ability to grasp literary devices of said language, like analogy for instance. So when you head back for a refresher training course, perhaps you should bone up on analogy AND on English. That might be a good use of your time.
“But this do hints at why our little discussion may end soon.”
—LOL! It “do hints” at that, “do” it? World-class English yet again. Well, you’ve said you were calling it quits a long time ago, yet here you still are. And for that, I am truly grateful. Every time you open my mouth, my health improves. And if you slither away like a good CCP apologist after this, I guess I’ve have to make do with working out harder at the gym.
LikeLike
I make some mistakes in spelling and grammar here and there. Most of them is trivial, and has no effects on the comprehension of my message. This is because English is not necessarily my native language. However, your “mastery” of English is best at the level of junior high. And your ability in reasoning stays at grade school level. Most strangely, you even brag about your skill in composition. Did you know your composition was also at junior high level?
I did not bother to answer your recent posts in detail, because most of the recent posts consists of only repeats of previous nonsense you sputtered out mindlessly. Even your personal attacks are repetitious. Your inability to reason, the obvious poverty in thought, and the meaningless but disruptive personal attacks, render your posts all but readable, let alone to understand.
For the sake of conclusion, I will point out what went wrong with Wang’s little diatribe one last time. I do not expect you to understand any of these. These are far beyond your ability to comprehend. In fact, I did not expect much from you from the beginning, again using your own words.
Here again is Wang’s statement, with my comments in parentheses:
A people without elections, without property1, and without political rights getting together and having lofty discussions about the downsides of democracy (Note: Wang did not specify the contents of the discussion)…it’s like seeing a group of court eunuchs saying ‘having a sex life hurts the body, thank god we’re castrated’ (Note: Wang specified the discussion of the eunuchs down to single words) or seeing a group of beggars saying ‘money is such a dirty thing, our way of begging for food is much cleaner.’ (Note: Wang again specified the discussion of the beggars down to single words)
– Wang is obviously better than you, because he intuitively realized that any opinion about any discussion could only be formed based on the specific contents of the discussion. Therefore he made up the details of the discussions by eunuchs and beggars, down to single words.
– Wang, however, is clueless about logic, just like you. He made a stupid mistake by trying to establish analogy between what might have been said, but have not been actually said, with what has been said in detail. It was mission impossible for Wang, or anyone. You wasted all your time to defense the indefensible.
– Moral of the story: avoid making personal attacks, which happens to be what you like to do. To judge a discussion/argument, the only things relevant are the contents and reasoning. It is irrelevant whether or not the participants have experiences in election, what properties they have, or what political rights they have. To focus on the later is called personal attack. Wang, in his eagerness to ridicule the Chinese intellectuals who have a different opinion about democracy, and in his futile effort to belittle EVERYTHING the Chinese intellectuals could possibly say, made himself the biggest fool instead.
Wang’s statement would make a fool to chuckle and an idiot to laugh, which is to say, most of the Americans, and you do not have to be an American to be stupid like one.
Let me guess what will happen next: you will write a post at least 5 times longer than mine, in which you will contest every single word in my last post. No matter, you have already lost the war of reason. You can keep fighting the battle of triviality. I am done.
LikeLike
“Most of them is trivial, and has no effects on the comprehension of my message.”
—True enough. Your “message” is adequately hilarious based on its own merit. Nonetheless, the grammar mistakes provide additional chuckles, like the 3 you managed to squeeze into one sentence here. Like I say, my health thanks you.
English is also not my first language, nor is it the area of my formal study. As for my capacity with the written word, I am quite comfortable with its current level of sophistication. It is unfortunate that you find my linguistic ability to be inadequate. However, based on your own writing skills as demonstrated here, as well as my observation of your general level of intelligence, you should not be surprised that I do not hold your opinion in very high esteem.
And listen, if you are unable to respond to my points, that’s OK. You’re not the first CCP apologist who has had to run away and hide from difficult and prickly questions.
You are simply repeating your ridiculous point about “specifics”. Let’s run through the logic, shall we? You made the first post, and I responded, and the back and forth ensued. You complain that i repeat myself. Gee, Sherlock, any idea why I am repeating myself?…..oh, that’s right, because you recycle your “arguments” over and over again. I am not compelled to shoot down your retarded logic with a fresh argument each time. Like I said previously, offer up a new argument, and I will shoot it down in a new way.
So what do you do? Instead of cutting-and-pasting my words, you’re now doing it with yours. How is that any improvement? If your words and logic were stupid the first (and second…and third…etc) time (which of course they were), repeating it yet again is not going to allow them to be received any better. In fact, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, is the hallmark of insanity. You’ve gone from being ridiculous and stupid to literally becoming insane. That, in case you’re wondering, is not a healthy progression.
So once again, the analogy is not dependent on the “specific” downsides of democracy, or of sex, or of money. The analogy is based on the lack of direct experience of the 3 groups of people in discussing those topics, respectively. The analogy is no different had Wang said “downsides of sex/money” as opposed to your “specifics”. It is simply mind-boggling, and repeated proof of the level of your stupidity, that you are unable to grasp the basic concept of analogy after being told at least a dozen times. You are certainly not a quick study. Furthermore, your “logic” about Wang needing to use specifics for the eunuch, then being unable to justify his analogy due to lack of specifics with the intellectuals, is similarly mind-bogglingly stupid. One really wonders what the CCP is doing to produce complete and utter wing-nuts like you. It’s actually quite an accomplishment, dubious as it is.
“It is irrelevant whether or not the participants have experiences in election, what properties they have, or what political rights they have.”
—and WHY are those things irrelevant? Like I said in my advice from over a week ago, you have yet to tell us HOW Chinese intellectuals can meaningfully criticize democracy without having experienced it. If you disagree with the analogy, on what BASIS do you do so, besides typical CCP apologist reasons? Any half-wit would have identified and addressed the question at hand days ago, instead of saying progressively dumber and dumber things that simply establish your lack of comprehension of analogy.
“made himself the biggest fool instead.”
—well, someone has definitely established himself as the “biggest fool”, but it certainly isn’t Wang in this case.
“Wang’s statement would make a fool to chuckle and an idiot to laugh,”
—actually, I’ll have to borrow a line from Louis CK. He was talking about “fart” jokes, but it works here too. ‘You don’t have to be smart to laugh at (Wang’s analogy). But you’d be an idiot not to’. I think that describes you rather succinctly.
“I am done.”
—ah no, say it ain’t so. Is this my last dose of daily laughter? When will I come across another idiot like you who doesn’t have the first clue about analogy or logic? Even among CCP apologists, “qualities” like that might be a little hard to find.
LikeLike