Hong Kong II - Ragnarök

[Infected Mushroom]

This is a reply to your argument. You said, "not marching against the government is not a sign that you support the government"... I'm showing you HOW the 6-7 million ARE supporting the government through their actions

I'm telling you the HK SAR literally depends on them and their continued supportive actions

This is absolutely invalid. We’ve debated over this in both this thread and the old one, and it shows how much holes there are in this. Again, they are not supporting the government. Marching isn’t the only form of protest and dissent against a ruling body. What we’re doing right now, in fact, is protesting the HKSAR government, a government that’s shown it’s incapability in ruling this island and is likely a demonstration of future regimes’ blatant failures if this continues.

I've just explained to you how they are some of the government's biggest supporters and how their actions literally support the government's continued viability.

I'd go so far as to say that without 30,000 police officers, the government could still win but without the 6-7 million civilian supporters, they haven't got a chance. Hong Kong continues to exist today because of the this support.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Except that the protesters aren't trying to destroy society, and as a matter of fact, they are seeking to treat festering wounds that the ruling cabinet has failed to address, such as the issue of universal suffrage for both the CE and LegCo, reforming the police to be more accountable to the people, an end to political corruption, resolving skyrocketing rents and degrading living conditions, establishing a welfare state, and protecting the island from blatant imperialism. Your argument would only make a shred of sense if the protesters were anarchists trying to topple a state, which they are not.

they tried to cause a city wide strike (which thankfully never happened), they tried to shut down all schools, they attacked train stations and the airport in an attempt to cripple infrastructure and transport, they targeted major economic centres like Central and Admiralty and Kowloon... it seems that they were at one point, hell bent on making HK so dysfunctional that the government would topple over or the 6-7 million would rise up. It did not happen because the people persevered and worked their way through it.

Or, it did not happen because overthrowing or otherwise destroying the SAR was not a goal of the protest movement, and their strikes and radicalization served to remind the government that their continual refusal to meet the movement's demands will not be taken lightly. Their demands are clearly available on the Wikipedia page of the 2019 HK protests, and in no paragraph did I ever see anything resembling "Down with the SAR! Overthrow the state! Long live anarchy!".

[Infected Mushroom]

you don't vote against the government to show support for the government, you vote against the government for an opposition that cannot take power with the knowledge that the government can't be removed from power... to communicate the message that the government needs to do better whilst not being ambivalent/disapproving towards the actual policies of the opposition

this is how you square the decreasing street protest presence in December with the vote results in the councillor elections

This is called “shoehorning”. You create your premise, and then make up ridiculous assumptions to force everything to support your premise.
Despite having provided no reason for anyone to believe your assumptions beyond “my assumptions support my premise so my premise and assumptions must be right”.

This is also a purely circular reasoning.
https://images.app.goo.gl/y4G9VCbYz2DEZ2e59

If we accept your premises we must accept your conclusion but we have no reason to accept your premises.

I mean your whole argument is a list of logical fallacies.

it has explanatory power over WHY there's both a decrease in the incidence and number of protestors in December and why there was a major pro Dem electoral win in the last election

it explains this inconsistency better than any alternative

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Also, is IM’s voiced support for any sort of crackdown, including and especially Tiananmen-style putdowns which Heloin has provided a link to, against NS rules?

[Infected Mushroom]

they tried to cause a city wide strike (which thankfully never happened), they tried to shut down all schools, they attacked train stations and the airport in an attempt to cripple infrastructure and transport, they targeted major economic centres like Central and Admiralty and Kowloon... it seems that they were at one point, hell bent on making HK so dysfunctional that the government would topple over or the 6-7 million would rise up. It did not happen because the people persevered and worked their way through it.

Or, it did not happen because overthrowing or otherwise destroying the SAR was not a goal of the protest movement, and their strikes and radicalization served to remind the government that their continual refusal to meet the movement's demands will not be taken lightly. Their demands are clearly available on the Wikipedia page of the 2019 HK protests, and in no paragraph did I ever see anything resembling "Down with the SAR! Overthrow the state! Long live anarchy!".

It did not happen for two reasons:

1. The 6-7 million HKers continued to support the government through their actions IN SPITE of the actions of the protestors (they continued to go to work, school, and maintain the society and structure). The HK people are in effect saying, "we care about the economy, voting may matter, but we care about our families, our livelihoods, our jobs."

2. The protestors, despite outnumbering the police at many points in the decisive battles surrounding the Polyu siege, could not defeat the well-trained, well-equipped Hong Kong Police Force with its 30,000 well trained officers, riot control equipment, and superior tactics/organisation. This was a very costly offensive because it led to a large wave of arrests.

[Novus America]

I literally already addressed this in my last reply! Is there any point when you completely ignore any counter argument and just repeat yourself with the same discredited argument?

When you are dealing with a wingnut that unironically thinks life itself is "propping up the government", you know you have no chance of rational discourse here.

Indeed, circular reasoning kills any reasonable discourse.
It is very hard to break unless the person using it has enough self awareness in their arguments to realize what they are doing.

If we assume their premise “A = B so B = A” we must accept their conclusion is true IF we accept their premises are true that “A = B” but the issue of course is they have failed to prove A does in fact equals B beyond repeating it over and over.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

This is called “shoehorning”. You create your premise, and then make up ridiculous assumptions to force everything to support your premise.
Despite having provided no reason for anyone to believe your assumptions beyond “my assumptions support my premise so my premise and assumptions must be right”.

This is also a purely circular reasoning.
https://images.app.goo.gl/y4G9VCbYz2DEZ2e59

If we accept your premises we must accept your conclusion but we have no reason to accept your premises.

I mean your whole argument is a list of logical fallacies.

it has explanatory power over WHY there's both a decrease in the incidence and number of protestors in December and why there was a major pro Dem electoral win in the last election

it explains this inconsistency better than any alternative

Well, it doesn’t. Albeit the insane number of polls we’ve thrown at you to attempt to debunk your argument, you’ve disregarded that and counted the election as a way of the voters to tell their government that they’re not doing their job to the best that they can, when clearly it’s the opposite of that. It’s not positive and constructive criticism for Lam’s government, it’s telling them that they’re really horrible at this and are deserving to be kicked out of government and responding to their actual demands.

[Infected Mushroom]

it has explanatory power over WHY there's both a decrease in the incidence and number of protestors in December and why there was a major pro Dem electoral win in the last election

it explains this inconsistency better than any alternative

Well, it doesn’t. Albeit the insane number of polls we’ve thrown at you to attempt to debunk your argument, you’ve disregarded that and counted the election as a way of the voters to tell their government that they’re not doing their job to the best that they can, when clearly it’s the opposite of that. It’s not positive and constructive criticism for Lam’s government, it’s telling them that they’re really horrible at this and are deserving to be kicked out of government and responding to their actual demands.

your polls aren't current

you've shown me a poll that was in October, a lot has changed

[Novus America]

This is called “shoehorning”. You create your premise, and then make up ridiculous assumptions to force everything to support your premise.
Despite having provided no reason for anyone to believe your assumptions beyond “my assumptions support my premise so my premise and assumptions must be right”.

This is also a purely circular reasoning.
https://images.app.goo.gl/y4G9VCbYz2DEZ2e59

If we accept your premises we must accept your conclusion but we have no reason to accept your premises.

I mean your whole argument is a list of logical fallacies.

it has explanatory power over WHY there's both a decrease in the incidence and number of protestors in December and why there was a major pro Dem electoral win in the last election

it explains this inconsistency better than any alternative

Except it does not actually do that at all.
It is not the best explanation. It is one of the worst explanations.

This is a reverse Occam’s razor. The actually sensible explanation is that people realized marches alone were not achieving their results so began focusing on new tactics.

[Novus America]

Well, it doesn’t. Albeit the insane number of polls we’ve thrown at you to attempt to debunk your argument, you’ve disregarded that and counted the election as a way of the voters to tell their government that they’re not doing their job to the best that they can, when clearly it’s the opposite of that. It’s not positive and constructive criticism for Lam’s government, it’s telling them that they’re really horrible at this and are deserving to be kicked out of government and responding to their actual demands.

your polls aren't current

you've shown me a poll that was in October, a lot has changed

Provide and alternative poll showing that your are correct then. We provided evidence, if your argument is “I have more recent evidence” the burden is on you to provide said evidence.

[Infected Mushroom]

your polls aren't current

you've shown me a poll that was in October, a lot has changed

Provide and alternative poll showing that your are correct then. We provided evidence, if your argument is “I have more recent evidence” the burden is on you to provide said evidence.

the evidence is the marked decrease in the frequency of protest and number of protestors as documented by wikipedia and various news sources as of December

[Novus America]

Provide and alternative poll showing that your are correct then. We provided evidence, if your argument is “I have more recent evidence” the burden is on you to provide said evidence.

the evidence is the marked decrease in the frequency of protest and number of protestors as documented by wikipedia and various news sources as of December

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Provide the poll. Not repeating the same circular reasoning non sequitur.

Provide a recent POLL supporting you assertion or you fail to prove your assertion.

[Infected Mushroom]

the evidence is the marked decrease in the frequency of protest and number of protestors as documented by wikipedia and various news sources as of December

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Provide the poll. Not repeating the same circular reasoning non sequitur.

polls are inherently unreliable

I have no polls to supply at this moment

[Novus America]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Provide the poll. Not repeating the same circular reasoning non sequitur.

polls are inherently unreliable

I have no polls to supply at this moment

Good, so you admit you do not have a good response.
You are just using your religious like faith to assume everything must support your premise without giving us a reason to actually believe your premise.

[The New California Republic]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Provide the poll. Not repeating the same circular reasoning non sequitur.

polls are inherently unreliable

I have no polls to supply at this moment

Moving the goalposts. "Your polls are out of date" to "polls are inherently unreliable".

[Infected Mushroom]

polls are inherently unreliable

I have no polls to supply at this moment

Good, so you admit you do not have a good response.
You are just using your religious like faith to assume everything must support your premise without giving us a reason to actually believe your premise.

do you have an explanation then for why 6-7 million HKers continue to in effect support the government through their actions (even though you claim they are anti-government)?

because that is the surest way to measure actual support, far more reliable than actual polls

[Galloism]

Seems like a mixed message.

And an idiotic one, even if your vote is unimportant their is no logical reason why you would vote against the government to show you support the government.
And if you are trying to send a message it makes no sense to send the literally opposite message of what you intend, hoping they somehow read this to mean you actually mean the opposite.

My head actually hurts trying to comprehend this insanity.

I mean, either they were sending a message to the government that they hate them, or the people in Hong Kong are fucking idiots who can't even send a message right.

[Novus America]

Good, so you admit you do not have a good response.
You are just using your religious like faith to assume everything must support your premise without giving us a reason to actually believe your premise.

do you have an explanation then for why 6-7 million HKers continue to in effect support the government through their actions (even though you claim they are anti-government)?

because that is the surest way to measure actual support, far more reliable than actual polls

Again completely circular logic. Based on your premise that unless they are engaged in outright insurrection while also cutting themselves completely off from society they must support the government.

Because you have failed to actually support that premise beyond saying it over and over, it is still not valid.

[Infected Mushroom]

do you have an explanation then for why 6-7 million HKers continue to in effect support the government through their actions (even though you claim they are anti-government)?

because that is the surest way to measure actual support, far more reliable than actual polls

Again completely circular logic. Based on your premise that unless they are engaged in outright insurrection while also cutting themselves completely off from society they must support the government.

Because you have failed to actually support that premise beyond saying it over and over, it is still not valid.

they don't need to completely cut themselves off from society but if you're going to count people as "anti-government" then they should be using their status, resources, and presence in society to at least in SOME WAY support the protestors. If they're not doing that and the sum total of their life actions in fact support the government, how can you NOT call them a government supporter?

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Provide and alternative poll showing that your are correct then. We provided evidence, if your argument is “I have more recent evidence” the burden is on you to provide said evidence.

the evidence is the marked decrease in the frequency of protest and number of protestors as documented by wikipedia and various news sources as of December

The Gilets Jaunes also experienced periodical flare-ups and breaks depending on the overall political atmosphere and other circumstances, and yet Macron's approval rating didn't suddenly surge drastically above 50% in response to calmer periods. Carrie Lam's approval rating also remains low even though HK is under one of the calmer phases of the protests after much of the momentum was successfully invested towards the local elections, which resulted in a landslide victory for the pro-democratic opposition and thus a reinforcement of support for the protesters' cause. We need actual data to determine support for HK's government, not original research and other hypotheses you've made up one day.

[Dogmeat]

Good, so you admit you do not have a good response.
You are just using your religious like faith to assume everything must support your premise without giving us a reason to actually believe your premise.

do you have an explanation then for why 6-7 million HKers continue to in effect support the government through their actions (even though you claim they are anti-government)?

because that is the surest way to measure actual support, far more reliable than actual polls

Alternatively: You are wrong about this.

Like you are wrong about... most everything.

[Infected Mushroom]

the evidence is the marked decrease in the frequency of protest and number of protestors as documented by wikipedia and various news sources as of December

The Gilets Jaunes also experienced periodical flare-ups and breaks depending on the overall political atmosphere and other circumstances, and yet Macron's approval rating didn't suddenly surge drastically above 50% in response to calmer periods. Carrie Lam's approval rating also remains low even though HK is under one of the calmer phases of the protests after much of the momentum was successfully invested towards the local elections, which resulted in a landslide victory for the pro-democratic opposition and thus a reinforcement of support for the protesters' cause. We need actual data to determine support for HK's government, not original research and other hypotheses you've made up one day.

the other thing that makes this really complicated is that not supporting Carrie Lam (or even being against Carrie Lam) doesn't mean you're not in support of Beijing appointing a new CE who can play her role better

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

The Gilets Jaunes also experienced periodical flare-ups and breaks depending on the overall political atmosphere and other circumstances, and yet Macron's approval rating didn't suddenly surge drastically above 50% in response to calmer periods. Carrie Lam's approval rating also remains low even though HK is under one of the calmer phases of the protests after much of the momentum was successfully invested towards the local elections, which resulted in a landslide victory for the pro-democratic opposition and thus a reinforcement of support for the protesters' cause. We need actual data to determine support for HK's government, not original research and other hypotheses you've made up one day.

the other thing that makes this really complicated is that not supporting Carrie Lam (or even being against Carrie Lam) doesn't mean you're not in support of Beijing appointing a new CE who can play her role better

The sheer scale of the defeat of the pro-Beijing camp and their candidates debunks this assertion in a heartbeat. HKers don't want their leader to be handpicked for them. Howewer, they clearly do want to directly elect a leader for themselves so that they have actual accountability to the populace, instead of having to deal with what amounts to a puppet with no free will of his/her own. By definition, voting and supporting the pro-democratic camp excludes the possibility of one supporting another handpicked CE, as the pro-democratic camp's raison d'etre is universal suffrage.

[Novus America]

Again completely circular logic. Based on your premise that unless they are engaged in outright insurrection while also cutting themselves completely off from society they must support the government.

Because you have failed to actually support that premise beyond saying it over and over, it is still not valid.

they don't need to completely cut themselves off from society but if you're going to count people as "anti-government" then they should be using their status, resources, and presence in society to at least in SOME WAY support the protestors. If they're not doing that and the sum total of their life actions in fact support the government, how can you NOT call them a government supporter?

Voting for the people who support the protesters is supporting the protesters.
That is them using their status in society to support them.
Even in a rigged system freely voting for something is a way of supporting something.

I really miss the smiley hitting itself in the face.

[Novus America]

the other thing that makes this really complicated is that not supporting Carrie Lam (or even being against Carrie Lam) doesn't mean you're not in support of Beijing appointing a new CE who can play her role better

The sheer scale of the defeat of the pro-Beijing camp and their candidates debunks this assertion in a heartbeat. HKers don't want their leader to be handpicked for them. Howewer, they clearly do want to directly elect a leader for themselves so that they have actual accountability to the populace, instead of having to deal with what amounts to a puppet with no free will of his/her own. By definition, voting and supporting the pro-democratic camp excludes the possibility of one supporting another handpicked CE, as the pro-democratic camp's raison d'etre is universal suffrage.

Except that according to him people vote against what they support because reasons...