A Counter-reply to Schell’s unsubstantiated comments and my exchanges of barrage with Chankaiyee2
On June 20th, the China Daily Mail published my piece entitled: “China’s stupid contention on South China Sea: most idiotic territorial claim in human history”.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank personally Craig Hill as the editor of the said well known news site for publishing my article. He has been doing so, since August of last year.
With regard to my latest article, once again I wrote about China’s persistent, yet utterly baseless territorial claim with regard to the South China/West Philippine Sea.
One commentator, as of my writing, by the name of LISSACALDINA has even reblogged my piece to her own wall, yet another has issued a comment. It is a comment in my view which is preposterous and undeniably idiotic.
Below is the comment written by Chenney Schell:
The vitriol in your writing is comprehensible. It’s advisable to express one’s opinions with objective analysis and a certain degree of emotional detachment. When arguing against differing opinions, you should not let your writing devolve into rampant personal attacks with no real substance.
It’s almost drudgery to debunk the various apocryphal claims in your article (about roles of China and Philippines, respectively, in World War II, the Chinese people’s stance on this issue, etc.) Contentious territorial issues aside, you clearly did not do the research about the subject you are writing on. Theories must be supported by evidence and facts, which are both reprehensibly lacking in your writing. I have no way of knowing whether you approach an academic subject with the same method, but I have doubts about the veracity of your claim of being a “Philosophy lecturer”.
Blind nationalism does not help resolving any issue. Both Filipino and Chinese governments have unscrupulously kindled nationalism as distractions to real domestic issues. I believe that you, as (presumably) a person working in the academia, should have known better than to partake in the gimmicks of shameless politicians. Clearly, however, it was not the case.
It is on this reason that I am offering my counter-reply to this guy. I beg the kind indulgence of our readers to allow me to dissect the contentions of this fellow and respond to his charge point per point.
Let us begin on his opening statement:
“The vitriol in your writing is comprehensible. It’s advisable to express one’s opinions with objective analysis and a certain degree of emotional detachment. When arguing against differing opinions, you should not let your writing devolve into rampant personal attacks with no real substance.”
Comment:
If the vitriol of my writing is comprehensible, then I am wondering: what the hell this guy is complaining about? I do not know the level of his English proficiency, but may I inquire: did he truly mean to employ or utilize the word “comprehensible”? Or perhaps, he committed an intentional typographical error and what he truly wished to say is that: my writing is “incomprehensible”? If my writing, despite its vitriolic stance is comprehensive, then, what the hell is his point?
I agree with his advice that expression of one’s opinions must be accompanied by objective analysis and a certain degree of emotional detachment.
Very good and well said, however, can you say that very thing, that virtue to that so-called military “expert”, Major General Zhang Zhaozhong who said the following:
Since the 1990s, the Philippines has done quite a few illegal and irrational things in its attempt to turn the Huangyan Island into its territory by means of presidential order, domestic legislation, and so on.
Question:
Do you agree with that military “expert” of yours?
Where is his objective analysis? Where is his degree of emotional detachment?
Your so-called military “expert” is charging the Republic of the Philippines, since the 1990’s for doing quite a few illegal and irrational things. The question there is: what are those illegal and irrational things?
Objective analysis? How could your so-called Huangyan Island be yours, when the ownership of the said territory is in dispute?
What is your evidence? Again, you will invoke your so-called historical evidence which have no basis either in fact and law?
Moving on to Schell’s second statement, here’s what he said:
“It’s almost drudgery to debunk the various apocryphal claims in your article (about roles of China and Philippines, respectively, in World War II, the Chinese people’s stance on this issue, etc.) Contentious territorial issues aside, you clearly did not do the research about the subject you are writing on. Theories must be supported by evidence and facts, which are both reprehensibly lacking in your writing. I have no way of knowing whether you approach an academic subject with the same method, but I have doubts about the veracity of your claim of being a “Philosophy lecturer””.
Comment:
Why it is almost drudgery to debunk the various apocryphal claims in my article? You have the data and all the information to refute my claim? Then, c’mon boy, why don’t you do so? You just talk, but you don’t write; then what is the good about that? Nothing! Nothing, because you cannot contest the facts! You cannot assail the unquestionable facts, by virtue of the incontestable truth that you have nothing and you got nothing to offer! You got nothing, except your talkative mouth! What a shame!
Are you disputing the horrible and horrendous thing that suffered by China last World War II? Do I have to remind you again about the Comfort Women? The Rape of Nanking of 1937? How you forgotten them?
For your information, may I invite your attention to read the book of Iris Chang entitled: “The Rape of Nanking” published in 1997!
Perhaps, on that work, you will remember again the past of your country!
With regard to the bravery and heroism of the Filipinos in defending Bataan (which served as the last stand of democracy in Southeast Asia then), the former Prime Minister of Britain, Winston Churchill said that the Filipinos are “the best warrior in the world.”
General Douglas MacArthur was particularly moved by incident
he observed among the Igorots units during the Battle of Bataan:
"Many desperate acts of courage and heroism have fallen
under my observation on many fields of battle in many
parts of the world. I have seen last-ditch stands and
innumerable acts of personal heroism that defy description,
but for sheer breathtaking and heart-stopping desperation, I have never known the equal of those Igorots.
Gentlemen, when you tell that story, stand in tribute to these
gallant Igorots.”
For your information, the Igorots is a collection of an ethnic group that lives at the northern part of the Philippines.
On the Chinese people’s stand
I doubt if the Chinese people themselves support their government’s military aggression and bullying in the Asia-Pacific region.
You? Do you agree with your country’s contention that it owns all of those territories that it is claiming?
Consider the illustrative map used by the editor or administrator of this site. The said map is truly illustrative. There, one can clearly see that China is claiming those territories which are well within the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia.
Is that right? Is that moral? Is that legal? I wonder; how come China cut short of her claim? How come she did not also claim a portion of the territory of Indonesia?
Please answer my question categorically, without the slightest attachment of emotion: Do you believe, by reason and by passion --- the territorial climb of your country?
I dare you, boy: speak the truth and shame the devil!
The question of research
You are accusing me of not doing my research, the problem is: have you researched and studied the provisions of international laws and universal conventions, such as the UNCLOS AND THE ITLOS?
On June 20th, the China Daily Mail published my piece entitled: “China’s stupid contention on South China Sea: most idiotic territorial claim in human history”.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank personally Craig Hill as the editor of the said well known news site for publishing my article. He has been doing so, since August of last year.
With regard to my latest article, once again I wrote about China’s persistent, yet utterly baseless territorial claim with regard to the South China/West Philippine Sea.
One commentator, as of my writing, by the name of LISSACALDINA has even reblogged my piece to her own wall, yet another has issued a comment. It is a comment in my view which is preposterous and undeniably idiotic.
Below is the comment written by Chenney Schell:
The vitriol in your writing is comprehensible. It’s advisable to express one’s opinions with objective analysis and a certain degree of emotional detachment. When arguing against differing opinions, you should not let your writing devolve into rampant personal attacks with no real substance.
It’s almost drudgery to debunk the various apocryphal claims in your article (about roles of China and Philippines, respectively, in World War II, the Chinese people’s stance on this issue, etc.) Contentious territorial issues aside, you clearly did not do the research about the subject you are writing on. Theories must be supported by evidence and facts, which are both reprehensibly lacking in your writing. I have no way of knowing whether you approach an academic subject with the same method, but I have doubts about the veracity of your claim of being a “Philosophy lecturer”.
Blind nationalism does not help resolving any issue. Both Filipino and Chinese governments have unscrupulously kindled nationalism as distractions to real domestic issues. I believe that you, as (presumably) a person working in the academia, should have known better than to partake in the gimmicks of shameless politicians. Clearly, however, it was not the case.
It is on this reason that I am offering my counter-reply to this guy. I beg the kind indulgence of our readers to allow me to dissect the contentions of this fellow and respond to his charge point per point.
Let us begin on his opening statement:
“The vitriol in your writing is comprehensible. It’s advisable to express one’s opinions with objective analysis and a certain degree of emotional detachment. When arguing against differing opinions, you should not let your writing devolve into rampant personal attacks with no real substance.”
Comment:
If the vitriol of my writing is comprehensible, then I am wondering: what the hell this guy is complaining about? I do not know the level of his English proficiency, but may I inquire: did he truly mean to employ or utilize the word “comprehensible”? Or perhaps, he committed an intentional typographical error and what he truly wished to say is that: my writing is “incomprehensible”? If my writing, despite its vitriolic stance is comprehensive, then, what the hell is his point?
I agree with his advice that expression of one’s opinions must be accompanied by objective analysis and a certain degree of emotional detachment.
Very good and well said, however, can you say that very thing, that virtue to that so-called military “expert”, Major General Zhang Zhaozhong who said the following:
Since the 1990s, the Philippines has done quite a few illegal and irrational things in its attempt to turn the Huangyan Island into its territory by means of presidential order, domestic legislation, and so on.
Question:
Do you agree with that military “expert” of yours?
Where is his objective analysis? Where is his degree of emotional detachment?
Your so-called military “expert” is charging the Republic of the Philippines, since the 1990’s for doing quite a few illegal and irrational things. The question there is: what are those illegal and irrational things?
Objective analysis? How could your so-called Huangyan Island be yours, when the ownership of the said territory is in dispute?
What is your evidence? Again, you will invoke your so-called historical evidence which have no basis either in fact and law?
Moving on to Schell’s second statement, here’s what he said:
“It’s almost drudgery to debunk the various apocryphal claims in your article (about roles of China and Philippines, respectively, in World War II, the Chinese people’s stance on this issue, etc.) Contentious territorial issues aside, you clearly did not do the research about the subject you are writing on. Theories must be supported by evidence and facts, which are both reprehensibly lacking in your writing. I have no way of knowing whether you approach an academic subject with the same method, but I have doubts about the veracity of your claim of being a “Philosophy lecturer””.
Comment:
Why it is almost drudgery to debunk the various apocryphal claims in my article? You have the data and all the information to refute my claim? Then, c’mon boy, why don’t you do so? You just talk, but you don’t write; then what is the good about that? Nothing! Nothing, because you cannot contest the facts! You cannot assail the unquestionable facts, by virtue of the incontestable truth that you have nothing and you got nothing to offer! You got nothing, except your talkative mouth! What a shame!
Are you disputing the horrible and horrendous thing that suffered by China last World War II? Do I have to remind you again about the Comfort Women? The Rape of Nanking of 1937? How you forgotten them?
For your information, may I invite your attention to read the book of Iris Chang entitled: “The Rape of Nanking” published in 1997!
Perhaps, on that work, you will remember again the past of your country!
With regard to the bravery and heroism of the Filipinos in defending Bataan (which served as the last stand of democracy in Southeast Asia then), the former Prime Minister of Britain, Winston Churchill said that the Filipinos are “the best warrior in the world.”
General Douglas MacArthur was particularly moved by incident
he observed among the Igorots units during the Battle of Bataan:
"Many desperate acts of courage and heroism have fallen
under my observation on many fields of battle in many
parts of the world. I have seen last-ditch stands and
innumerable acts of personal heroism that defy description,
but for sheer breathtaking and heart-stopping desperation, I have never known the equal of those Igorots.
Gentlemen, when you tell that story, stand in tribute to these
gallant Igorots.”
For your information, the Igorots is a collection of an ethnic group that lives at the northern part of the Philippines.
On the Chinese people’s stand
I doubt if the Chinese people themselves support their government’s military aggression and bullying in the Asia-Pacific region.
You? Do you agree with your country’s contention that it owns all of those territories that it is claiming?
Consider the illustrative map used by the editor or administrator of this site. The said map is truly illustrative. There, one can clearly see that China is claiming those territories which are well within the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan and Malaysia.
Is that right? Is that moral? Is that legal? I wonder; how come China cut short of her claim? How come she did not also claim a portion of the territory of Indonesia?
Please answer my question categorically, without the slightest attachment of emotion: Do you believe, by reason and by passion --- the territorial climb of your country?
I dare you, boy: speak the truth and shame the devil!
The question of research
You are accusing me of not doing my research, the problem is: have you researched and studied the provisions of international laws and universal conventions, such as the UNCLOS AND THE ITLOS?