China's Parliament to Discuss Draft Hong Kong National Security Law - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15093682
Beren wrote:Hong Kong could be independent indeed and it's not really a matter of legitimacy whether it is or not, however, legitimacy is exactly the topic discussed here, on my part at least. As to legitimacy, HK is part of China and shouldn't even strive for independence or even autonomy because it's just a Chinese island that was grabbed by a foreign military force and that's how the whole story started in the first place.


As far as I'm concerned, what matters is what the people of Hong Kong want.

The fact that the British grabbed it from a backward feudal state ~180 years ago is utterly irrelevant to me.
#15093688
Rugoz wrote:As far as I'm concerned, what matters is what the people of Hong Kong want.

The fact that the British grabbed it from a backward feudal state ~180 years ago is utterly irrelevant to me.

As far as I'm concerned with this debate, what the people of Hong Kong seem to want is illegitimate, because their whole false identity is illegitimate due to historic facts that are utterly irrelevant to you. Which is your own personal issue that also doesn't matter, by the way.
#15093689
Beren wrote:As far as I'm concerned with this debate, what the people of Hong Kong seem to want is illegitimate, because their whole false identity is illegitimate due to historic facts that are utterly irrelevant to you. Which is your own personal issue that also doesn't matter, by the way.


As I said, independence should not be seen as an objective.

If holding the government accountable according to the Basic Law is still a challenge to their so-called national security then I am afraid the Chinese government and its supporters have lost their legitimacy to rule, as I said in my previous post.
#15093693
Beren wrote:As far as I'm concerned with this debate, what the people of Hong Kong seem to want is illegitimate, because their whole false identity is illegitimate due to historic facts that are utterly irrelevant to you. Which is your own personal issue that also doesn't matter, by the way.


Thing is, my position is at least somewhat consistent and universally applicable, while yours would require you to unravel all of human history. :lol:

Also, claiming that Hongkongers have a "false identity" is peak arrogance and ignorant on top of that.
#15093694
Rugoz wrote:Thing is, my position is at least somewhat consistent and universally applicable, while yours would require you to unravel all of human history. :lol:

Also, claiming that Hongkongers have a "false identity" is peak arrogance and ignorant on top of that.

How applicability is even an issue here? This is a merely intellectual debate, on my part at least.

Hongkongers have a false identity because they're just simple Chinese people, nothing else.
#15093697
Rugoz wrote:Because the categorical imperative demands it. ;)

Does PoFo demand it too? :lol:

Rugoz wrote:And humans are simply humans.

Exactly, so every national identity is actually false, but we still stick to that illusion.
#15093709
Beren wrote:Exactly, so every national identity is actually false, but we still stick to that illusion.


Human beings have their freedom to decide whether a group exists and whether they belong to the said group, as long as all members of that group (and no one else) agree with exactly that (no more and no less), and the said group does not exist to attack others.

In this sense, Hongkonger is a group agreed by most living in Hong Kong, and is not a group aim to undermine China (as the Chinese government wants the world to believe). If anything, it is the Chinese government and its supporters themselves who undermined Chinese as an identity, not us.
#15093717
Unthinking Majority wrote:Hitler invaded Poland to regain lost German territory. Before that he invaded and annexed the German part of Czechoslovakia.


Not quite, he took back Danzig and the Sudetenland but he also conquered non-German lands in Poland and Czechoslovakia for the purposes of lebensraum.
#15093721
Unthinking Majority wrote:And China has similar ambitions.


You're claiming that China has ambitions to conquer historically non-Chinese territory and set up two-tiered racial systems in those lands? :eh:
#15093753
I see that people are comparing stuff to the Nazis again. It's so simplistic and boomeristic. Come on guys. Even if there are a few similarities, China is still a complete different animal.

Besides, many people are going to have a hard time taking your plight seriously if you constantly make it about Hitler and the Nazis. How many times have we heard about the ''new Hitler'' crap or someone being called ''literally Hitler'', trying to get guilt ridden Westerners all riled up and distracted?
#15093765
Patrickov wrote:Human beings have their freedom to decide whether a group exists and whether they belong to the said group, as long as all members of that group (and no one else) agree with exactly that (no more and no less), and the said group does not exist to attack others.

In this sense, Hongkonger is a group agreed by most living in Hong Kong, and is not a group aim to undermine China (as the Chinese government wants the world to believe). If anything, it is the Chinese government and its supporters themselves who undermined Chinese as an identity, not us.

Hongkonger is a fake identity created by Anglo imperialism. Your identity is like that of Mowgli's or Tarzan's, who considered themselves a wolf and a chimpanzee respectively due to an accident. Anglo imperialism was also such an accident in Chinese history and you're China's abducted and lost children she's legitimately reclaiming.
#15093785
Beren wrote:Hongkonger is a fake identity created by Anglo imperialism. Your identity is like that of Mowgli's or Tarzan's, who considered themselves a wolf and a chimpanzee respectively due to an accident. Anglo imperialism was also such an accident in Chinese history and you're China's abducted and lost children she's legitimately reclaiming.


Other than those biologically having that relation, or those having a process of adoption, no one is entitled to have a parent-offspring relationship.

And apart from a brief time in 1277-78 no Chinese ruler had ever been to Hong Kong prior to 1997.

Both handovers of 1842 and 1997 had been power politics. It is absurd to try to describe them otherwise.

EDIT: It is also absurd to try to use these events to justify what they are doing now. I acknowledge that we are effectively asking (or for some of us, fighting) to change what some people think as unchangeable, and I understand that not everybody is able to understand this.

EDIT 2: Nothing stays forever so.


skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/status/1264132298385088513?s=20


May I express my appreciation of this voice of sense.

Patten's stance is very clear, but as a professional government official, this is about the strongest he could ever say.

Although I am not sure whether "betray" is an accurate description. This would mean China and CCP had been on our side at least for a while. In reality, their intentions have been very clear (for at least 4 decades if not more).
Last edited by Patrickov on 23 May 2020 14:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15093787
Patrickov wrote:Both handovers of 1842 and 1997 had been power politics. It is absurd to try to describe them otherwise.

And who does? Yes, HK could be independent in theory, yes, it's a matter of power politics mostly, however, none of that relates to the topic I'm discussing (legitimacy) at all. :roll:

It is clear that all the Israeli apologists are sc[…]

I think the answer should be yes. I trust there i[…]

It's impossible to get a job

I think a lot of employers might be impressed by t[…]

Election 2020

Some news outlets already claimed that it is Russ[…]