Quote:

Mao was responsible for 20-40 million deaths (some put it at 75 million)

well, learn some basics about math, even junior high math, that would help you understand the basics and patterns of human population growth. you would realize how dumb the statement above is.
i guess you didn't even finish your junior high.

hehe, if he even didnt finish Junior high, how can he distinguish the wrong and correct, let along checked more the history.... hehe.

and one or 2 questions already refute his points:
1, what was tibet before 1950?
2, did he know why UK could announced tibet was independent in 1950? did him know about UK and China between 1842---- 1950 and what UK did in china???, if he cannot tell any these history, then his brain is just a white paper.

Holy crap this guy (Historian) obviously knows his stuff and you guys question him on math??

"so called Historian" trying to psyco us into defensive.

No arguement by anybody is going to change the fact that

TIBET BELONGS in CHINA.

[ Last edited by FatCat at 13-7-2008 22:05 ]

Quote:

Again, China didn't exist during the Qing dynasty. The Qing didn't see themselves as Chinese; like the Mongols, they worked hard to prevent assimilation.

Actually, they did. The Qing dynasty named their national flag the "Chinese National Flag", and their national Anthem the "Chinese national anthem". If anything, China first came to being in the Qing dynasty, as previous dynasties never had the concept of the nation-state. That's my main gripe with western historic education. They already evolved to teaching their own country as an multiethnic entity, yet when teaching China they teach it as a "Han nationality and only Han nationality". Yet the problem is that China is perhaps more multiethnic than most of these countries. Seriously, if the kingdom of William the Orange can be considered British instead of Dutch, then I don't see how the Qing dynasty isn't Chinese. At least Manchuria is within Ming/Qing borders, unlike the lands of the Dutch republic, which is clearly outside of England.

But Tiresius is right. Historian has provided an argument. If you don't agree with it you can bring historic evidence to counter it. Empty slogans and such does nothing. I would prefer some high quality posts here.

[ Last edited by Anthrophobia at 14-7-2008 01:39 ]

debate is NOT :

- smearing,  personal attacks ("I guess you didn't even finish your junior high.", "how can he distinguish the wrong and correct")

- consider your arguments are so obvious you don't need to even enunciate them ("That would help you understand the basics and patterns of human population growth" )

- ask questions that add no evidence to counter an argument ("1, what was tibet before 1950?" )

- suppose that because the interloctuor didn't mention an event he knew nothing about it AND reduce the knowledge of the historyof tibet to a sole event ("did him know about UK and China between 1842---- 1950 and what UK did in china???, if he cannot tell any these history, then his brain is just a white paper.")

- take the interlocutor's arguments on china as personal slander("trying to psyco us into defensive")

-refute by advance any argument from the opponent ("No arguement by anybody is going to change the fact ") and mix up the issues at stake ("TIBET BELONGS in CHINA.)

i don't agree wiht you, Historian, when you say it's ok to talkabout the "cruel practice of slavery" in tibetbefore the Chinese army invaded it. It was a retarded, poor, hierarchic society, but certanly not cruel, or at least not as cruel as the chinese were to the tibetan people . As for the slavery, it is a big word for a feudal society - were the peasant sin chinacalled "slaves"? we should rather talk about the young chinese salevs working all day long in factories..

Quote:

Original posted by Lyosalfe at 14-7-2008 05:24
debate is NOT :

- smearing,  personal attacks ("I guess you didn't even finish your junior high.", "how can he distinguish the wrong and correct")

- consider your arguments are so obvious you don't need to even enunciate them ("That would help you understand the basics and patterns of human population growth" )

- ask questions that add no evidence to counter an argument ("1, what was tibet before 1950?" )

- suppose that because the interloctuor didn't mention an event he knew nothing about it AND reduce the knowledge of the historyof tibet to a sole event ("did him know about UK and China between 1842---- 1950 and what UK did in china???, if he cannot tell any these history, then his brain is just a white paper.")

- take the interlocutor's arguments on china as personal slander("trying to psyco us into defensive")

-refute by advance any argument from the opponent ("No arguement by anybody is going to change the fact ") and mix up the issues at stake ("TIBET BELONGS in CHINA.)

Wow, couldn't have said it better myself. Very nice and eloquent.