China - Taiwan Developments

No such thing as a "balanced view", the reality is that any victor in any given situation gets to enforce the historical narrative by means of violence. The Anglosphere has for a long time enjoyed that privilege, now they're going to lose it to China, and you simply don't like it.

China is a great nation, and it'll be a far better world than the one I currently live in once they become the hegemon.
 
tetrasect said:
Yes, they withdrew. Do you actually think they left because they didn't have the capability to fight?

They could have annihilated the entire country in a few days if they did it "Russia style".
Both the US public and the US politicians wanted an end to the war.
They were only still there to try to create a peaceful democratic state but the Afghan people are not willing to play along. So what purpose does it serve to stay there?



Huh? Wft are you on about now?

Really don't even know what your point is here, other than to derail.

The US military is about a thousand times more capable and powerful than the Taliban. And they are more capable and powerful than China. That's my point. Which is what I've been saying this whole time.
Click to expand...
Capability isn't determined by your equipment, which is why you have to resort to making excuses for yet another American loss. Don't forget your heroes got ****ed up in Vietnam too. The most important thing in a war isn't necessarily technology, it's ideology. The overarching "Western" ideal is weak and submissive, it isn't virile enough to compete with ideals such as radical communism in Vietnam, or radical Islamic fundamentalism.

One has an ideal where it conquers and rules over others, the other has an ideal where it bends over backwards to accommodate others. All the technology in the world can't make up for the philosophical power disparity.
 
Nicodeamus said:
The majority of the white urbanization took place in the 1950s and 1960s, that is when you see expanding populations, fertility then starts falling.

5.7/8.8 = 50.16%, that assumes that they were equally distributed,
Click to expand...
There's your' first problem. Basic maths. 5.7 is 64.775% of 8.8.

Then 10 years of population growth between 1972-1982 would easily make up a 15% difference between the population of white 7-8 year olds and 17-18 year olds.

Logic only works if you can do logic.
 
Last edited:
deathprophet215 said:
No such thing as a "balanced view", the reality is that any victor in any given situation gets to enforce the historical narrative by means of violence. The Anglosphere has for a long time enjoyed that privilege, now they're going to lose it to China, and you simply don't like it.

China is a great nation, and it'll be a far better world than the one I currently live in once they become the hegemon.
Click to expand...
Not big on human rights are you?
 
tetrasect said:
When's the last time they lost one?

When they went to Iraq the first time in the gulf war it was to restore the Kuwaiti border, which they did in just 100 hours.

In Afghanistan they set out to overthrow the Taliban, which they did in less than a month, and get Bin Laden, who they finally found and killed 10 years later.

In Iraq the second time they went to overthrow Saddam and his government. They took the capital in 2 weeks.
Then it took another 8 months to find Saddam.

The USA easily whips any nation's ass.

Their mistake is trying to turn the place into a functioning democracy after they win. That's no easy feat in a place filled with uneducated zealots who practically live in the stone age.
Click to expand...
Easily whips any nation's ass huh? I don't think you're intelligent enough to speak on the matter. So you're implying, the massive disparity enjoyed by the USA compared to Iraq is present in China? Nope. And yet in other instances of disparity they have lost, see Vietnam, and today Afghanistan.

You can claim that "oh they conquered Afghanistan, they won the war", but if they won the war the Taliban wouldn't rule right now. A war is a long-term thing, take for instance the 100 years war, the victor was ultimately France, which unified its territory and kicked the English out of it, even though early on they were losing key battles.

The USA isn't known for military efficiency, which is why they struggle to dominate smaller nations, their only advantages historically have been numerical and technological, today that's no longer a factor. Face it, your Anglosphere has lost and China is the boss, and there's nothing you can do about it.
 
Cray said:
Not big on human rights are you?
Click to expand...
The human rights which aren't afforded to the millions of civilians killed by your US and British heroes every couple of years? Those 1 million civilians caught in the middle of the Iraq invasion, did they have human rights?

According to those human rights, there is also a level of oppression currently present in this country, minority targeted and discriminated against constitutionally. Why aren't they enforcing these human rights that state institutional discrimination is illegal? Is it simply not as important to enforce it because my people are inferior and not considered human? Or is it perhaps that your supposed human rights are only afforded to those who either possess the power to protect themselves, or have foreign powers to protect them?

Therefore you can spew all your nonsense about your "Western" human rights, but they clearly aren't implemented when you have countries targeting minorities, targeting women, etc. So China replacing you makes zero difference in the world, except that you have less people to invade and slaughter.
 
Cray said:
Not big on human rights are you?
Click to expand...

Article 2​

  1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.
  2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.
  3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.
  4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.
  5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties
Doesn't sound like South Africa huh?
 
Sensorei said:
There's your' first problem. You can't do basic maths. 5.7 is 64.775% of 8.8.

Then 10 years of population growth between 1972-1982 would easily make up a 15% difference between the population of white 7-8 year olds and 17-18 year olds.

Logic only works if you can do logic.c
Click to expand...
Correct on the 65%, but that implies 25% didn't write matric.

As for the population growth, it's not moving much for the whites, the urbanisation period took place in the 50s and 60s. Those kids were out of school by then.

1660041957915.png


Go with an estimate of 15%, 10%, an army serves as a good means to try and upskill them.
 
Nicodeamus said:
Correct on the 65%, but that implies 25% didn't write matric.

As for the population growth, it's not moving much for the whites, the urbanisation period took place in the 50s and 60s. Those kids were out of school by then.

View attachment 1361859
Click to expand...
Now you're grabbing at straws. Get back to googling. White population grew 17% between 1970 and 1980...

Point being nobody will take you seriously if the 'facts' you present' are made up.
 
deathprophet215 said:
The human rights which aren't afforded to the millions of civilians killed by your US and British heroes every couple of years? Those 1 million civilians caught in the middle of the Iraq invasion, did they have human rights?
Click to expand...
Agree, that was horrific, but the Western world isn't solely about the behaviour of the US, and plenty of Western states refused to back that invasion.

deathprophet215 said:
According to those human rights, there is also a level of oppression currently present in this country, minority targeted and discriminated against constitutionally.
Click to expand...
Am not sure you know what the word oppression means if you are using this country as an example of it.

deathprophet215 said:
Why aren't they enforcing these human rights that state institutional discrimination is illegal? Is it simply not as important to enforce it because my people are inferior and not considered human? Or is it perhaps that your supposed human rights are only afforded to those who either possess the power to protect themselves, or have foreign powers to protect them?

Therefore you can spew all your nonsense about your "Western" human rights, but they clearly aren't implemented when you have countries targeting minorities, targeting women, etc. So China replacing you makes zero difference in the world, except that you have less people to invade and slaughter.
Click to expand...
Replacing me, what? So rather just trade in your right to affect your own life and and live the way the CCP tells you to?
 
Anyhow, since you're quite daft I'll spell it out for you. Afrikaans, an indigenous and minority language, was attacked in public universities, even removed for a period of time, with huge support from people like you. This is a form of ethnic discrimination.

Minorities in this countries, specifically white, are interfered with in the economic arena, in that those white businesses not partaking in B.E.E are excluded from business with the government, and anyone who does businesses with said government are penalized for doing business with such minority-owned businesses too. This is ethic discrimination and economic exclusion.

Minorities are supposed to enjoy free and peaceful contact with other members of their group, yet Orania is constantly pressured by external forces to not practice that right. That right is frowned upon by primarily the liberal demographic on this site, that contradict the human rights afforded to the residents of Orania, which you made reference to.

So you want human rights, but only for certain people, and you frequently lament the practical application of such human rights by minorities you harbor ill will against. You're a hypocrite.
 
deathprophet215 said:
Anyhow, since you're quite daft I'll spell it out for you. Afrikaans, an indigenous and minority language, was attacked in public universities, even removed for a period of time, with huge support from people like you. This is a form of ethnic discrimination.
Click to expand...
So how come public Universities don't cater for Zulu or Xhosa? Is that discrimination too?

deathprophet215 said:
Minorities in this countries, specifically white, are interfered with in the economic arena, in that those white businesses not partaking in B.E.E are excluded from business with the government, and anyone who does businesses with said government are penalized for doing business with such minority-owned businesses too. This is ethic discrimination and economic exclusion.

Minorities are supposed to enjoy free and peaceful contact with other members of their group, yet Orania is constantly pressured by external forces to not practice that right. That right is frowned upon by primarily the liberal demographic on this site, that contradict the human rights afforded to the residents of Orania, which you made reference to.
Click to expand...
What external forces? I mean they have been around since 1991, clearly they don't care if people make snide comments about them, especially on a tech forum site.


deathprophet215 said:
So you want human rights, but only for certain people, and you frequently lament the practical application of such human rights by minorities you harbor ill will against. You're a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
I don't harbour any ill will against minorities.. Ask the Uyghurs how the feel about being a minority under Chinese rule..
 
Sensorei said:
Now you're grabbing at straws. Get back to googling. White population grew 17% between 1970 and 1980...

Point being nobody will take you seriously if the 'facts' you present' are made up.
Click to expand...

My goodness, that is 17% over the entire decade, not year on year.

if someone wrote matric at 18 in 1982, he would have been worn in 1964.
if someone were in STD6 at 14 in 1982, he would have been worn in 1968.


Population stats below are from 1965, so I will use that as a proxy and just add 1 year on.
If I take 1967-1965 = (3493/3408) = 1.02, i.e. 2% increase to a 1965 baseline.
This figure doesn't take into account that more people might have died in 1965 than 1964, i.e. it assumes all the new data is due to births.

If I take 1969-1965 = (3746/3408) = 1.099, i.e. 10% increase to a 1965 baseline.
This figure doesn't take into account that more people might have died in 1965 than 1964, i.e. it assumes all the new data is due to births.
1660042760280.png


so let's go back to the matric tables from 1982,
5.7% in matric, born 1964
7.8% in STD8, born 1966
8.9% in STD6, born 1968


The ratio 5.7/7.8 = 73%
if you scale that value up with 1.02 (calculated above), you're at 74.46%

The ratio 5.7/8.9=64%

if you scale that value down with 1.099 (calculated above), you're at 70%

1660042890990.png

Calculations are done with a sompomp, so do go through it, but that is generally the method.
 
Nicodeamus said:
My goodness, that is 17% over the entire decade, not year on year.

if someone wrote matric at 18 in 1982, he would have been worn in 1964.
if someone were in STD6 at 14 in 1982, he would have been worn in 1968.


Population stats below are from 1965, so I will use that as a proxy and just add 1 year on.
If I take 1967-1965 = (3493/3408) = 1.02, i.e. 2% increase to a 1965 baseline.
This figure doesn't take into account that more people might have died in 1965 than 1964, i.e. it assumes all the new data is due to births.

If I take 1969-1965 = (3746/3408) = 1.099, i.e. 10% increase to a 1965 baseline.
This figure doesn't take into account that more people might have died in 1965 than 1964, i.e. it assumes all the new data is due to births.
View attachment 1361861


so let's go back to the matric tables from 1982,
5.7% in matric, born 1964
7.8% in STD8, born 1966
9.8% in STD6, born 1968


The ratio 5.7/7.8 = 73%
if you scale that value down with 1.02 (calculated above), you're at 0.716

The ratio 5.7/9.8= 0.58%

if you scale that value down with 1.099 (calculated above), you're at 0.53

View attachment 1361865
Click to expand...
Wow you just don't get it. 17% population over a decade is the correct percentage to reference because you're comparing the number of students in grades that are about 10 years apart. ±8 years old (8.8% of total students in Sub B in 1982), to ±18 years old (5.7% of total students in 1982 in Matric).

There's a good youtube channel that can help you with working this out. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPlwvN0w4qFSP1FllALB92w
 
Last edited:
Sensorei said:
Wow you just don't get it. 17% over a decade is the correct percentage to use because you're comparing the number of students in grades that are 10 years apart. 7-8 years old (8.8% of total students in 1982) to 17-18 years (5.7% of total students in 1982) is 10 years.

There's a good youtube channel that can help you with working this out. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPlwvN0w4qFSP1FllALB92w
Click to expand...

Standard 10 and Standard 8 are 2 years apart, 2% growth
Standard 10 and Standard 6 are 4years apart, 10% growth
Growth is not based on birth rate, which would probably be more accurate.

I am comparing within the secondary age group.
 
Sensorei said:
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:

It all makes sense now.
Click to expand...

Population growth rate =! birth rate, but I am sure you knew that already....
Interesting factoid here for you,
South Africa's white population increased to over 3,408,000 by 1965, reached 4,050,000 in 1973, and peaked at 5,044,000 in 1990.
Click to expand...

i.e. deaths caught up with births by the 1990s, Always remember this model below when working with populations.
1660044136142.png
 
Cray said:
I don't harbour any ill will against minorities.. Ask the Uyghurs how the feel about being a minority under Chinese rule..
Click to expand...
Let's just rephrase that " I don't harbour any ill will against minorities...Ask the Russian speaking people ( in the Donbass ) how it feels being a minority under the Ukraine regime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X