Cold War against China?

hungrywing said:
You seem to have missed certain nuances in the post that you tangentially replied to.

Also , you seem to be belatedly backtracking from including Dawkins in your 'supporting arguments'.

Also, unlike @nimic, who at the very least has a very, very long track record of trying to be rational and intellectually honest, you just fabricated a quote there. Don't exactly speak too highly of you, kemosabe.

Generously giving you a chance you amend and backtrack here. Your original reply put you extremely heavily in the "not worth replying to" category, by the way.
Click to expand...

Nice gaslighting from someone who likes to commend people for their intellectual honestly. What quote did I fabricate? In this post, the one I originally responded to, you said:

"He's an extremely militant atheist who would go out of his way to aggressively disparage people of faith, which is a humongous red flag for a woman or man purporting to be 'of science'. Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question.'"

I don't have any particular view on Krauss, but your argument wasn't just with him, it was by implication with any scientist who shows 'anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism'. Your argument is their atheism undermines their scientific acumen which is frankly a mad position to take given how many first rank scientific atheists there are - whether militantly so, like Dawkins, or those who might express their views less stridently like Hawking or Penrose. There are tons, including many with Nobel prizewinning levels of scientific acumen who don't hold to a "benign agnosticism" at all.

The vigour with which an argument is made, doesn't invalidate (or validate) the argument. Now whether atheism is "right" or "wrong" is a different issue, but since valid scientific hypotheses require the absence of supernatural explanations, it's not surprising how many more scientists are atheist, than the general public.
 
Last edited:
hungrywing said:
You're right on that of course; there's none at all. 'Extremely militant' was the active term there. Again, THAT is the marker. Not atheism.
Click to expand...

Well, good. Glad we got there. So if it's not the atheism, then it's really scientists who have bad personalities who are scientifically suspect?

hungrywing said:
This is tough to explain, but In general, the smarter one is, the less one acts in that manner. So, for example, someone thinking themselves as 'smarter' than other people and going into, say, a video game thread and insulting videogame designers and acting like they know better would actually be a strong sign of them being on the lower rungs of 'higher intelligence'.
Click to expand...

There are long lists of aggressively unpleasant, extremely arrogant, first rank scientists.. Robert Hooke, Newton, William Shockley, Richard Owen, to name but a few.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
Nice gaslighting from someone who likes to commend people for their intellectual honestly. What quote did I fabricate? In this post, the one I originally responded to, you said:

"He's an extremely militant atheist who would go out of his way to aggressively disparage people of faith, which is a humongous red flag for a woman or man purporting to be 'of science'. Anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism throws the individual's scientific acumen into serious question.'"

I don't have any particular view on Krauss, but your argument wasn't just with him, it was by implication with any scientist who shows 'anything beyond a sort of benign agnosticism'. Your argument is their atheism undermines their scientific acumen which is frankly a mad position to take given how many first rank scientific atheists there are - whether militantly so, like Dawkins, or those who might express their views less stridently like Hawking or Penrose. There are tons, including many with Nobel prizewinning levels of scientific acumen who don't hold to a "benign agnosticism" at all.

The vigour with which an argument is made, doesn't invalidate (or validate) the argument. Now whether atheism is "right" or "wrong" is a different issue, but since valid scientific hypotheses require the absence of supernatural explanations, it's not surprising how many more scientists are atheist, than the general public.
Click to expand...

I don't do smileys often, but damn.

I'll make it easy on you. One, there's a difference between atheist and "militant atheist who would go out of his way to aggressively disparage people of faith". You made up your own quote and argued against it. :lol: Two, it's not about the atheism. It's about the underlying intelligence difference between those two. Again, one could tell you were out of your depth by your original tangential reply and the inherent rudeness (and then the rabid need to 'be right' to the point where you made up that argument).

I understand you might not have encountered the phenomenon that's actually being discussed. That's fine. Whether or not you believe in it or are capable of grasping it, I'm afraid it's a phenomenon that does exist.

Not sure how to help you out here. Maybe to say the vigor does matter? Hmm. What are some other examples. There's Socrates' whole "I-know-that-I-know-nothing" thing. There's a similar Chinese saying along the lines of 'ripened wheat bows its head' or something like that. Anyways the phenomenon is real. You'll find plenty of top-rate people who are aware of it.

nickm said:
Well, good. Glad we got there. So if it's not the atheism, then it's really scientists who have bad personalities who are scientifically suspect?
Click to expand...

You got there. Everyone else already was there. 'There' was never the issue except for you, who'd taken the ball in your own direction and run with it. If I were a mean person I'd say it was funny or pathetic how you didn't realize that and how you're trying to be condescending about it.

There are long lists of aggressively unpleasant, extremely arrogant, first rank scientists.. Robert Hooke, Newton, William Shockley, Richard Owen, to name but a few.
Click to expand...

Yikes. This looks like you took a few days to research some more names in a desperate attempt to prove a point that you didn't realize you were only arguing with yourself? Again, no one is saying 'atheists = st00pid' except for you as you try and refute the thing that again, no one said.

Since you've come this far, go research another name, Peter Higgs (yes, that Higgs - and a dirty, dirty atheist by the way) and you'll get another person trying to elucidate the phenomenon I've been describing.

Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with atheists = st00pid which you've staunchly and Quixotically been trying to position yourself as a valiant and mighty and righteous defender against.
 
You'd think this is some BS but it's a FT article, so not exactly low-tier news. Seems like an attempt to scare US policymakers into providing a bigger budget? Surely China isn't ahead of the US in this field?
One person said government scientists were struggling to understand the capability, which the US does not currently possess, adding that China’s achievement appeared “to defy the laws of physics
Click to expand...

https://www.ft.com/content/c7139a23-1271-43ae-975b-9b632330130b
 
VorZakone said:
You'd think this is some BS but it's a FT article, so not exactly low-tier news. Seems like an attempt to scare US policymakers into providing a bigger budget? Surely China isn't ahead of the US in this field?


https://www.ft.com/content/c7139a23-1271-43ae-975b-9b632330130b
Click to expand...

Why not

China knows the USA has an insurmountable lead when it comes to aircraft carriers... so asymmetric options are probably the primary solution

I.e. hypersonic missiles that you can put on artificial islands etc and keep aircraft carriers so far back they can't actually practically use planes to overfly your airspace.

Carrier killer missiles have been something they have been relativley open about and this type of weapon fits in that general space (hypersonic)

Equally china has a huge warhead deficit and probably sees more efficient delivery systems as a better route than trying to match outright destructive capability
 
Last edited:
hungrywing said:
I don't do smileys often, but damn.

I'll make it easy on you. One, there's a difference between atheist and "militant atheist who would go out of his way to aggressively disparage people of faith". You made up your own quote and argued against it. :lol: Two, it's not about the atheism. It's about the underlying intelligence difference between those two. Again, one could tell you were out of your depth by your original tangential reply and the inherent rudeness (and then the rabid need to 'be right' to the point where you made up that argument).
Click to expand...
I think you must be quite mad to deny the words I’ve not just quoted back to you but referenced via hyperlink but hey ho. You are extraordinarily vague sometimes so I suppose i shouldn’t be surprised if your memory slips. Yes there’s a difference between atheists and militant atheists but not in their basic position about the existence of gods. Making inferences about an athiest’s scientific ability based on the ferociousness of their debating style, which is a matter of taste not quality of argument, is stupid.

hungrywing said:
I understand you might not have encountered the phenomenon that's actually being discussed. That's fine. Whether or not you believe in it or are capable of grasping it, I'm afraid it's a phenomenon that does exist.

Not sure how to help you out here. Maybe to say the vigor does matter? Hmm. What are some other examples. There's Socrates' whole "I-know-that-I-know-nothing" thing. There's a similar Chinese saying along the lines of 'ripened wheat bows its head' or something like that. Anyways the phenomenon is real. You'll find plenty of top-rate people who are aware of it.
Click to expand...
Funny you choose Socrates who was put to death because he believed in a single god rather than the multiple ones he was required to believe in. Even someone who accepted wisdom was about how much there was to learn, held what at the time was a very certain view about the nature of deity.
 
nickm said:
I think you must be quite mad to deny the words I’ve not just quoted back to you but referenced via hyperlink but hey ho. You are extraordinarily vague sometimes so I suppose i shouldn’t be surprised if your memory slips. Yes there’s a difference between atheists and militant atheists but not in their basic position about the existence of gods. Making inferences about an athiest’s scientific ability based on the ferociousness of their debating style, which is a matter of taste not quality of argument, is stupid.


Funny you choose Socrates who was put to death because he believed in a single god rather than the multiple ones he was required to believe in. Even someone who accepted wisdom was about how much there was to learn, held what at the time was a very certain view about the nature of deity.
Click to expand...

On the surface it would seem that you're trying to troll, but the consistency of your quality of thought unfortunately heavily indicates the alternative, which is that you're setting up these non-sequitur straw men and batting at them, resulting in a sort of flailing about because you've vaguely realized you were completely wrong and are sort of talking for the sake of talking trying to save face.

No one's talking about what Socrates had for dinner, or what god he believed in. (Also, it's been noted that now you've amended your original argument and have tried to redraw the lines, something I genuinely believe you might not be aware of as you do the earlier-mentioned 'flailing about'. But you're at least in the ballpark now with the bolded part) On the other hand, if you sort of snuck it in there hoping no one would notice, that doesn't exactly speak well for your strength of character. Stand up straight; if you got something wrong, say you got it wrong. No kind person is going to berate you for it.

Again, this is just about the earlier mentioned phenomenon (the one you're at least in the ballpark now regarding the bolded part). Here's another person alluding to it:

“Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regard to matters requiring thought: the less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them, while on the other hand to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgment upon anything new.”

I'm sorry(?), but it's an actual phenomenon. In general, the smarter one is, it really does affect 'the ferociousness of their debating style'; they tend to be humbler and more open. You're of course free to call the idea 'stupid'. I'm just giving examples of some people talking about said phenomenon.

Took some time trying to hunt down another quote of the same nature from a gentleman named Anil Seth. It was in his book Being You if you want to try and hunt it down/learn about some bleeding edge neuroscience. I'll try to add it here if I do manage to find it.
 
Foxbatt said:
They probably did not master and it could all be just PR?
Click to expand...
PR in what way? The FT seems to be doubling down on the hypersonic missile coverage, seems rather credible to me. Even US officials have expressed their concerns about how fast China is advancing in this field.

However, the counter-argument could be that the US defence industry is pushing such articles to raise pressure on the government to increase the budget. But that's speculation.
 
VorZakone said:
PR in what way? The FT seems to be doubling down on the hypersonic missile coverage, seems rather credible to me. Even US officials have expressed their concerns about how fast China is advancing in this field.

However, the counter-argument could be that the US defence industry is pushing such articles to raise pressure on the government to increase the budget. But that's speculation.
Click to expand...

Or is what it really is. China is more advanced in some areas than the US. with the amount of money and authoritarian drive that they have, wouldn't be so unbelievable.

Some people (I am not saying you) finds unbelievable than another country can surpass US in any area when is only natural than a emergent superpower than China has the capability to excel in several areas, and that is what eventually will bring china to surpass the US eventually as a dominant superpower.

Sometimes, the easiest explanation is the one that it is and it would not be that incredible
 
4bars said:
Or is what it really is. China is more advanced in some areas than the US. with the amount of money and authoritarian drive that they have, wouldn't be so unbelievable.

Some people (I am not saying you) finds unbelievable than another country can surpass US in any area when is only natural than a emergent superpower than China has the capability to excel in several areas, and that is what eventually will bring china to surpass the US eventually as a dominant superpower.

Sometimes, the easiest explanation is the one that it is and it would not be that incredible
Click to expand...
Could be indeed. Interesting times for sure. I'll be watching these developments.
 
My country, Chile, did a public tender to choose the next company that will make our passports and national IDs.

The winner was a chinese company. Passports and IDs would be way more cheaper from now on.

But, our masters, the USA, has threaten us to remove us from the VISA waiver scheme if we move forward with it.

Obviously, our government, immediately cancelled the tender. :rolleyes:

I hope China (our biggest commercial partner) pushback is not too severe.
 
Foxbatt said:
I guess they won't be sending anyone to any country in the Middle East too?
Click to expand...
The US have said their athletes are fine to travel, it's just the diplomats themselves that won't be going. But yes, interesting to see if this extends to Saudi, and others in the ME (and should include Israel too but we all know how they're bedfellows).
 
Australia has said it will join the US in a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the decision was in response to "human rights abuses" in China's Xinjiang province and "many other issues that Australia has consistently raised".
Athletes would still attend, he added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59573500

I'd be surprised if the other FVEYs nations don't join in.
 
The Corinthian said:
The US have said their athletes are fine to travel, it's just the diplomats themselves that won't be going. But yes, interesting to see if this extends to Saudi, and others in the ME (and should include Israel too but we all know how they're bedfellows).
Click to expand...

There is the World Cup next year in Doha. I bet they would send diplomats.
 
The Corinthian said:
Australia has said it will join the US in a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the decision was in response to "human rights abuses" in China's Xinjiang province and "many other issues that Australia has consistently raised".
Athletes would still attend, he added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59573500

I'd be surprised if the other FVEYs nations don't join in.
Click to expand...

https://china.usembassy-china.org.cn/covid-19-information/

Entry and Exit Requirements:

  • Are U.S. citizens permitted to enter? Yes.
    • China currently allows foreign nationals with valid residence permits and visas to enter the country under certain very limited conditions. The U.S. Embassy has no say in these policies, and these are subject to change at any time.
Click to expand...

Id be surprised if China didn't introduce new Omicron restrictions on any country's athletes where that country does a diplomatic boycott... something like a 90 day quarantine as they await further information on omicron with the policy to be reviewed in say 90 days
 
The Corinthian said:
Australia has said it will join the US in a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the decision was in response to "human rights abuses" in China's Xinjiang province and "many other issues that Australia has consistently raised".
Athletes would still attend, he added.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59573500

I'd be surprised if the other FVEYs nations don't join in.
Click to expand...

Do you think the French would do as well? And the Germans?
 
Simbo said:
Is this a good or a bad thing? At this point I'm unsure what the lesser evil is with Chinese influence vs Russian influence vs Tories in general.
Click to expand...

It is not about who does what. It is understandable they would do it. I am surprised that people are shocked. The Americans, and the British, The French they all do it along with the Russians and the Chinese. Even the Indians do it. Of course at a much smaller level and in much smaller countries.
 
Foxbatt said:
It is not about who does what. It is understandable they would do it. I am surprised that people are shocked. The Americans, and the British, The French they all do it along with the Russians and the Chinese. Even the Indians do it. Of course at a much smaller level and in much smaller countries.
Click to expand...

Aye, and some are much more influencial than others.
 
So what to say about China? According to the NYT not only did they share American intel with the Russians, they also asked them to delay the invasion till after the Olympics.
 
VorZakone said:
So what to say about China? According to the NYT not only did they share American intel with the Russians, they also asked them to delay the invasion till after the Olympics.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't wait for Zelensky to take a swipe in their direction as well. There is just no place for plausible deniability now; they knew it was happening and they did nothing to stop it.

Right now, I say the West should begin preparing a first salvo of sanctions against China if the latter chooses to keep on standing on the wrong side of the road. What would you aim first if that's the case?
 
VorZakone said:
Click to expand...

If anything, the time of strategy ambiguity about Taiwan is gone and deserves to stay that way for good.

That being said, the kind of tone used in China's response makes me wish we the West start firing back with the same tone. It takes two to tango.
 
Last edited:
Good video. Didnt realise that no one other than taiwan is spending the money $100 billion over next few years on 2nm and 3nm chip technology. Interesting that USA have convinced tsmc to open a 5nm plant in arizon at the cost of $12billion.

Its seems that Taiwan's silicon shield will protect it for a good few decades to come from any potential invasion from china.

 
Chinese fighter jet 'chaffs' Australian plane near South China Sea, Canberra alleges (CNN)

The Chinese J-16 drew alongside the Australian P-8 while it was on a routine surveillance mission in international airspace last month before releasing flares and chaff that entered at least one of the Australian aircraft's engines, Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles said.
Click to expand...

What the hell is wrong with those sick bellends? They are asking to lose fighter jets in a dogfight one of those days soon.
 
China has launched its 3rd carrier apparently.

BEIJING, June 17 (Reuters) - China launched its third aircraft carrier on Friday, the Fujian, named after the province opposite self-ruled Taiwan, sending a statement of intent to rivals as it modernises its military.

President Xi Jinping has made overhauling the world's largest armed forces a central part of his agenda, seeking to project power well beyond China's shores, though the government says it has no hostile intent.

Champagne, colourful ribbons, water cannons and smoke were deployed to celebrate the carrier's launch and official naming at a ceremony at the Jiangnan shipyard in Shanghai, state media reported.
Click to expand...

https://www.reuters.com/world/china...rcraft-carrier-fujian-state-media-2022-06-17/
 
...though the government says it has no hostile intent.
Click to expand...

What a load of bollocks. You don't build up such a massive fleet without any intent for projection. The German Empire built its fleet for the sole purpose of challenging the Royal Navy over a century ago, and we all know how that ended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.