Redbean thinks he’s Confucius, critics’ “insects”

In China on 11/08/2016 at 4:39 am

But first, this appeared in the letters page of the Economist.

Sovereign claims

The dispute over territory in the South China Sea, you say, constitutes a contest between “an American idea of rules-based international order and a Chinese one based on what it regards as ‘historic rights’ that trump any global law” (“Courting trouble”, July 16th). You note that America has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but do not explain why. In 1982 the Reagan administration reasoned that the convention cannot take priority over domestic legislation that declares American sovereignty over the extended continental shelf. This is not entirely different from China’s claims of historic rights.

The Reagan administration was also uncomfortable with the compulsory dispute-resolution mechanism proposed by the convention, which is a similar argument to the one China put forward when it rebuffed the recent court ruling that rejected its claims in the South China Sea.

Therefore, the dispute is less a clash of “two world-views”, as you suggest, but simply China taking cues from America in attempting to demonstrate its own exceptionalism.

Stanford, California

As I pointed out before, America was smart not to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, although in a classic case of double talk, it has said it will abide by it. Why was China so dumb to ratify it? And then give it the two-finger salute?

Now to Uncle Redbean: he says he didn’t reply to critics like me because he was behaving like Confucius who refused to rebut a critic, preferring to ignore him*.

Good replies from TRE readers:

Bad Boy:

So he’s implying his words are the true gospel ?

Those who can’t, smoke.:

If you said “there are many kinds of truth depending on the subjective biases of the individual”, then Mr Redbean, as an individual, how do you even know you are not also a 3 seasons man*? just a different set of 3 seasons from the others?

Unless you really believed that anyone whom you cannot convince must be a grasshopper in disguised?

A Worm infested bean:

Why Redbean did not reply is because he don’t have the knowledge to argue his case. I only see him good at telling ‘crouching tiger and hidden dragon’ stories. OR covertly ‘curse’ or ‘belittle’ his adversaries. No standard.

PAP Contempt of Citizens:

Why Readbean now explain why he reply? …

* The answer, why redbean did not want to reply is the same as why Confucius did not want to explain but agree with a 3 season man that there is no winter. Confucius knew that he could not convince the 3 season man that there was really a season called winter that the 3 season man had not known.

A 3 season man is like some insects with lifespan of only 9 months, from spring to autumn. By autumn the insect would have outlived its life and be dead, never would it have a chance to experience and know what winter is like. To such an insect it is true that there is no winter. And the insect would be so convinced that he was right and would not want to understand or listen to people who lived long enough to tell him that there was winter. The discussion would be a waste of effort and time and it was better to agree with the 3 season man or let the 3 season man to believe he was right. Let the 3 season man be happy in his own truth …



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: