Discuss US and Taiwan Politics with Mr. Wu Dunyi

In his previous post, "Discussing the Good Governance of the United States, Taiwan and China with Mr. Wu Guoyi", he made a strong criticism of Mr. Wu. Thanks to Mr. Wu's persistence, he made a detailed response to the essay.

I think Mr. Wu's response this time, as always, shows his lack of minimal reflection/examination on the basic facts and the logic behind the facts.

As you readers can see, my response to Mr. Wu clearly seeks entertainment. Yes, I am indeed in pursuit of entertainment, in pursuit of educating and entertaining.

Mind you, I'm not saying I'm qualified to be a teacher to anyone, I'm just willing to entertain readers by showing how reasonable I am, or how ignorant I am. In short, whether I am wise or ignorant, I want to entertain my readers.

In order to save readers the trouble of reviewing, I will post the responses of the gentlemen I criticized below this article for readers' reference.

-----------------------------

Dear Mr. Wu, I have to tell you with grief and grief, I think I have repeatedly shown that I did not understand the basic situation of the United States when arguing with me. Now, Mr. has shown me like this, to the readers, that you can't even play basic logic and basic Chinese. You are so surprised.

You amaze me and make me wonder if you are playing performance art with me in order to show our readers what is incoherent and what is muddleheaded?

In addition, I would like to ask Mr. to apologize to me for spreading false information and fabricating my statement as follows (Mr. insisted that I did not understand the situation and that Trump only lost once). My original civilization is clearly: Trump has only campaigned twice, and once withdrew in the middle of the election, why does he accuse fraud every time?

Dear Mr. Wu, my remarks to you are not truthful to you (and I insist on not telling the truth after being pointed out and criticized for not telling the truth), and my illogical and blatant self-confidence to you. The contradictory remarks were astonishing.

Sir, you really amaze me.

Not to mention that this statement of Mr. is full of factual errors, even if I fully accept Mr.'s words, I can of course ask in a serious (or naughty) way: I said that Mr. Tsugaru did not understand the situation, (wrongly stated) Trump just I lost once, what's wrong with what I said? Isn't Mr. still insisting that Trump only lost once? Sir, do you want me to apologize to you? You want me to apologize to my husband for saying something wrong? Are you kidding me internationally, sir?

Dear Sir, [Trump has only campaigned twice, and once withdrew halfway] Who said this? Did you say it yourself, sir? Only ran twice, one of them dropped out, so, 2-1 = ? Excuse me sir, how many times do you say Trump lost? Mr. seems to be telling me, and the world, that the answer here is not 1, but another number. Or is it Mr. Trump who didn't accuse the opponent of fraud in the only campaign that went all the way?

I'm curious about this kind of hypermathematical calculation of Mr. Excuse me sir, what do you think is the correct answer to the mathematical formula of two minus one? I've never been very good at math. Sir has hit my math confidence again. A fatal blow.

Also, as I told Mr. very, very clearly last time, Trump has run for president many times, and each time he has failed, he has ended up with name-calling and cheating on the other side (he ran at least twice before 2016). I am very sorry that Mr. Wu seems to have dyslexia, or factual cognitive difficulties. Allow me to repost a portion of my last remarks on the basic facts with Mr. Wu:

[Trump has only campaigned twice, and once withdrew in the middle of the election, why did he accuse fraud every time? 】I would politely but also bluntly point out here that Mr. Wu does not seem to be very familiar with American politics, or arithmetic. We know that Trump, as far as I know, ran at least three times. Twice in 2016 and once in 2020. Two plus one is three, not two. Three times Trump called out that the winning party (the one with more votes) cheated on him.

He said in 2016 that Senator Ted Cruz's victory in the Republican presidential primary in Iowa was cheating, election-stealing, and should be re-elected; Hillary Clinton won a few more votes than he did in the presidential election. Millions are earned by cheating; this time Biden has more votes, and Trump is repeating the same old tune. I don't understand why Mr. Wu chooses to believe in such a scoundrel who says he cheats every time his skills are inferior.

By the way, Mr. Wu should know that after Trump came to power, he set up an investigation committee to investigate Hillary Clinton's large-scale electoral fraud and illegally obtained more than 3 million votes. It appears that more than half of those who voted for the Republicans still voted Republican. This is not classified news, uncommon news. Mr. Wu should see it.

It would be a pity if Mr. Wu did not even see such a fact, or refused to admit it when he saw it, or could not even understand Chinese like me. And, I would also say, I am concerned about the level of the KMT in Taiwan. After all, Mr. Wu is the former chairman of the Kuomintang.

I still have to say that there are too many examples of not telling the facts and logic in the response that Mr. gave me this time. It can be said that every item is true, and every sentence is true. I don't want to contradict them one by one, and I don't want to cause a painful test of the reader's patience. Therefore, I shall briefly discuss it at the beginning of the response Mr.

I think I have now clearly shown that the quality of Mr.'s speech is very poor, so I can't take Mr.'s speech seriously. I can only entertain and play with him.

Having said this, I might as well say the end of the response that Mr. gave me this time, to show that I have read through the response of Mr., although I like to joke with Mr., but the joke is a joke, I still have at least seriousness.

I would say that the conclusion of Mr.'s response shows that Mr.'s reading ability in Chinese is both questionable and joyful.

- I would like to propose that the United Nations set up a UN Justice General Administration and nominate Mr. Nominee as the first administrator. (Tsugaru Strait)

Ideas welcome sir. But unfortunately, Mr. has no right to nominate, and the United Nations can't control the United States

I feel like Mr. is really joking with me and the readers. I clearly wrote in my humble essay that I was joking, Mr. sarcasm. Mr. is still serious. Hey, sir, of course I know I'm not the UN secretary general and I don't have such a nomination right.

Believe me, I still have this intelligence and basic knowledge. This time, I want to sit upright, with a serious face, and say to the gentleman: Sir, please don't daydream, and don't delusionally think that you may be nominated as the first director of the UN General Administration of Justice.

I hope that this time I have made my words completely clear, and there will be no misunderstandings, sir.

In addition, what does Mr. Wu mean when he said that "the United Nations can't control the United States"? I think this is also an example of confusion. According to the apparently muddled logic behind Mr.'s remarks, the United Nations has no control over any country in the world. If this is the case, why did Taiwan value the UN seat so much in the first place, and why does it need to fight to return to such an international waste organization now? Perhaps abandoning the United Nations is the current thinking of the Taiwanese Kuomintang?

attached

Mr. Wu Dunyi previously responded to the Tsugaru Strait article " Discussing the Good Governance of the United States, Taiwan and China with Mr. Wu Guoyi":

I remember the last time I mentioned to my husband that Trump is a person who can’t afford to lose, he said firmly that I don’t understand the situation and that Trump only lost once. Apparently not knowing that, in fact, in terms of running for office, in terms of running for president, he has lost many times (he ran for president many times), each time ending up with a curse. This time, the president simply seditions.

Last time I pointed out that Mr.'s lack of understanding of basic facts and lack of thinking when discussing issues, Mr.

I would like to ask you to reread our reply under the previous thread. So you can see that under that thread, I was the last one to speak. That long reply not only answered the previous question but also gave a detailed answer to how many times Trump lost. But unfortunately, it's not that I didn't follow up, it's that you didn't reply to me, Mr.

This kind of behavior can't help but disappoint me, so I have not responded to messages from Mr. Until this time, I felt that Mr.'s message was representative of some people with different opinions, so I didn't reply again.

In addition, I would like to ask Mr. to fabricate the following statement in order to spread false information

The gentleman said with certainty that I didn't understand the situation and that Trump only lost once.

Apologize to me. My original civilization is clearly

Trump has only campaigned twice, and once withdrew in the middle of the election. Why does he accuse fraud every time?

And this discussion ended with Mr. you not replying instead of "I". There is no following

The words quoted by Mr. (Tsugaru Strait) stated a fact. Mr. avoided the facts, did not look at the facts, did not question the facts, played tricks with me, and claimed that [it is meaningless to discuss whether it is illegal or not]. Since it doesn't make sense, why bother discussing it, Mr.

I'm really wondering if my husband has the habit of trying advanced scientific products, and whether he uses the same "partial reading glasses" as the mainstream media. In the original text of my reply, I clearly explained why it is meaningless to discuss legal issues.

Under Section 230, Twitter can delete anyone's account without liability. So what we're going to discuss is whether it's appropriate in this situation and whether to remove Section 230.

I also pointed out in my original text that what we are discussing today is whether the law should be changed, not whether Twitter is illegal.

There is no point in discussing the legality of Twitter's actions. Under the protection of Section 230, Twitter's ban on anyone is probably in line with the law. But if it should not, Twitter obviously shouldn't.

But Mr. don't know why, he just refused to read the reason I gave, and stopped reading stubbornly at the word before the reason. Perhaps, there are people in this world who have the same difficulty in reading as Mr. Fang Kecheng, but this should not be the reason for my accusation.

In this sense, when discussing Section 230, Mr. is obviously bombastic and conclusive, but he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, doesn't he?

I'm afraid it's not my ignorance but Mr.'s selective reading that has caused you such confusion. This kind of confusion makes the gentleman not understand what my argument is at all, so when responding, he can only tell why he made Article 230 and cannot refute my argument. Here, I will lay out my argument again, so that this time I can avoid Mr.'s selective reading system, so that Mr. can understand what my argument is.

If Mr. is going to refute my point, it's first to refute "Section 230 confers a privilege." Before Section 230, according to the 1991 case of Cubby, Inc. v. Compuserve, Inc, the responsibilities of a distributor and a publisher were not the same. However, Section 230 allows Twitter to have bona fide editorial rights but also states that Twitter is not a media publication. What is this if it is not a privilege? How does the repetition of what is common sense, sir, have to do with my argument? If your husband lacks the ability to capture the opponent's argument and know how to refute the opponent's argument, it is very likely that other people will not be looking forward to arguing with you.

Do you have any idea that you can put forward a specific motion to solve the various drawbacks of Section 230 without causing bigger problems?

I really suspect that Mr. didn't read my original text. If you don't read my article, why go to the comment area to leave a message? In fact, when I communicated with my husband in early December, I proposed a plan, but unfortunately, he suddenly stopped replying to that discussion thread. In both that thread and the article I posted the day before yesterday, I was leaning towards removing Section 230. I even spent an entire paragraph in the article arguing that removing Section 230 would not have the consequences Fang Kecheng said. I clearly gave the answer, but the husband has to ask again, which annoys me and also disrespects me to the husband himself.

I would like to propose to the United Nations to establish a UN Justice General Administration and to nominate Mr. Nominee as the first Administrator.

Ideas welcome sir. But unfortunately, Mr. has no right to nominate, and the United Nations can't control the United States