Philippines says two coast guard vessels damaged by China’s ‘unlawful manoeuvres’, while Beijing says it took ‘control measures’ after vessels illegally entered waters around shoal

Chinese and Philippine vessels collided on Monday during a confrontation near a disputed shoal in the South China Sea, the two countries said.

Both countries blamed each other for the incident near the Sabina Shoal.

China and the Philippines have had repeated confrontations in the vital waterway in recent months, including around a warship grounded years ago by Manila on the contested Second Thomas Shoal that hosts a garrison. Beijing has continued to press its claims to almost the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling that its assertion has no legal basis.

  • Five@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Why then is the position that gay people have the right to exist in public a biased opinion?

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It is not a “biased” opinion, but it is certainly a political issue, to keep our topic consistent and hop ahead a few questions.

      would you like to know why?

      I’ll take another turn:

      lgbtq+ prior having the right to exist in public is a political issue because lgbtq+ people have not achieved the unilateral, unchallenged right to exist in public everywhere yet, and overwhelmingly left-leaning political institutions and organizations are committed to extending that right to the lgbtq+ community.

      Those left-leaning organizations are making political stances, engaging in political protest and rallies, passing (political, see where this is going?) legislation, to ensure that the conglomerate minorities of lgbtq+ have the undeniable right to exist in public.

      these political actions are almost exclusively fought for and achieved by left-leaning organizations, resulting in the lgbtq+ movement being justifiably associated with and classified as left-leaning.

      • Five@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I’d love to skip ahead, but I’m not confident you know where this is going. We agree that gay people having the right to exist is a political issue, but it’s not a politically biased opinion.

        Is science a political issue? Is it biased to value the authority of scientists on issues like climate change or vaccine effectiveness?

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          science is very obviously a political issue.

          amazing.

          that’s what you get for asking ill-defined questions without context.

          please continue.

          you can pretend i answered your straw man the way you wanted me to so that you can eventually, one day limp over to what appears to be coalescing into an inaccurate “gotcha!” based on false premises.

          • Five@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I appreciate you expanding on your earlier comment. I’d love for you to elaborate on science the same way you did for lgbtq+

            With the fight to take basic health precautions in the face of a pandemic and acknowledge the reality of climate change championed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, is the pro-science movement justifiably associated with and classified as left-leaning?

              • Five@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                Where on the political spectrum do you think Dave Van Zandt classifies organizations that are pro-science, and respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field?

                • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Rather than personal opinions lacking supporting evidence, let’s look at the data we do have to analyze your baseless implication:

                  Live Science - HIGH
                  science daily - HIGH
                  scientific American - HIGH
                  nature - VERY HIGH
                  NASA - VERY HIGH

                  by your unfounded accusations, van Zandt highly values pro-science news sources.

                  look at all those extra steps you took to get back here and prove yourself wrong. Again.

                  “Scientific studies using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017”

                  https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/2/9/pgad286/7258994?login=false

                  “When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect” inter-rater reliability”

                  • Five@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    Charitably, I think you missed the point. I didn’t imply that van Zandt doesn’t highly value pro-science news sources. Although he’s not a scientist, and doesn’t understand science, he clearly values it highly. That’s to his credit. But ‘HIGH’ and ‘VERY HIGH’ is not a place on the left-right political spectrum.

                    We agree that both the human rights of gay people and pro-science publications have no political bias, but one might reasonably place them both on the left of the political spectrum based on the typical positions of politicians in the United States. If climate change clarion callers like Scientific American and NASA are completely devoid of a ‘bias’ rating according to Van Zandt, what does that tell you about what he thinks about the human rights of LGBTQ+ people?