Escorts In China

[+ quoththeraven]

So what if he wants to live in the past? Is that any of your business? What makes you the arbiter of that? Stop being so judgmental.

Yup, it is when he posts nonsense about history while thinking he understands it.

 

I have as much right to point out the emperor doesn't have clothes as the emperor has not to wear them. It would be more honest for you straight up disagree with me than scold me.

Edited October 11, 2018 by quoththeraven

[+ quoththeraven]

As an aside I wonder why Communist China has not renamed a major city after Chairman Mao?

Because he's been in disrepute since the collapse, arrest and trial of the Gang of Four?

 

This is where not being up to date hurts your credibility.

[+ quoththeraven]

Canton is the name that westerners use, derived (I believe) from the Cantonese version of the name Guangdong (the province). Guangzhou is the name of the city, but we have used the name Canton for both. Thankfully, no one uses Xiang Gang instead of Hong Kong or Ao Men instead of Macau. That would confuse us too much.

And current practice is to use Guangdong for the place and Cantonese for the dialect and regional cuisine.

 

Speaking of which, Chinatown in Manhattan is still predominantly Cantonese speaking even though more Chinese speak Mandarin.

[+ Avalon]

Because he's been in disrepute since the collapse, arrest and trial of the Gang of Four?

 

This is where not being up to date hurts your credibility.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four

 

I remember Mao's "little red book". I even got a copy

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotations_from_Chairman_Mao_Tse-tung

 

In the dispute as to which is the real China I favor Taiwan.

[mike carey]

I can't think of a city name in China that memorialises a person. Not even the Yellow Emperor.

[mike carey]

In the dispute as to which is the real China I favor Taiwan.

There was a war, the Chiang Kai-shek clique lost.

[+ quoththeraven]

Your comment is off, baseless and hostile.

 

'Beijing' is the most common pronunciation of 'Northern Capital' in 'pu tung hua' or 'mandarin' Chinese spoken in the People's Republic of China. The spelling Beijing was adopted for use within China upon the approval of Hanyu Pinyin on February 11, 1958, during the Fifth Session of the 1st National People's Congress.

 

'Peking' or 'Puk Ing' is the Cantonese Chinese pronunciation of 'Northern Capital'.

 

Both names are valid in Chinese although 'Beijing' is more commonly used since there are more non-Cantonese speakers than there are Cantonese speakers in China.

Mandarin is the predominant dialect, although not the official language. And I believe Cantonese is an offshoot of Mandarin, whereas Mandarin isn't an offshoot of Cantonese.

 

China, not you, gets to decide which is standard. It has decided to use Mandarin. So yes, "Peking" is wrong and outdated.

[+ Avalon]

 

Speaking of which, Chinatown in Manhattan is still predominantly Cantonese speaking even though more Chinese speak Mandarin.

 

Do you know about San Francisco?

 

I had a Chinese co-worker who told me the story that one time when she and her husband (he was Mexican-American) were in a store in Chinatown, San Francisco she overheard an employee there speaking Chinese saying that they should keep an eye on those two. My co-worker said nothing and she and her husband left.

[mike carey]

Mandarin is the predominant dialect, although not the official language. And I believe Cantonese is an offshoot of Mandarin, whereas Mandarin isn't an offshoot of Cantonese.

Mandarin is as different from Cantonese as English is from French. The difference is the writing system is shared and mutually understood. (As is Japanese if it is written only in Kanji.) What we call Mandarin is the 'standard' and official language. 'Dialect' is a misnomer.

[510guy]

Do you know about San Francisco?

 

I had a Chinese co-worker who told me the story that one time when she and her husband (he was Mexican-American) were in a store in Chinatown, San Francisco she overheard an employee there speaking Chinese saying that they should keep an eye on those two. My co-worker said nothing and she and her husband left.

 

SF Chinatown is basically all Cantonese speaking.

[+ Avalon]

SF Chinatown is basically all Cantonese speaking.

 

Thank-you!

[510guy]

Does this discussion now qualify as hijacking a post? Went from escorts to chinese history and dialects real fast.

[Drained Empty]

SF is definitely more Cantonese speaking.

 

Actually, I find most Western enclaves of Chinese people -- San Francisco, San Jose, Vancouver, even Houston -- to be Cantonese speaking.

 

And everywhere in between, as well. For example, if you enter a Chinese restaurant, you probably can't go wrong greeting and ordering in Cantonese, those many will understand Mandarin.

[+ Avalon]

Does this discussion now qualify as hijacking a post? Went from escorts to chinese history and dialects real fast.

 

Isn't it wonderful! We have so many people here who are so knowledgeable about China and the history, culture and language!

[Rudynate]

Well, prostitution is. But escorting is just providing companionship, which is legal. You pay for their time.

Then if they like you, something else might happen. At least that is how you can advertise and get reviews.

 

 

That is a legal fiction that a

One of England's greatest gifts to the world is the spread of the English language throughout the world.

 

The entire Indian subcontinent was united for the first time in history by the British. That said I think the Partition was one of the greatest mistakes of the 20th century.

 

I think it was wrong to turn Hong Kong over to Communist China. The treaty was made with Imperial China not Communist China.

 

But it can be argued that Communist China was the successor to Imperial China, having all of the sovereign rights formerly held by Imperial China.

[+ Avalon]

 

 

But it can be argued that Communist China was the successor to Imperial China, having all of the sovereign rights formerly held by Imperial China.

 

 

Interesting idea! One might think that Communist China was a break with the past but so was the first Emperor who established Legalism as the official state philosophy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)

 

 

Communism is merely a means to an end. And Mao might be viewed as a quasi Emperor.

[mike carey]

But it can be argued that Communist China was the successor to Imperial China, having all of the sovereign rights formerly held by Imperial China.

'Could be argued' is a nonsense, the current government of the PRC is the legal successor of the republic, which in turn is the successor of the Qing dynasty. If you want to argue that Mao is a quasi-emperor, you should equally argue that Washington is the new king who replaced George III.

[+ g56whiz]

What? Ain't nobody here speak Hakka?

[Rudynate]

'Could be argued' is a nonsense, the current government of the PRC is the legal successor of the republic, which in turn is the successor of the Qing dynasty. If you want to argue that Mao is a quasi-emperor, you should equally argue that Washington is the new king who replaced George III.

 

 

Your post is only semi-coherent. Out of bed too early.?

[+ Tarte Gogo]

I think it was wrong to turn Hong Kong over to Communist China. The treaty was made with Imperial China not Communist China.

The question of states being legally the successor of another state in terms of treaty continuity (like republic of Portugal being the successor of the kingdom of Portugal, the PRC being the successor state of the empire of China, or the federal republic of Russia being the legal successor of the Soviet Union) are discussed, argued and agreed through diplomacy.

There are no official rules for this.

 

The British had many reasons to agree, together with China, that the PRC was a successor of the Empire. This meant any debt that China had, all the currency that China had issued etc, etc, still had value. All other treaties still could be enforced.

Yes, it also meant that Hong Kong was going to be returned, but to be honest, HK was extremely dependent on mainland China in 97, especially on fresh water and food. So if the British had refused, China would simply have turned off the taps until they reconsidered. 6.5 million people would have been in an emergency situation that would have cost far too much to the British state to support. With the handover, the relationship with the second largest economy of the world is good, British investors were able to profit from the massive growth that China created (thanks to their tight relationships in Honk Kong, which was a major investment port into the rest of China) etc.

Also the Brits are now considered trustworthy. You can sign a 99 year treaty with them, and they will abide by it until the end!

Let’s not forget the value keeping your word and of not making enemies.

[+ Avalon]

'Could be argued' is a nonsense, the current government of the PRC is the legal successor of the republic, which in turn is the successor of the Qing dynasty. If you want to argue that Mao is a quasi-emperor, you should equally argue that Washington is the new king who replaced George III.

 

The US did not want a king just like when the ancient Romans overthrew Tarquin the Proud; they did not want anymore kings. Caesar was killed because they thought that he wanted to become king.

 

The Brits did away with Cromwell's Commonwealth because they wanted a king.

[+ Avalon]

The question of states being legally the successor of another state in terms of treaty continuity (like republic of Portugal being the successor of the kingdom of Portugal, the PRC being the successor state of the empire of China, or the federal republic of Russia being the legal successor of the Soviet Union) are discussed, argued and agreed through diplomacy.

There are no official rules for this.

 

The British had many reasons to agree, together with China, that the PRC was a successor of the Empire. This meant any debt that China had, all the currency that China had issued etc, etc, still had value. All other treaties still could be enforced.

Yes, it also meant that Hong Kong was going to be returned, but to be honest, HK was extremely dependent on mainland China in 97, especially on fresh water and food. So if the British had refused, China would simply have turned off the taps until they reconsidered. 6.5 million people would have been in an emergency situation that would have cost far too much to the British state to support. With the handover, the relationship with the second largest economy of the world is good, British investors were able to profit from the massive growth that China created (thanks to their tight relationships in Honk Kong, which was a major investment port into the rest of China) etc.

Also the Brits are now considered trustworthy. You can sign a 99 year treaty with them, and they will abide by it until the end!

Let’s not forget the value keeping your word and of not making enemies.

 

I can see your point and unlike other countries that were once monarchies and are now republics there is no monarchist movement in China nor a claimant to the throne, It might be argued that the Qing lost the Mandate of Heaven.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven

[mike carey]

Your post is only semi-coherent. Out of bed too early.?

I may have been arguing against a proposition from someone else that you were challenging in your post rather than what you actually said. Leaving aside the external references (King George etc), the PRC government is a successor of previous governments.

[+ Tarte Gogo]

I may have been arguing against a proposition from someone else that you were challenging in your post rather than what you actually said. Leaving aside the external references (King George etc), the PRC government is a successor of previous governments.

Agreed ... but only because it is convenient for everyone, and because every government (except Taiwan) has agreed to this. It is just an agreement, not a fundamental truth.

[Rudynate]

I may have been arguing against a proposition from someone else that you were challenging in your post rather than what you actually said. Leaving aside the external references (King George etc), the PRC government is a successor of previous governments.

 

 

Of course it is. I'm a lawyer, so I'm in the habit of using weasel words.