4 ms·
> If you want to move the attention to my choice of words I won't bite. it is of course a "GAME" for you. the loss of hundreds or thousands of civilian lives a
by dis-sys 8y ago
> If you want to move the attention to my choice of words I won't bite.
it is of course a "GAME" for you. the loss of hundreds or thousands of civilian lives are just some random and meaningless numbers in your mind. you have again proved it in your reply.
> which has affected a few hundred Chinese
"affected" - this is as offensive/stupid as saying 9/11 only "affected" 0.001% of the US population. no wonder gun violence in the US will never be addressed as it only "affects" 0.01% people each year.
seriously, get yourself some help. by calling it a "game" and then downplaying those bloody terrorist attacks as just "affecting" a few hundred people, you choose to continue to lecturing me human rights? again - get yourself some help.
- pimmen 8y agoYou're goading me by bringing up my choice of words and saying I need help. Understand that I will not entertain it. I can concede that terrorist attacks affect more than the direct victims, but I posit that the rest of China is less affected by the terrorist attacks than the Uighurs are by the mass incarceration of hundreds of thousands of their loved ones without a trial. And I don't lecture, I'm debating. You're avoiding the question of whether or not incarcerating hundreds of thousands of people without a trial is human rights abuses. You're also avoiding the issue of whether or not individuals committing murder is different to governments institutionalizing human rights abuses on an industrial scale. You can keep cutting two sentences from my replies and answering them for how long you like, since you don't address the issues I will have to assume that you concede them.
- dis-sys 8y agoyou are not debating. you use this as an opportunity to spread your belief on political correctness. please keep that rubbish to yourself.