4 ms·

> You might want to know the whole story before deciding to pick a side. I took your advice and did a quick google search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012

> You might want to know the whole story before deciding to pick a side. I took your advice and did a quick google search. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Kong_Qingdong_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Kong_Qingdong_incident > In January 2012, Ken Wai, a Hong Kong passenger, asked a Mainland Chinese woman and her child to stop eating on an MTR subway in Mandarin Chinese on a train bound for Mong Kok East Station.[15] Eating and drinking is prohibited on the MTR. While the kid stopped eating, the mother reacted with hostility towards Wai.[16] This infuriated Mr. Wai, who began to shout at them passionately in Cantonese... On 18 January Mr. Wai conducted an interview with Xinhua News Agency on the issue and expressed his anger.[16] (by calling Hong Kongers dogs) It seems like it was not Hong Kongers that started this but a Beijing professor that called people "dogs". And the incident was pretty clear-cut on who was wrong. Although, the old man could have handled the situation better, the professor calling people "dogs" was inappropriate. Were you genuinely misinformed? May I ask where did you get your information? And I don't really care who started it. Two wrongs does not make one right. I am not condoning the word "locust" either. All these words are disgusting, and have no place in a civilized discussion.

UIZealot 7y ago
I'm Chinese and I'm living in Hong Kong, and I'm guessing you are neither of those things. A Google search and one Wikipedia article do not give you the whole story. Please refrain from jumping to conclusions and spreading partial truth, unless you intend to misinform and mislead.
- temprarysud2 7y ago
  1) You told me I don't know the whole story, so I took your advice 2) When I find the truth, you say I am saying its the partial truth. So basically, what I am getting, is that you are right because you said so. > you intend to misinform and mislead You made an accusation and I refuted it. The person misleading others is not me as I like you to recall that you are the one accusing Hong Kong of "starting it". Please provide some evidence to back your claim instead of just saying you are Chinese (I am assuming not from Hong Kong). That means absolutely nothing in the context of the argument.
  - UIZealot 7y ago
    > You made an accusation and I refuted it. You did nothing of the sort. That incident was not even relevant here, it specifically did not start the name calling from either side. Again, partial truth. You clearly know next to nothing about the situation. Again, please refrain from jumping to conclusions and spreading partial truth, unless you intend to misinform and mislead. The whole story is out there if you care to find it. But you are not really interested in the whole story, are you?
    - temprarysud3 7y ago
      I am sorry, but this is getting tedious.. > That incident was not even relevant here It is 100% relevant. > That incident was not even relevant here, it specifically did not start the name calling from either side. So where's your proof? Again, you are saying the same thing as your last, which is, I know better because I am Chinese. > You clearly know next to nothing about the situation. Ad hominem > unless you intend to misinform and mislead Accusation with no proof. Just name calling. Let's end this argument, because it clearly is going nowhere.
      - UIZealot 7y ago
        > So where's your proof? Again, you are saying the same thing as your last, which is, I know better because I am Chinese. As compared to you who's not even close to being familiar with the situation, who managed to read a whole Wikipedia article on the subject? You bet! > Ad hominem Ooh, fancy, I don't know what that means, you win that one there, automatically! >> unless you intend to misinform and mislead >Accusation with no proof. Just name calling. Oops! Misquotation fail. You left the "unless" in there this time, which made it clear I wasn't making an accusation.

UIZealot 7y ago

I'm Chinese and I'm living in Hong Kong, and I'm guessing you are neither of those things. A Google search and one Wikipedia article do not give you the whole story. Please refrain from jumping to conclusions and spreading partial truth, unless you intend to misinform and mislead.

temprarysud2 7y ago
1) You told me I don't know the whole story, so I took your advice 2) When I find the truth, you say I am saying its the partial truth. So basically, what I am getting, is that you are right because you said so. > you intend to misinform and mislead You made an accusation and I refuted it. The person misleading others is not me as I like you to recall that you are the one accusing Hong Kong of "starting it". Please provide some evidence to back your claim instead of just saying you are Chinese (I am assuming not from Hong Kong). That means absolutely nothing in the context of the argument.
- UIZealot 7y ago
  > You made an accusation and I refuted it. You did nothing of the sort. That incident was not even relevant here, it specifically did not start the name calling from either side. Again, partial truth. You clearly know next to nothing about the situation. Again, please refrain from jumping to conclusions and spreading partial truth, unless you intend to misinform and mislead. The whole story is out there if you care to find it. But you are not really interested in the whole story, are you?
  - temprarysud3 7y ago
    I am sorry, but this is getting tedious.. > That incident was not even relevant here It is 100% relevant. > That incident was not even relevant here, it specifically did not start the name calling from either side. So where's your proof? Again, you are saying the same thing as your last, which is, I know better because I am Chinese. > You clearly know next to nothing about the situation. Ad hominem > unless you intend to misinform and mislead Accusation with no proof. Just name calling. Let's end this argument, because it clearly is going nowhere.
    - UIZealot 7y ago
      > So where's your proof? Again, you are saying the same thing as your last, which is, I know better because I am Chinese. As compared to you who's not even close to being familiar with the situation, who managed to read a whole Wikipedia article on the subject? You bet! > Ad hominem Ooh, fancy, I don't know what that means, you win that one there, automatically! >> unless you intend to misinform and mislead >Accusation with no proof. Just name calling. Oops! Misquotation fail. You left the "unless" in there this time, which made it clear I wasn't making an accusation.