4 ms·

Using your definition of genocide, then anything qualifies as genocide cause everyone is a member of a group. To show you how absurd your definition is, the ug

by qiskit 5y ago

Using your definition of genocide, then anything qualifies as genocide cause everyone is a member of a group. To show you how absurd your definition is, the ughyur classmate committed genocide because she caused serious mental harm to members of a group ( cornell's chinese students assocation ) [B]. > [D] Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Yeah, I used to believe that to, but uyghurs got preferential treatment. AKA they were allowed to have more babies than the average chinese. > Links Wikipedia is highly suspect, unreliable and untrustworthy in matters involving politics. In a genocide, why did the chinese government only detain her brother and leave her, her parents, rest of siblings, cousins, etc alone? How did the uyghur population increase during the genocide? If china is committing genocide, why aren't millions of ughyurs fleeing to neighboring countries? Why are there tens of thousands of kazakhs, mongols, kyrgz, russians, etc in xinjiang? How come they don't see any genocide? You do realize that there are tons of vlogs of foreigners in xinjiang right? Examples of genocide -> native americans, holocaust. Now compare those with alleged uyghur genocide.

tomrod 5y ago
I find it mildly curious how much you're struggling here to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented. My definition is the UN Genocide Convention of 1948's definition. The acts are 1:1 to the definition. Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant, but aside from that attempt at a side-step I highly encourage you to read the very well sourced article that is accessible for people who have no idea that the Uyghur's are the target of a genocide, link repeated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
- usednet 5y ago
  The US State Department’s legal office determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide. If you don’t believe that I don’t know who you would believe.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Your assertion (uncited) borders on being deliberately misleading instead of negligently misleading. [1] The Trump Administration declared it to be genocide: https://2017-2021.state.gov/determination-of-the-secretary-of-state-on-atrocities-in-xinjiang/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/determination-of-the-secretary-o... [2] The Biden administration reiterated this: https://www.dw.com/en/us-renews-china-genocide-claims-over-uyghur-treatment/a-58245806 https://www.dw.com/en/us-renews-china-genocide-claims-over-u...
    - usednet 5y ago
      Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. What I said is 100% factually correct. The State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor, contrary to Pompeo’s statements, stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide. Yes, the Trump and Biden administrations declared genocide. I trust the actual lawyers more. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...
      - tomrod 5y ago
        > Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. Agreed! > What I said is 100% factually correct. Which is why it is stays within the realm of negligently misleading. Stated policy, based on the facts of the situation (versus legal opinion) of the US is, for administrations across a massive political divide, that China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. Note your own article, which clearly shows that the legal office's position is tentative, says "The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law." So we have: (1) sufficient intelligence that widely different political administrations draw the conclusion that genocide is occurring; (2) legal opinion, which can be used to justify policies for the US State department, that "we would really like more evidence before drawing the conclusion of genocide." Ergo, your attempt to downgrade "genocide is occurring" to "well, it COULD be occurring, but really its probably not because we can't prove it sufficiently in a court of law because we lack direct evidence despite mountains of evidence existing because to say there IS sufficient evidence means the US has to cut ties a lot quicker with China than it is ready to do thus let us continue to perpetuate the opinion that this Uyghur thing is overblown" is insufficient.
- qiskit 5y ago
  > I find it mildly curious how much you're struggling here Where was the struggle? I point by point debunked your claims. > to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented. So well documented that you can't even provide one example? > Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant, Oh there it is. "Whataboutism" and it's obvious what is going on here. As someone who once believed it and am more than willing to believe it again, show me the evidence. I asked simple questions in this thread, you nor anyone else has been able to answer it. I'm not struggling with anything because I'm stating the truth. As I said, I once believed it and am more than willing to believe it. I just don't like being lied to. And of course the only comment in this entire thread of any substance gets flagged.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    > you nor anyone else has been able to answer it. No, despite your assertions to the contrary, we have addressed your arguments. Please read the links provided. To those reading along the thread: qiskit is engaging in a very common apologetics approach intended to sow doubt on obvious things. This has been used by Russia as of late in their media, and has a long and storied history among high-demand religions attempting to create a false worldview. It proceeds by asking insincere "simple questions", ignoring responses, demanding more evidence than what was provided, then claiming failure of response because no one has supported their worldview. It often proceeds to stories of conversion from a different worldview and claims of persecution for their worldview. It's effective when people don't have time to evaluate the merits of the claims.
    - qiskit 5y ago
      > No, despite your assertions to the contrary, we have addressed your arguments. Who is we? Are you working with someone? Are you part of some goup? > Please read the links provided. I have. Even before you provided it. What about "Once I believed in the ughyur genocide propaganda" did't you understand? And no. You haven't addressed anything. I asked you specific questions and instead of answering them, you are telling me to go find the answers. The only reason you'd do that is because I'm right and you can't answer my questions. > To those reading along the thread: qiskit is engaging in a very common apologetics approach intended to sow doubt on obvious things. Nice try. Do you realize you come off as someone reading a script rather than someone truly interested in facts or reason. > It proceeds by asking insincere "simple questions", ignoring responses Simple questions like "How does a population increase during a genocide" isn't insincere just because it makes a mockery of your false assertion. > This has been used by Russia as of late in their media Don't you mean the "CCP"? When I wrote: "Oh there it is. "Whataboutism" and it's obvious what is going on here." I called it.

by qiskit 5y ago

tomrod 5y ago

I find it mildly curious how much you're struggling here to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented. My definition is the UN Genocide Convention of 1948's definition. The acts are 1:1 to the definition. Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant, but aside from that attempt at a side-step I highly encourage you to read the very well sourced article that is accessible for people who have no idea that the Uyghur's are the target of a genocide, link repeated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

usednet 5y ago
The US State Department’s legal office determined that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide. If you don’t believe that I don’t know who you would believe.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Your assertion (uncited) borders on being deliberately misleading instead of negligently misleading. [1] The Trump Administration declared it to be genocide: https://2017-2021.state.gov/determination-of-the-secretary-of-state-on-atrocities-in-xinjiang/index.html https://2017-2021.state.gov/determination-of-the-secretary-o... [2] The Biden administration reiterated this: https://www.dw.com/en/us-renews-china-genocide-claims-over-uyghur-treatment/a-58245806 https://www.dw.com/en/us-renews-china-genocide-claims-over-u...
  - usednet 5y ago
    Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. What I said is 100% factually correct. The State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor, contrary to Pompeo’s statements, stated that there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide. Yes, the Trump and Biden administrations declared genocide. I trust the actual lawyers more. https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-us-pompeo-blinken/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/19/china-uighurs-genocide-...
    - tomrod 5y ago
      > Don’t call people liars without doing proper research. Agreed! > What I said is 100% factually correct. Which is why it is stays within the realm of negligently misleading. Stated policy, based on the facts of the situation (versus legal opinion) of the US is, for administrations across a massive political divide, that China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. Note your own article, which clearly shows that the legal office's position is tentative, says "The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law." So we have: (1) sufficient intelligence that widely different political administrations draw the conclusion that genocide is occurring; (2) legal opinion, which can be used to justify policies for the US State department, that "we would really like more evidence before drawing the conclusion of genocide." Ergo, your attempt to downgrade "genocide is occurring" to "well, it COULD be occurring, but really its probably not because we can't prove it sufficiently in a court of law because we lack direct evidence despite mountains of evidence existing because to say there IS sufficient evidence means the US has to cut ties a lot quicker with China than it is ready to do thus let us continue to perpetuate the opinion that this Uyghur thing is overblown" is insufficient.
qiskit 5y ago
> I find it mildly curious how much you're struggling here Where was the struggle? I point by point debunked your claims. > to make your point against something that is exceptionally well documented. So well documented that you can't even provide one example? > Your points on "politics" in wikipedia and associated whataboutisms aren't relevant, Oh there it is. "Whataboutism" and it's obvious what is going on here. As someone who once believed it and am more than willing to believe it again, show me the evidence. I asked simple questions in this thread, you nor anyone else has been able to answer it. I'm not struggling with anything because I'm stating the truth. As I said, I once believed it and am more than willing to believe it. I just don't like being lied to. And of course the only comment in this entire thread of any substance gets flagged.
- tomrod 5y ago
  > you nor anyone else has been able to answer it. No, despite your assertions to the contrary, we have addressed your arguments. Please read the links provided. To those reading along the thread: qiskit is engaging in a very common apologetics approach intended to sow doubt on obvious things. This has been used by Russia as of late in their media, and has a long and storied history among high-demand religions attempting to create a false worldview. It proceeds by asking insincere "simple questions", ignoring responses, demanding more evidence than what was provided, then claiming failure of response because no one has supported their worldview. It often proceeds to stories of conversion from a different worldview and claims of persecution for their worldview. It's effective when people don't have time to evaluate the merits of the claims.
  - qiskit 5y ago
    > No, despite your assertions to the contrary, we have addressed your arguments. Who is we? Are you working with someone? Are you part of some goup? > Please read the links provided. I have. Even before you provided it. What about "Once I believed in the ughyur genocide propaganda" did't you understand? And no. You haven't addressed anything. I asked you specific questions and instead of answering them, you are telling me to go find the answers. The only reason you'd do that is because I'm right and you can't answer my questions. > To those reading along the thread: qiskit is engaging in a very common apologetics approach intended to sow doubt on obvious things. Nice try. Do you realize you come off as someone reading a script rather than someone truly interested in facts or reason. > It proceeds by asking insincere "simple questions", ignoring responses Simple questions like "How does a population increase during a genocide" isn't insincere just because it makes a mockery of your false assertion. > This has been used by Russia as of late in their media Don't you mean the "CCP"? When I wrote: "Oh there it is. "Whataboutism" and it's obvious what is going on here." I called it.