Lemmy

parent

[–] nikifa@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 years ago (1 child)

You haven’t addressed a single point that I made

I did. I addressed your original point. Then you wanted to talk about something else and I said, no, I'm not going to follow you into this rabbit hole, let's first stick to the original point. If anytime someone makes an argument that makes your argument become logical inconsistent, you start to distract with something else, no point following you into the rabbit hole. Because all you want is to win, but I don't gonna join your rules.

here just so you don't miss it out, here's how I respond to your original point: https://lemmy.ml/post/78808/comment/74761

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 years ago (2 children)

No, you literally didn't address any of my points. I explained that the source for your claims is not credible. I provided the context of what's terrorism in Xinjiang and US involvement. I've also provided an independent report from Italy stating that US claims are politically motivated. You addressed none of that, and then shifted your argument. You are a troll.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] nikifa@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 years ago* (2 children)

fine, so let's make it a circle.

you and your original point that links to this only source that I used within this discourse:

Even US state department denies the Uyghur genocide. Give it a rest already.

me:

You are aware that this is just about semantics? It’s not about if those crimes against humanity that some call genocide are happening, it is if those crimes against humanity should be called genocide or differently. Stop gaslighing.

[then quotes from the source that you used to suggest that genocide is non-existential]

“The U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Advisor concluded earlier this year that China’s mass imprisonment and forced labor of ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang amounts to crimes against humanity—but there was insufficient evidence to prove genocide,…”

Some more quote from the article:

“Secretary Blinken and I have made clear that genocide has been committed against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang,”

“I have determined that the People’s Republic of China is committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China, targeting Uyghur Muslims and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups,”

“For example, the torture, rape and sexual violence committed against Uyghurs likely constitute genocide ‘by causing serious bodily and mental harm’—the second type of genocide recognized by the Convention,

“More than 1 million Uighurs have been detained in reeducation camps, and many have reportedly been subjected to forced labor and sterilization. China has committed numerous crimes listed in the convention as acts of genocide, including the prevention of births and infliction of bodily or mental harm on members of a group and the compulsory separation of children from their communities, according to human rights groups.”

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 years ago

you and your original point that links to this only source that I used within this discourse:

My original link was to show that even state department lawyers in the country pushing the genocide narrative aren't willing to call it such. Then I provided many more links that contradict the things you've quoted that you conveniently ignore here. Stop trolling.

parent

[–] nikifa@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 years ago (1 child)

Again, I'm only making those point to show how your original point has been very missleading. I'm not saying that this is a credible source or something it's just a source you used for your claim so I picked it up.

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 years ago

My original point was not misleading, and I provided lots of sources to support it in my follow up comment. You continue to ignore them and to make false statements.

parent

[–] nikifa@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 years ago* (1 child)

I explained that the source for your claims is not credible

I used YOUR source that YOU used for YOUR claim. Without you using it as a source, I would have never used it as such.

I ONLY used it as a means to proof the manipulative character of your argumentation. Me not following your rhetoric lead, is just me not joining your gaslighting.

parent

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 years ago

My sources don't say what you seem to think they say. Be specific regarding what it is you think my source says that supports your point. It's pretty hilarious that once confronted with your nonsense you're screeching about gaslighting.