Turkish ?

[Armyknife]

 

[Viking]

This just devalues the word "genocide" we might need a stronger one soon enough.

[Josquius]

Technically what's going on in China is genocide.
But sure, people in glass houses and all that considering that the Turks do their genocides properly and don't need to fall back on technicalities.

[grumbler]

Technically what's going on in China is genocide.
But sure, people in glass houses and all that considering that the Turks do their genocides properly and don't need to fall back on technicalities.

Technically I don't think you know what the word "genocide" technically means.

[Josquius]

Technically what's going on in China is genocide.
But sure, people in glass houses and all that considering that the Turks do their genocides properly and don't need to fall back on technicalities.

Technically I don't think you know what the word "genocide" technically means.

Of course I do, look it up yourself.

[grumbler]

Of course I do, look it up yourself.

  I have already looked it up.  Technically, genocide must include the following elements:
(1) intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
(2) acts carried out to bring about such intent:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

See The UN's Convention of Genocide http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm

Technically, neither the first nor the second elements of this definition have been met by the Chinese government nor any group in China.

[DisturbedPervert]

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Ethnic minorities are not even bound to the one child policy, their percent of the population has doubled to almost 10% over the past 50 years.

[Admiral Yi]

Someone told me that Mandarin has no word for logic.

[Admiral Yi]

I think there were just using google translate without chinese character support:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate_t?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&text=logic&file=&sl=en&tl=zh-TW

No, they had spent a couple of years in China studying the language.

[Syt]

   1. 理
   2. 倫
   3. 論理
   4. 論理學
   5. 邏
   6. 邏輯性
   7. 邏輯
   8. 眉目
   9. 邏輯學

[Josquius]

  I have already looked it up.  Technically, genocide must include the following elements:
(1) intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such
(2) acts carried out to bring about such intent:

    (a) Killing members of the group;

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

See The UN's Convention of Genocide http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/gncnvntn.htm

Technically, neither the first nor the second elements of this definition have been met by the Chinese government nor any group in China.

That's what I'm going by (cheers wikipedia).

They are working to wipe out the western ethnic groups.
They certainly are fulfilling C as a matter of common policy with dips into B and on some occasions A (not enough to stand up on their own of course though).

Of course to me personally this definition is wrong. Genocide is such a strong word that it should be reserved for the holocaust and the like and not be left open for such trivialities. It remains the international legal definition though.

Ethnic minorities are not even bound to the one child policy, their percent of the population has doubled to almost 10% over the past 50 years.

Aye. Chinese love to boast about that as an example of how nice they are to their minorities. Their reasons for this though are heavily down to avoiding falling well into D and making their genocide very clear cut. Many minority populations were too small, poor and rural to stand much chance of surviving given one child.

Also, its not really the way they're working with their big Hanisation. It seems they don't mind the idea of having some minorities dotted about. They want these though to be like blacks and asians in western countries- small, scattered groups, blended in with the main population all around the country.
Though their numbers are technically larger the actual situation of several of the groups has decreased quite a bit. They're being diluted out.

Take the Manchu for instance. They're one of the biggest groups in China. Any idea of a independent Manchuria though these days is just silly. They've been totally integrated and spread out amongst the Han for ages (a century? two?)

[Martinus]

By the definition of wikipedia, the Kalu'ak are guilty of a genocide of the Wolvar people. This morning I have aided in it. 

[grumbler]

That's what I'm going by (cheers wikipedia).

I'd avoid using Wikipedia to get the technical answers.

They are working to wipe out the western ethnic groups.

The are sending them to the moon, and still they are more numeroustoday than they have ever been.

They certainly are fulfilling C as a matter of common policy with dips into B and on some occasions A (not enough to stand up on their own of course though).

They certainly are not fulfilling C as there are more Uigars alive today than there have ever been.

Of course to me personally this definition is wrong. Genocide is such a strong word that it should be reserved for the holocaust and the like and not be left open for such trivialities. It remains the international legal definition though.

Of course to me personally people like you who claim that anything somebody does that you don't like is "technically genocide" trivialize the term far more than the international convention on it does.  Though it amuses me to see you both trivializing the word and complaining about its trivialization!

[Josquius]

I'd avoid using Wikipedia to get the technical answers.

I was just pointing out its the same source you used.

The are sending them to the moon, and still they are more numeroustoday than they have ever been.

Huh?

They certainly are not fulfilling C as there are more Uigars alive today than there have ever been.

Bad wording.
1: There's more of most people alive today.
2: How many of these Uighur are just Uighur as their grandparents were?

Of course to me personally people like you who claim that anything somebody does that you don't like is "technically genocide" trivialize the term far more than the international convention on it does.  Though it amuses me to see you both trivializing the word and complaining about its trivialization!

WTF?
How the hell is anything somebody does I don't like genocide? Please point out to me where I've ever done this.
What you're accusing me of here is going completely counter to what you've just quoted. Strawmen should at least have some, minute basis in what what actually wrote.

[grumbler]

I was just pointing out its the same source you used.

  Look again.  I used (and cited!) a web page prepared by Dr Stuart Stein of the University of the West of England.  If you click on the underlined and bolded bit of text, it takes you to the web page being cited.  This is called a "hyperlink" and using them can help you avoid confusing "the Internet" and "Wikipedia."

Huh?

Just my contribution to the "absurd things to say" contest you were starting. You had such a huge lead that I had to thrown in something about the moon or concede the contest.

Bad wording.
1: There's more of most people alive today.

What does that have to do with whether or not China is "technically" committing "genocide"?

2: How many of these Uighur are just Uighur as their grandparents were?

What does that have to do with whether or not China is "technically" committing "genocide"?

Bad wording is right! 

WTF?
How the hell is anything somebody does I don't like genocide? Please point out to me where I've ever done this.

You have done it in this very thread:

Technically what's going on in China is genocide.

Your evidence for this seems to be that Uighurs are not "just as Uighur as their grandparents were." That is trivializing the issue of genocide.  My sibs and I are not as Scottish as our grandparents were.  Does this make us victims of a genocide?

What you're accusing me of here is going completely counter to what you've just quoted. Strawmen should at least have some, minute basis in what what actually wrote.

You certainly have more experience creating stawmen than I, so I will defer to your expertise.  However, you cannot weasel out of this by crying "strawman" when I am, in fact, quoting you!

Now, if you want to concede that you recognize that what the Chinese are doing is to the Uighurs is not, technically, genocide, then our discussion is over without you even needing to create any strawmen.