<_<
This just devalues the word "genocide" we might need a stronger one soon enough.
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.
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 09:09:53 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2009, 09:18:54 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 09:09:53 AM
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.
:yeahright:
Of course I do, look it up yourself.
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 09:29:29 AM
:yeahright:
Of course I do, look it up yourself.
:yeahright: 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 (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.
Quote
(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.
Someone told me that Mandarin has no word for logic.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 11, 2009, 10:37:24 AM
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 (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.
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
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2009, 09:47:48 AM
:yeahright: 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 (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.
QuoteEthnic 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?)
By the definition of wikipedia, the Kalu'ak are guilty of a genocide of the Wolvar people. This morning I have aided in it. :(
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 11:27:28 AM
That's what I'm going by (cheers wikipedia).
I'd avoid using Wikipedia to get the technical answers.
QuoteThey 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.
QuoteThey 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.
QuoteOf 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! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2009, 02:17:42 PM
I'd avoid using Wikipedia to get the technical answers.
:yeahright: I was just pointing out its the same source you used.
Quote
The are sending them to the moon, and still they are more numeroustoday than they have ever been.
Huh?
Quote
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?
Quote
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! :lol:
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.
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 02:26:09 PM
:yeahright: I was just pointing out its the same source you used.
:yeahright: 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."
QuoteHuh?
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.
QuoteBad 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"?
Quote
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! :lmfao:
Quote
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:
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 09:09:53 AM
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?
QuoteWhat 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.
It's like a soft ethnic cleansing.
More of an ethnic flush.
I want to be in the room when Grumbler is verbally abusing someone. It is a thing of beauty.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2009, 05:05:44 PM
I want to be in the room when Grumbler is verbally abusing someone. It is a thing of beauty.
When he's in the room with the person he probably physically abuses them as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2009, 05:08:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2009, 05:05:44 PM
I want to be in the room when Grumbler is verbally abusing someone. It is a thing of beauty.
When he's in the room with the person he probably physically abuses them as well.
Even better.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2009, 05:08:55 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2009, 05:05:44 PM
I want to be in the room when Grumbler is verbally abusing someone. It is a thing of beauty.
When he's in the room with the person he probably physically abuses them as well.
:yeahright: The school board never managed to prove that.
Quote from: The Brain on July 11, 2009, 05:10:53 PM
:yeahright: The school board never managed to prove that.
:ph34r:
I wish there were a functioning ignore function.
Quote from: Viking on July 11, 2009, 07:26:24 PM
I wish there were a functioning ignore function.
There is one, if your brain is functioning. You just ignore posters whose posts you think unworthy of your lifespan.
I have used this method with one poster here for a year or so, with great success.
Turks usually jump to defend Turkic-Muslim peoples from any kind of perceived threat with a special ferocity. Probably has to do with a combination of rampant nationalism, an inferiority complex, misplaced feelings about the genocide and a lot of bad memories from the decline of the Ottoman Empire (say the Russian or general Christian mistreatment of Muslims in reconquered areas).
EDIT: Although, interestingly, they seem to forget how much we've helped Albanains and Bosnians in the last two decades, or that we let them invade, ethnically cleanse and colonize helped them become peace keepers in Cyprus.
For anybody curious, look up Iğdır Soykırım Anıt-Müzesi, the Igdir Genocide Monument and Museum, built to remember the massacres of Turks committed by Armenians. It is within sight of Mount Ararat, interestingly enough.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 12:39:21 AM
Turks usually jump to defend Turkic-Muslim peoples from any kind of perceived threat with a special ferocity. Probably has to do with a combination of rampant nationalism, an inferiority complex, misplaced feelings about the genocide and a lot of bad memories from the decline of the Ottoman Empire
So they're like a Muslim version of Post-Soviet Russians?
Quote from: Syt on July 12, 2009, 12:43:55 AM
So they're like a Muslim version of Post-Soviet Russians?
Almost exactly. Turkey and Russia are mirror images of each other; the same influences, very similar temperaments, both for good and ill. I think the relationship modern Turkey has with the OE is also fantastically similar to the relationship modern Russia has with the USSR. Though, I have to say, building a monument to "genocide of Turks" right next to Ararat would be a little....belligerent even for Russia. Like building a new monument to Beria in Smolensk to commemorate the brave Soviet soldiers who invaded Poland with Nazi Germany in 1939.
Though I wouldn't really put that past Putin at this point, either.
Are we still talking about the Uyghars?
Quote from: grumbler on July 11, 2009, 03:26:33 PM
:yeahright: 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."
:rolleyes:
Check the wikipedia genocide article yourself. They provide the same original source (though admittedly in another location).
Quote
What does that have to do with whether or not China is "technically" committing "genocide"?
Nothing. But then neither does that there are more of them today.
Quote
What does that have to do with whether or not China is "technically" committing "genocide"?
Wiping out a people is pretty much the core definition of genocide.
Quote
You have done it in this very thread:
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 09:09:53 AM
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?
Except I'm not (as unfortunate as it is) the writer of the big book of international law. Its not me doing the trivialization here, I'm just going by what it says.
The Scots are just as Scottish as they've ever been for a good century or something. More so in fact perhaps, since the 40s (or was it 30s?) Scottish nationalism has really arose and Scottish identity became much stronger with this.
If you go back to the Highland Clearances and all that though then you may well have a case for genocide providing you're using the broad definition that encompasses anything remotely to do with ethnic cleansing.
I know you've noted the word technically. Don't start ignoring it now.
I don't actually believe what's going on in China is genocide and have never said that.
Quote
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!
Oh please, all you're doing is making strawmen.
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2009, 11:27:28 AM
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?)
The Qing dynastry, which ruled China for more than two hundred years, was Manchurian. The Qing emperors, princes, and nobles were Manchurian.
But guess what, that's when Hansification of the Manchurians took place. The Manchurian language almost disappeared long before the communists took over.
In other words, the Manchus did it to themselves. Voluntarily.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 12, 2009, 11:00:57 AM
The Qing dynastry, which ruled China for more than two hundred years, was Manchurian. The Qing emperors, princes, and nobles were Manchurian.
But guess what, that's when Hansification of the Manchurians took place. The Manchurian language almost disappeared long before the communists took over.
In other words, the Manchus did it to themselves. Voluntarily.
Oh yeah, of course (largely- I doubt many of them had much choice. Its all long in the past now though).
Not really my point though. To point to their high numbers and how well minorities are doing as lots of mainland Chinese are fond of doing is a bit of a iffy prospect.
To go a bit off topic: I wonder Mono since I figure you know more on this sort of thing; since the Manchu are so integrated and minorities get various privileges do many people try to highly the Manchu side of their ancestry (or the same for other integrated minorities) to take advantage of this?
Or is the prestige of being Han better?
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2009, 10:32:12 AM
:rolleyes:
Check the wikipedia genocide article yourself. They provide the same original source (though admittedly in another location).
:rolleyes: Why would I check Wikipedia when I already have the sources some bozo used to construct his Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is fine as a place to start in one's research. As i am already knowledgable on the topic, I certainly didn't need to start so far away from the citable sources.
L2R and you will avoid getting yourself redassed over assertions like the one that the University of the West of England is part of "Wikipedia."
QuoteNothing. But then neither does that there are more of them today.
If they were victims of a genocide, wouldn't there be fewer of them, not more? That is certainly true for all of the acknowledged genocides (see: Armenians in Turkey after 1917, Jews in Germany after 1944, Tutsis in Rwanda after 1994.
QuoteWiping out a people is pretty much the core definition of genocide.
Yes, and we have both agreed that this isn't happening - there are more Uighurs now than ever.
QuoteExcept I'm not (as unfortunate as it is) the writer of the big book of international law. Its not me doing the trivialization here, I'm just going by what it says.
Actually, no, you are not. The Genocide Convention states what is "technically" genocide, and what is happening in China does not, even by your own admission, fall into that category. Your use of the term is pure rhetoric and thus trivializing it.
QuoteThe Scots are just as Scottish as they've ever been for a good century or something. More so in fact perhaps, since the 40s (or was it 30s?) Scottish nationalism has really arose and Scottish identity became much stronger with this.
Stricken as non-responsive.
QuoteI know you've noted the word technically. Don't start ignoring it now.
Indeed, and I am holding you to it. the difference is that I know what it means! :lol:
QuoteI don't actually believe what's going on in China is genocide and have never said that.
So you believe that a genocide can be "technically" going on, but not practically? :huh: I would love to hear the explanation of how
this is possible!
QuoteOh please, all you're doing is making strawmen.
Uh, no, you don't get to weasel out of this by shrieking "strawman!' all the time. I am using your very arguments. You have to respond to my actual arguments in return - something you have pretty much avoided doing:
1. How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
2. What evidence do you have that the Chinese government, or an organized body in China, has the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such?"
3. How could someone engage in "technical" genocide and not actually be engaged in a genocide?
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 11:17:31 AM
1. How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
Maybe the Chinese aren't very good at it? :D
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 11:17:31 AM
:rolleyes: Why would I check Wikipedia when I already have the sources some bozo used to construct his Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is fine as a place to start in one's research. As i am already knowledgable on the topic, I certainly didn't need to start so far away from the citable sources.
:bleeding:
Bloody hell.
Wikipedia is a very good place to find reliable sources, its where I looked to get my reliable source. That is all. Done.
QuoteIf they were victims of a genocide, wouldn't there be fewer of them, not more? That is certainly true for all of the acknowledged genocides (see: Armenians in Turkey after 1917, Jews in Germany after 1944, Tutsis in Rwanda after 1994.
Hence the trivialization of genocide.
According to the official definition it doesn't just refer to actively going in and murdering everyone (though I would agree with you that this is more what genocide actually means).
The Chinese are practicing a slow, gradual process of ethnic cleansing. Rather than following the traditional genociders ideas of racial purity and killing off all those who don't conform to this as quickly as possible they're instead gradually diluting the alien populations within their borders into the general Han population.
There are more Uighars now than there were ever before but then most places in the world have more people than they have ever before. What is more important to check is how big a percentage of the population in their lands are they today?
Even this though doesn't tell the whole story of what is happening in China. The very core of Uigharness is being slowly eaten away by the central government. This is a very hard thing to measure, modernisation helps to camouflage it a lot and its something that in most aspects can only ever be observed as opposed to measured. Nonetheless the Chinese government has over the past 60 years undoubtedly been attacking the cultures of various people under their rule; big examples of this have arisen rather often.
Quote
Yes, and we have both agreed that this isn't happening - there are more Uighurs now than ever.
There are more ways to wipe out a people than to line them up and shoot them.
Quote
Actually, no, you are not. The Genocide Convention states what is "technically" genocide, and what is happening in China does not, even by your own admission, fall into that category. Your use of the term is pure rhetoric and thus trivializing it.
No, not at all.
I don't believe according to how I regard the word that it is genocide.
According to the UN definitions however a case could really be built up for genocide.
Quote
Stricken as non-responsive.
Pardon?
Quote
Indeed, and I am holding you to it. the difference is that I know what it means! :lol:
Google is your friend.
Quoteaccording to the exact meaning; according to the facts; "technically, a bank's reserves belong to the stockholders"; "technically, the term is no longer used by experts"
Check other more proper dictionaries if you want, they say the same thing. In this usage technically means a somewhat similar thing to theoretically.
Technically != in practice.
Technically the Queen rules the UK. She doesn't though.
Quote
So you believe that a genocide can be "technically" going on, but not practically? :huh: I would love to hear the explanation of how this is possible!
You have.
Quote
Uh, no, you don't get to weasel out of this by shrieking "strawman!' all the time. I am using your very arguments. You have to respond to my actual arguments in return - something you have pretty much avoided doing
Because what you are saying is not addressing the point. You're just looking for a argument and are trying to turn this into one about whether what is going on in China is a genocide or not. We both seem to be agreed that it is not.
The questions are already covered in the rest of my reply.
<p.s: checking up myself to delve deeper I find Webster. Apparently the main American dictionary? Its definition for this context of technically:
Quotebased on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation
>
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2009, 11:43:49 AM
:bleeding:
Bloody hell.
Wikipedia is a very good place to find reliable sources, its where I looked to get my reliable source. That is all. Done.
:bleeding:
Bloody hell.
Why on earth are you so hung up on this Wikipedia thing and the :rolleyes: and :yeahright: and :bleeding:? You used Wikipedia, I didn't.
QuoteHence the trivialization of genocide.
According to the official definition it doesn't just refer to actively going in and murdering everyone (though I would agree with you that this is more what genocide actually means).
The Chinese are practicing a slow, gradual process of ethnic cleansing. Rather than following the traditional genociders ideas of racial purity and killing off all those who don't conform to this as quickly as possible they're instead gradually diluting the alien populations within their borders into the general Han population.
But this isn't "technically" genocide, this is called "assimilation." To confuse the two is to trivialize the term genocide.
QuoteThere are more Uighars now than there were ever before but then most places in the world have more people than they have ever before. What is more important to check is how big a percentage of the population in their lands are they today?
What does this have to do with genocide?
QuoteEven this though doesn't tell the whole story of what is happening in China. The very core of Uigharness is being slowly eaten away by the central government. This is a very hard thing to measure, modernisation helps to camouflage it a lot and its something that in most aspects can only ever be observed as opposed to measured. Nonetheless the Chinese government has over the past 60 years undoubtedly been attacking the cultures of various people under their rule; big examples of this have arisen rather often.
Thus is not "technically genocide." Read the definition of genocide again.
QuoteThere are more ways to wipe out a people than to line them up and shoot them.
There are five ways to do it and be "technically" committing genocide. This isn't one of them. Besides, the issue of motive also must be demonstrated and you haven't even begun to do that.
QuoteNo, not at all.
I don't believe according to how I regard the word that it is genocide.
According to the UN definitions however a case could really be built up for genocide.
You keep saying that a case could be built, but you have yet to build one.
QuotePardon?
A non-responsive reply is one that purports to aswer an argument (even quotes it) but in fact ignores it.
Are my sibs and I victims of genocide because we are not as "Scottish" as our grandparents? It is a yes or no question.
QuoteGoogle is your friend.
Quoteaccording to the exact meaning; according to the facts; "technically, a bank's reserves belong to the stockholders"; "technically, the term is no longer used by experts"
Check other more proper dictionaries if you want, they say the same thing. In this usage technically means a somewhat similar thing to theoretically.
Technically != in practice.
Technically the Queen rules the UK. She doesn't though.
Google is not
your friend, though, because it makes my argument clearly: If China is not committing genocide in accordance with the Genocide Convention (which is the "exact meaning" according to international law), then she is not "technically" engaged in "genocide."
QuoteQuoteSo you believe that a genocide can be "technically" going on, but not practically? :huh: I would love to hear the explanation of how this is possible!
You have.
No, you don't get to weasel out of this one so easily! You have made no argument whatever that supports the fact that China is "technically" committing genocide, nor how they could be doing it "technically" without actually doing it in practice.
QuoteBecause what you are saying is not addressing the point. You're just looking for a argument and are trying to turn this into one about whether what is going on in China is a genocide or not. We both seem to be agreed that it is not.
We agree that it is not. You are asserting that is "technically" is, though, and so far the sole evidence that you have presented is that you don't think Uighurs are as "Uighar" as their grandparents. That's not an argument for "technical genocide."
QuoteThe questions are already covered ignored in the rest of my reply.
Fixed that for you. This is a first-class weasel. You have not addressed any of my questions. Here they are, again:
1. How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
2. What evidence do you have that the Chinese government, or an organized body in China, has the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such?"
3. How could someone engage in "technical" genocide and not actually be engaged in a genocide?
Quote<p.s: checking up myself to delve deeper I find Webster. Apparently the main American dictionary? Its definition for this context of technically: Quotebased on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation
>
Again, precisely as I have argued, and you have ignored. The UN Convention is the law, and you have not demonstrated a "technical" violation of the law.
Quote from: ulmont on July 12, 2009, 11:20:39 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 11:17:31 AM
1. How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
Maybe the Chinese aren't very good at it? :D
That, I'd accept with some supporting evidence! :D
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 03:13:08 PM
:bleeding:
Bloody hell.
Why on earth are you so hung up on this Wikipedia thing and the :rolleyes: and :yeahright: and :bleeding:? You used Wikipedia, I didn't.
I'm not hung up at all on wikipedia. I mentioned it in passing as it helped me out in finding the right UN site for reading up on the exact wording of all this stuff before I'd even replied here.
You however in a typical politician style seem to see the mention of the word wikipedia as evidence of bad research and are attacking it.
Quote
But this isn't "technically" genocide, this is called "assimilation." To confuse the two is to trivialize the term genocide.
Now we're getting somewhere :)
Assimilation is indeed what in large part is happening and what the Chinese objective is. Assimilation however is not mutually exclusive with genocide.
Assimilation can happen completely innocently and naturally or it can happen in far more sinister manners.
In the case of China it is an active government policy to change the population of an area over time. i.e. 'genocide'.
Quote
What does this have to do with genocide?
A lot.
Quote
Thus is not "technically genocide." Read the definition of genocide again.
Yes it is. Read the definition yourself.
I don't really know what else to say as I can't understand what on earth you're thinking to possibly give this answer.
Quote
There are five ways to do it and be "technically" committing genocide. This isn't one of them. Besides, the issue of motive also must be demonstrated and you haven't even begun to do that.
I guess you're referring to the five points from the UN genocide convention?
Of course lining people up and shooting them is one of them, it lines squarely under A. Its pretty much the commonly accepted view of what genocide involves.
What is actually underway- well as said B,C and D are known to have been met at various times.
Motive- well how about the Chinese heavy encouragement of mass immigration to the occupied areas? Sure, economic development is a part here, its the nice face they put on it, but you can hardly expect the Chinese to be cackling away like comic book villains about fully assimilating the western regions can you? Even the Nazis were more subtle than that.
How does one 'prove' motive?
Quote
You keep saying that a case could be built, but you have yet to build one.
To do so would win me the nobel prize. Teams of people devote their lives to it.
All that I need to do here is point out that some of what the Chinese are up to could be classed as genocide.
Quote
A non-responsive reply is one that purports to aswer an argument (even quotes it) but in fact ignores it.
Are my sibs and I victims of genocide because we are not as "Scottish" as our grandparents? It is a yes or no question.
In that case as you know its a obvious no but its an irrelevant strawman.
Quote
Google is not your friend, though, because it makes my argument clearly: If China is not committing genocide in accordance with the Genocide Convention (which is the "exact meaning" according to international law), then she is not "technically" engaged in "genocide."
err what? No, that definition proves MY point.
China is not actually commiting genocide according to how most of the world would interprate that word or what the UN would actually care to do much about however according to the written letter of UN law it is "technically" breaching it.
Quote
No, you don't get to weasel out of this one so easily! You have made no argument whatever that supports the fact that China is "technically" committing genocide, nor how they could be doing it "technically" without actually doing it in practice.
What's your obsession with weasels?
I'm a scientist, not a politician, I deal in the truth, not bending selective facts to suit my point.
I've repeatedly shown that China is technically commiting genocide.
Quote
We agree that it is not. You are asserting that is "technically" is, though, and so far the sole evidence that you have presented is that you don't think Uighurs are as "Uighar" as their grandparents. That's not an argument for "technical genocide."
Why are you obsessed with that one bit I wonder?
No, that's not an argument for technical genocide on its own. Many in Europe are a lot more American than their grandparents but we aren't going to start accusing the US of genociding the Europeans.
The situation vis-a-vis China and Xinjiang/Tibet is quite different to that between the US and Europe though.
Quote
Fixed that for you. This is a first-class weasel. You have not addressed any of my questions. Here they are, again:
1. How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
2. What evidence do you have that the Chinese government, or an organized body in China, has the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such?"
3. How could someone engage in "technical" genocide and not actually be engaged in a genocide?
I'm not at all weaseling. Not even in the third class. I'm addressing the topic straight forward.
Are you just trying to be dense to piss me off here?
To repeat myself yet again;
1: The population of most people around the world has rose.
2: There's reams of the stuff. Exact first hand evidence is not exactly something I can come by (what with not knowing Chinese, not having access to public records, etc...) but some articles and whatnot on the stuff:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/163/29426.html (trying to find more on this Spanish case. You should look up what evidence they've got if you're interested)
http://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/07/11/chinas-ethnic-policies-in-xinjiang-uighur-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-or-what/ (this one I can agree with quite a bit, it goes beyond the strict UN definitions of destroying parts of peoples equaling genocide and says genocide is only trying to get rid of the lot. They don't really come to this conclusion in a nicely sourced way though which is unfortunate.)
http://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html (quite a bit of evidence here)
http://www.pop.org/20030417558/new-evidence-unfpa-support-of-forced-abortion-genocide (read like typical moany rubbish to me at first but investigating more its mentioned elsewhere too).
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/07/03/the-uyghurs-persecuted-muslim-minority-in-northwest-china/
3: Because the definition of genocide according to international law is ridiculously broad and goes far beyond what most people would actually class as genocide.
What the Chinese are doing does technically tick off as genocide according to the rules. Its not actually genocide though.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.HTM explains the point of technically committing genocide quite well. The legal, technical definition is so strict that even many things that obviously aren't genocide can be classed as such there
Quote
Again, precisely as I have argued, and you have ignored. The UN Convention is the law, and you have not demonstrated a "technical" violation of the law.
No. It is what I have argued that you are ignoring.
We both have access to the UN definitions of genocide. We should both be laughing at them but instead you're insisting they say something completely different? You got your version from another site to me, try mine, it proves what I'm saying;
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
Grumbler and Tyr should marry.
Yo Tyr, what was your name before?
Captain Carrot?
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2009, 04:31:31 PM
I'm not hung up at all on wikipedia. I mentioned it in passing as it helped me out in finding the right UN site for reading up on the exact wording of all this stuff before I'd even replied here.
And I noted that Wikipedia is not reliable for technical information, which you seemed to find offensive. Since you now concede that you are using the source I provided, I don't know why you keep coming back to this.
QuoteYou however in a typical politician style seem to see the mention of the word wikipedia as evidence of bad research and are attacking it.
An ad hominim attached to s strawman! :lmfao:
See, now the bolded bit
is a strawman. It directly contradicts my own stated position. The "in typical politician fashion" is, of course, an ad hominim.
QuoteNow we're getting somewhere :)
Assimilation is indeed what in large part is happening and what the Chinese objective is. Assimilation however is not mutually exclusive with genocide.
Assimilation is mutually exclusive with "technical genocide" (per the UN Convention).
QuoteAssimilation can happen completely innocently and naturally or it can happen in far more sinister manners.
In the case of China it is an active government policy to change the population of an area over time. i.e. 'genocide'.
Perhaps 'genocide' but not "technical genocide" (ie you can believe that it is genocide - even though in your last post you stated that it
wasn't genocide - I suspect that you need to think this through and decide whether you believe that China is committing 'genocide' or not).
QuoteA lot.
Stricken as non-responsive
QuoteYes it is. Read the definition yourself.
Merely repeating "yes it is, yes it is!" isn't an argument. there are two elements to the proof of guilt in the convention, and you have met neither.
QuoteI don't really know what else to say as I can't understand what on earth you're thinking to possibly give this answer.
You might refer to the two elements (motive and actions) and give any examples at all that provides evidence of them both.
QuoteI guess you're referring to the five points from the UN genocide convention?
Ah, yes. "Technical genocide." Don't try to get away from your wording now!
QuoteOf course lining people up and shooting them is one of them, it lines squarely under A. Its pretty much the commonly accepted view of what genocide involves.
Genocide can involve many things. People can be shot in non-genocide situations as well. In fact, the majority of people shot are probably NOT shot as part of a genocide!
QuoteWhat is actually underway- well as said B,C and D are known to have been met at various times.
Bullshit. Mere assertion is not an argument.
QuoteMotive- well how about the Chinese heavy encouragement of mass immigration to the occupied areas? Sure, economic development is a part here, its the nice face they put on it, but you can hardly expect the Chinese to be cackling away like comic book villains about fully assimilating the western regions can you? Even the Nazis were more subtle than that.
How does one 'prove' motive?
One proves motive by providing evidence that the perp is acting according to a specific motivation. Obviously, explicit statements are best, but one can provide specific exmples of acts which would not be undertaken unless the motive was "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
QuoteTo do so would win me the nobel prize. Teams of people devote their lives to it.
All that I need to do here is point out that some of what the Chinese are up to could be classed as genocide.
No, you need to show that the actions of the Chinese meet the technical definition of genocide. That is, after all, your point. You argue (in some posts) that this isn;t a genocide (of course, you directly contradict yourself elsewhere). If you want to argue that it isn't technically genocide, but is in your opinion genocide nonetheless, that is a different matter entirely. Had you made that argument, I wouldn't have objected to it.
QuoteIn that case as you know its a obvious no but its an irrelevant strawman.
Whining about strawmen that use your exact arguments again? :lmfao:
No, it isn't a strawman, it is an asschapping.
Quoteerr what? No, that definition proves MY point.
China is not actually commiting genocide according to how most of the world would interprate that word or what the UN would actually care to do much about however according to the written letter of UN law it is "technically" breaching it.
Precisey the opposite. In order for China to ge "technically" committing genocide, as you allege, they would have to be committing one of the five acts 9or an equivelent) and be motivated by the "desire to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." This is the legal standard. Had it been doing so, the world would think it committing genocide. The popular conception of genocide is much less stringent than the technical one, which is why the UNGC can call Israel's actions in the West Bank "genocide."
QuoteWhat's your obsession with weasels?
I call a weael a weasel. It's a good word, and describes your arguments precisely.
QuoteI'm a scientist, not a politician, I deal in the truth, not bending selective facts to suit my point.
I've repeatedly shown that China is technically commiting genocide.
I, too, an a scientist who deals in truth. And, as I scientist, I know that stating something is a far cry from showing it. You have used not a single specific fact or example to back up your repeated unsupported assertions. In fact, when specific facts are brought in (like the increase in the Uighur population) you very unscientifically dismiss those actual facts as irrelevant in the face of your unsupported assertions! :lmfao:
Scientist my ass!
Quote
Why are you obsessed with that one bit I wonder?
No, that's not an argument for technical genocide on its own.
I am not "obsessed" with anything. I keep repeating your unsupported assertions because they are all I have to quote.
QuoteMany in Europe are a lot more American than their grandparents but we aren't going to start accusing the US of genociding the Europeans.
But are you going to argue that they are "technically" committing genocide?
QuoteThe situation vis-a-vis China and Xinjiang/Tibet is quite different to that between the US and Europe though.
True but irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the Chinese are acting in such a way and for such a motive as to violate the UN Convention on Genocide. You have offered not a scrap of evidence that this is true.
QuoteI'm not at all weaseling. Not even in the third class. I'm addressing the topic straight forward.
Are you just trying to be dense to piss me off here?
I don't think it is
my denseness that is pissing you off.
To repeat myself yet again;
Quote1: The population of most people around the world has rose.
Not responsive to the question. The question is
1. How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
3. How could someone engage in "technical" genocide and not actually be engaged in a genocide?
Quote2: There's reams of the stuff. Exact first hand evidence is not exactly something I can come by (what with not knowing Chinese, not having access to public records, etc...) but some articles and whatnot on the stuff:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/163/29426.html (trying to find more on this Spanish case. You should look up what evidence they've got if you're interested)
This is about one guy claiming that, when he was four years old, the Chinese were rounding up pregnant Tibetan women and working them to death. It seems strange that only one man has asserted this. However, if you can show that Han Chinese women were not worked to death in camps, I will accept this as some provisional evidence. If Han women were, though, then this would seem like the typical assholishness that totalitarian regimes engage in, and not genocide at all.
Quotehttp://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/07/11/chinas-ethnic-policies-in-xinjiang-uighur-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-or-what/ (this one I can agree with quite a bit, it goes beyond the strict UN definitions of destroying parts of peoples equaling genocide and says genocide is only trying to get rid of the lot. They don't really come to this conclusion in a nicely sourced way though which is unfortunate.)
Actually, this one
directly supports my position and opposed yours:
QuoteFirst, it is important to note that they do not constitute genocide. Or, at least, not in the way it is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Thanks for walking onto that land mine.
Quotehttp://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html (quite a bit of evidence here)
Uh, this is from 1960. We are talking about now. In any case, this one concluded that:
QuoteThe COMMITTEE did not find that there was sufficient proof of the destruction of Tibetans as a race, nation or ethnic group as such by methods that can be regarded as genocide in international law.
So, this group found that there was 'genocide' but not "technical genocide." That's another one for me.
Quotehttp://www.pop.org/20030417558/new-evidence-unfpa-support-of-forced-abortion-genocide (read like typical moany rubbish to me at first but investigating more its mentioned elsewhere too).
The only yhing I can find in this that mentions genocide is the lead-in paragraph, and this writer clearly doesn't understand what his organization's report is saying. The report is talking about what is happening in the urban areas of Xinjiang Province, which is where the Han live. His organization's report notes that "peasants" (those are the Uighars) are allowed three children. The Han are allowed one. That sounds pretty far from genocide to me.
Quotehttp://globalvoicesonline.org/2009/07/03/the-uyghurs-persecuted-muslim-minority-in-northwest-china/
This uses the phrase "cultural genocide" (which is not "technical genocide" exactly once, referring to an allegation. This is no proof of technical genocide at all.
So, the bottom line is that even quotemining you found only two sources that backed me and refuted you, one generalized bleat about "genocide" without a scrap of evidence to support it, one case of a clear allegation by a single person, and one document that isn't even about technical genocide.
Quote3: Because the definition of genocide according to international law is ridiculously broad and goes far beyond what most people would actually class as genocide.
Quite the opposite. Most people would call many acts that are not covered by the law genocide. I think no reasonable person would look at acts that clearly violated the international standard (ie were "technical genocide") and conclude that they were not genocide.
QuoteWhat the Chinese are doing does technically tick off as genocide according to the rules. Its not actually genocide though.
Nope, it does not technically qualify as genocide because it meets neither of the standards of the law.
Quotehttp://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/GENOCIDE.HTM explains the point of technically committing genocide quite well. The legal, technical definition is so strict that even many things that obviously aren't genocide can be classed as such there
The fact that you have found one person on the web who agrees with you does not make your point any more convincing. I find the assertion (by you and by R.J. Rummel) that acts of government cannot be genocide unless the government is committing murder, and that most people would agree with this, to be wholly unpersuasive. If a government were to herd all the members of an ethnic group into an area, remove all their children for fostering in government creches, and simply let the older ones live on until the group died out of old age, I think most people would recognize that this was genocide.
What types of acts committed in violation of the law would you consider NOT to be genocide?
QuoteNo. It is what I have argued that you are ignoring.
What is this supposed to mean?
QuoteWe both have access to the UN definitions of genocide. We should both be laughing at them but instead you're insisting they say something completely different? You got your version from another site to me, try mine, it proves what I'm saying;
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
I have no idea why you would be laughing at the legal definition of genocide, nor why you would expect me to. As far as me " insisting they say something completely different?" I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Your source is identical to mine, with the exception that Arabic numerals have been substituted for the original roman numerals.
Quote from: Siege on July 12, 2009, 04:50:58 PM
Grumbler and Tyr should marry.
No, you and Neil will have to go to the alter alone. Sorry.
Quote from: Tyr on July 12, 2009, 11:06:39 AM
To go a bit off topic: I wonder Mono since I figure you know more on this sort of thing; since the Manchu are so integrated and minorities get various privileges do many people try to highly the Manchu side of their ancestry (or the same for other integrated minorities) to take advantage of this?
Or is the prestige of being Han better?
My understanding is that playing the race card won't get you very far. It is true that there is some affirmative action in place. For example, for a supposed target of genocide, the Uyghurs actually enjoy privileged access to universities. University admission in China is determined by a single test score. But Uyghurs get a few extra marks for no reason other than race. This is one reason why the Hans dislike them. But the problem is even if they graduate, their chances of finding a job is much lower than equivalent Hans. There is a general feeling among Hans, rightly or wrongly, that Uyghurs are less materialistic, less ambitious, or even outright lazy. Hans feel Uyghurs care more about their religion than making money.
A more practical concern is language barrier. Uyghur is a language that is based on alphabets. It is tough for them to learn Chinese. A famous Chinese reformer once said that "if Chinese as a language doesn't die, China will". He said that at a time when the bulk of the Han population was illiterate. One of the causes was the difficulty of learning Chinese, even for Hans. Good luck if you are a Uyghur expecting to see alphabets when they walk into a Chinese language class.
Indicentally, I think my grandmother is a Manchu. So I actually have some Manchu blood :lol:
How much are Uyghurs exposed to Chinese on a daily basis? You'd think that they are dominated by the Han enough economically that the younger generation would grow up bilingual at least. I mean, the Manchu alphabet is an alphabet, but they are not just integrated today but largely extinct. Same is true for the Mongols.
Also, Mon, can most people tell the difference between a Northern Chinese or Inner Mongolian and a Uyghur by sight? They are supposed to have a lot of Caucasian admixture.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 08:46:02 PM
How much are Uyghurs exposed to Chinese on a daily basis? You'd think that they are dominated by the Han enough economically that the younger generation would grow up bilingual at least. I mean, the Manchu alphabet is an alphabet, but they are not just integrated today but largely extinct. Same is true for the Mongols.
Also, Mon, can most people tell the difference between a Northern Chinese or Inner Mongolian and a Uyghur by sight? They are supposed to have a lot of Caucasian admixture.
The Uyghurs and Hans are pretty segregated. They attend different schools, live in different cities/districts, generally do different businesses etc. One major problem with Uyghurs is that, unlike the dozens of other minority groups in China, there is very little inter-marriage with Hans. Marriage is very useful toward building racial harmony, and this has helped with bringing Hans and other minority groups closer. Not with the Uyghurs. The key problem, from what I've read, is their religion. Uyghurs are pretty religious. They pray often, don't eat pork, and concern themselves with spirituality. The Hans on the other hand don't care much about religion, devour pork, worship their ancestors and build idols out of them, care much more about money and luxury than the afterlife, etc. Hans are much much much more materialistic. Starting from a young age, Hans study hard to get into a university, with the express aim of getting the best job that yields the most money. People who don't share that goal are considered lazy. Which is exactly how the Uyghurs behave :lol: Actually, there is a similar problem with Tibetans.
So, no, the bulk of the Uyghurs keep to their own communities and languages.
Yes, it is actually pretty easy to tell a Uyghur by sight. Their skin is a lot darker than most Chinese, and their facial features are very different. They are more Caucasian in appearance.
Yeah, there was a pre-existing, advanced Indo-European people there (the Tocharians, for the curious) who were there before the more mixed/Northern Asian looking Turks and Han came in.
Mono, I'm a little curious about this too; how many different 'looks' does China have ethnically? North/South/Uyghur/Tibet/Inner Mongolia, or are there more specific types?
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 09:01:27 PM
Yeah, there was a pre-existing, advanced Indo-European people there (the Tocharians, for the curious) who were there before the more mixed/Northern Asian looking Turks and Han came in.
Mono, I'm a little curious about this too; how many different 'looks' does China have ethnically? North/South/Uyghur/Tibet/Inner Mongolia, or are there more specific types?
Generally three kinds of looks. Southerner, Northerner, and minority. Southerners are shorter, smaller, with pale skin. Northerners are taller, broader, bigger, with slightly sharper facial features, and generally a little bit darker (especially for males). Southerners are more likely to speak a dialect, while Northerners are better at Mandarin, the national language (which is based on Beijingnese).
All minority groups tend to be a lot darker than Hans. Uyghurs are pretty distinct because they have a more European look. Minorities also tend to behave slightly differently than Hans. They tend to be more relaxed, more joyful, sing a lot, smile a lot, wear colourful clothes, more friendly toward strangers. Hans tend to keep a greater distance, especially toward strangers. Hans also tend to use various means to display their wealth, e.g. expensive cars, Gucci handbags, precious stones, brand name clothes, that sort of thing.
Quote"There is no other way of commenting on this event," Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.
Um...an ethnic clash? I can think of many ways of commenting on this event without using insane hyperbole.
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2009, 09:22:23 PM
Quote"There is no other way of commenting on this event," Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.
Um...an ethnic clash? I can think of many ways of commenting on this event without using insane hyperbole.
It sounds like Uyghurs have it a lot better off than Kurds in Turkey do (or at least did until AKP), unless this riot completely changes the nature of their relations.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 12, 2009, 09:22:23 PM
Quote"There is no other way of commenting on this event," Recep Tayyip Erdogan said.
Um...an ethnic clash? I can think of many ways of commenting on this event without using insane hyperbole.
It sounds like Uyghurs have it a lot better off than Kurds in Turkey do (or at least did until AKP), unless this riot completely changes the nature of their relations.
c'mon, confronting a Turk about issues like genocide or repression of minorities by Turkey is a bit unfair.. how can he pontificate without being a hypocrite then?
The few minorities I notice in Nanjing (Muslims) seem to be dirt poor, often operating run-down tiny restaurants. They generally look dirty and poorly dressed. Later this summer I am going to Inner Mongolia province, so I will get to see first-hand a home province for a sizeable Chinese minority.
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 07:25:26 PM-
I'm really becoming rather bored with you now.
From the very start here you've acted patronising and dickish. This is a form of behaviour I don't appreciate even coming from someone who genuinely can teach me something, when its coming from someone who doesn't have a clue what he's on about and is trying to say a spade isn't a spade it just reaches new levels of annoyance.
Quote
Assimilation is mutually exclusive with "technical genocide" (per the UN Convention).
Of course its not. Point to me where it says this please or concede your point.
Quote
Perhaps 'genocide' but not "technical genocide" (ie you can believe that it is genocide - even though in your last post you stated that it wasn't genocide - I suspect that you need to think this through and decide whether you believe that China is committing 'genocide' or not).
As I've said from the start I don't believe it is genocide. According to the UN rules however it technically is.
Quote
Stricken as non-responsive
As was what I was replying to.
Quote
Merely repeating "yes it is, yes it is!" isn't an argument. there are two elements to the proof of guilt in the convention, and you have met neither.
Replying 'yes it is' is enough of a argument when you have evidence which I clearly point out to you: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.ht
Quote
Ah, yes. "Technical genocide." Don't try to get away from your wording now!
Pardon?
I have no clue what on earth you're trying to say here.
QuoteO
Genocide can involve many things. People can be shot in non-genocide situations as well. In fact, the majority of people shot are probably NOT shot as part of a genocide!
Of course. What does that matter?
People can be gassed as part of non-genocidal situations too.
Quote
One proves motive by providing evidence that the perp is acting according to a specific motivation. Obviously, explicit statements are best, but one can provide specific exmples of acts which would not be undertaken unless the motive was "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
Aha, if that's all you need then you'll find plenty of it. Check out the links I gave you last time and do some searching of your own.
Quote
No, you need to show that the actions of the Chinese meet the technical definition of genocide. That is, after all, your point. You argue (in some posts) that this isn;t a genocide (of course, you directly contradict yourself elsewhere). If you want to argue that it isn't technically genocide, but is in your opinion genocide nonetheless, that is a different matter entirely. Had you made that argument, I wouldn't have objected to it.
:rolleyes:
Genocide (UN) != Genocide (common use).
I am saying exactly the opposite of that. I very much doubt you would find any situations in the world where anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions.
Quote
Whining about strawmen that use your exact arguments again? ::
No, it isn't a strawman, it is an asschapping.
That A and B can be C does not automatically mean A=B.
Quote
Precisey the opposite. In order for China to ge "technically" committing genocide, as you allege, they would have to be committing one of the five acts 9or an equivelent) and be motivated by the "desire to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." This is the legal standard. Had it been doing so, the world would think it committing genocide. The popular conception of genocide is much less stringent than the technical one, which is why the UNGC can call Israel's actions in the West Bank "genocide."
Except they ARE committing several of those five acts.
This is beyond argument. Hell, the wording of the law is so bad ('in part')that even killing one man could fall under genocide if you're completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording.
QuoteI
I, too, an a scientist who deals in truth. And, as I scientist, I know that stating something is a far cry from showing it. You have used not a single specific fact or example to back up your repeated unsupported assertions. In fact, when specific facts are brought in (like the increase in the Uighur population) you very unscientifically dismiss those actual facts as irrelevant in the face of your unsupported assertions! :lmfao:
Stating that green is green doesn't really need proving.
Quote
But are you going to argue that they are "technically" committing genocide?
That's what I've just said. We're not going to do that.
It's not really something the Americans are controlling.
However you could according to the technical definition say such like France is genocidal against its minority languages.
Quote
True but irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the Chinese are acting in such a way and for such a motive as to violate the UN Convention on Genocide. You have offered not a scrap of evidence that this is true.
Do you not acknowledge that the Chinese have silenced minority leaders, destroyed cultural artifacts and seriously harmed many members of these minorities?
Many such occurrences of this are not just suspicion, they are recorded fact.
Quote
Not responsive to the question. The question is
1. How could the Chinese be engaged in a genocide against the Uighurs and Uighur population continue to rise?
That was a valid answer.
Not the answer you would like but you can't pick and chose.
Quote
This is about one guy claiming that, when he was four years old, the Chinese were rounding up pregnant Tibetan women and working them to death. It seems strange that only one man has asserted this. However, if you can show that Han Chinese women were not worked to death in camps, I will accept this as some provisional evidence. If Han women were, though, then this would seem like the typical assholishness that totalitarian regimes engage in, and not genocide at all.
That only one man is saying this here is irrelevant, a witness is a witness and just because he is all mentioned there does not mean that there are others.
And you don't think the Nazis also picked on some Germans?
Quote
Actually, this one directly supports my position and opposed yours:
QuoteFirst, it is important to note that they do not constitute genocide. Or, at least, not in the way it is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Thanks for walking onto that land mine.
:lmfao:
Wrong.
QuoteGenocide consists of a concerted attempt to physically destroy an ethnic group as a whole.
Which goes completely contrary to what is said in the UN law.
Quote
Uh, this is from 1960. We are talking about now. In any case, this one concluded that:
QuoteThe COMMITTEE did not find that there was sufficient proof of the destruction of Tibetans as a race, nation or ethnic group as such by methods that can be regarded as genocide in international law.
So, this group found that there was 'genocide' but not "technical genocide." That's another one for me.
No we're not just talking about right now. Evidence from fifty years ago is a lot more widespread than that from fifty minutes ago.
But anyway. Even in your selective quoting you are walking on thin ice;
SUFFICIENT PROOF. They couldn't find the evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt as such a case needs.
That the Chinese were technically breaking the rules though is noted as
fact.
It was technically genocide however it was not proven to be actual genocide.
Quote
This uses the phrase "cultural genocide" (which is not "technical genocide" exactly once, referring to an allegation. This is no proof of technical genocide at all.
Of course cultural genocide is genocide.
What is a people if not their culture?
In the early drafts of the '48 UN law in question (http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/drafts/) they even make specific mention of different kinds of genocide including cultural, their thinking behind the document is clear. Its unfortunate they left it all so vague in the final version.
Quote
Quite the opposite. Most people would call many acts that are not covered by the law genocide. I think no reasonable person would look at acts that clearly violated the international standard (ie were "technical genocide") and conclude that they were not genocide.
Are you from Bizzaro world here?
I must ask you again to please read the document with an open mind. It's rather clear to see how broad and vague it really is.
Quote
Nope, it does not technically qualify as genocide because it meets neither of the standards of the law.
To use your words against you;
QuoteStricken as non-responsive.
Quote
The fact that you have found one person on the web who agrees with you does not make your point any more convincing. I find the assertion (by you and by R.J. Rummel) that acts of government cannot be genocide unless the government is committing murder, and that most people would agree with this, to be wholly unpersuasive.
I wasn't using that as proof. I was posting it in the hope you would understand how he explains it where you don't when I do.
QuoteIf a government were to herd all the members of an ethnic group into an area, remove all their children for fostering in government creches, and simply let the older ones live on until the group died out of old age, I think most people would recognize that this was genocide.
True. Nonetheless the common image of genocide is mass murder.
'Soft' means do exist of course however the word genocide should still be reserved for only the harshest of these- such as your example.
Quote
What types of acts committed in violation of the law would you consider NOT to be genocide?
Loads of them. As said the law is so ridiculous even the killing of one man could be technically termed genocide; if a bunch of neo-nazis murder a black guy then they have fulfilled the intention to wipe out (at least) part of a ethnic/racial group and the actual killing of part of it.
UN law of course only applies to governments though so that is too much of a stretch but governments do kill people too. The Chinese on many occasions have killed various priests/monks/whatever- even if these were individual incidents, if you want to take the law literally it counts.
Quote
What is this supposed to mean?
You accuse me of ignoring your questions when I answer them directly...Only for you to ignore the answers.
Quote
I have no idea why you would be laughing at the legal definition of genocide, nor why you would expect me to. As far as me " insisting they say something completely different?" I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Your source is identical to mine, with the exception that Arabic numerals have been substituted for the original roman numerals.
Its a very broad document that could be interpreted for means far beyond its intention. Such as for instance that site I posted where the guy is on about American genocide against Hawaiians.
It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2009, 09:34:05 AM
It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.
Yup, there must be some sort of term for this - where a word has taken on a bad association that is universally agreed is bad, and then gets applied to ever-more dubious cases until it loses all meaning.
Genocide, racism, colonialism ...
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
Yup, there must be some sort of term for this - where a word has taken on a bad association that is universally agreed is bad, and then gets applied to ever-more dubious cases until it loses all meaning.
Genocide, racism, colonialism ...
A good example of this was the characterization of Morales in Bolivia of the United States buying Bolivian Natural Gas as 'Imperialism'.
Buying a country's stuff = what Britain did to India it seems :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2009, 09:34:05 AM
It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.
A lot of factory owners from Hong Kong who have plants on the Mainland say that for years provincial officials from all over China "encourage" them to hire a certain number of Uyghurs.
If this is considered genocide, I have no words. Discrimination? In many areas, yes. No complete religious freedom? Perhaps, but that applies to Hans and everybody else. Genocide? Give me a break.
Quote from: Monoriu on July 13, 2009, 10:58:37 AM
A lot of factory owners from Hong Kong who have plants on the Mainland say that for years provincial officials from all over China "encourage" them to hire a certain number of Uyghurs.
If this is considered genocide, I have no words. Discrimination? In many areas, yes. No complete religious freedom? Perhaps, but that applies to Hans and everybody else. Genocide? Give me a break.
Now you know how Americans feel. Every little thing we do gets merely compared to something the Empire from Star Wars would do on a good day.
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2009, 09:34:05 AM
It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.
Yup, there must be some sort of term for this - where a word has taken on a bad association that is universally agreed is bad, and then gets applied to ever-more dubious cases until it loses all meaning.
Genocide, racism, colonialism ...
the term used is either inflation of deflation of meaning I think. same as with money and value :p
Quote from: Tyr on July 13, 2009, 09:05:06 AM
I'm really becoming rather bored with you now.
There is a cure for that which is even easier than typing out the whine "I'm bored." :mellow:
QuoteFrom the very start here you've acted patronising and dickish.
So have you.
QuoteThis is a form of behaviour I don't appreciate even coming from someone who genuinely can teach me something, when its coming from someone who doesn't have a clue what he's on about and is trying to say a spade isn't a spade it just reaches new levels of annoyance.
Pot, meet kettle.
QuoteAs I've said from the start I don't believe it is genocide. According to the UN rules however it technically is.
Repeating unsupported assertions doesn't make them more credible.
QuoteOf course. What does that matter?
People can be gassed as part of non-genocidal situations too.
So you concede the point about "lining people up and shooting them?" Wise.
QuoteAha, if that's all you need then you'll find plenty of it. Check out the links I gave you last time and do some searching of your own.
Nope. Did the research, read your links (two of which agreed with me, one of which was ambivalent (on old court case remarking on a policy of thirty years ago, and supported by a single claimant who was four years old at the time), and two of which were not applicable). You haven't begun to make your argument yet.
Quote:rolleyes:
Genocide (UN) != Genocide (common use).
I am saying exactly the opposite of that. I very much doubt you would find any situations in the world where anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions.
:rolleyes: You are no0t saying the opposite of what I am saying, and you reconirm it one sentence after you deny it!
Of course one can find many cases of people yelling "genocide" when the technical definition isn't met. I pointed out two cases in the links
you provided (but apparently didn't read).
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html (http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html) is one on the Cambodian genocide, which clearly was not "technicall" genocide because it wasn't aimed at a specific "national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.htmll (http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.htmll) is someone "yelling genocide" about a brutal attack in Iraq under Huseein, but notes that the regime's actions were triggered by a report that the target had been taken over by rebel Kurds (thus presenting a non-"technically genocidal" motive for the attack).
I could go on and on, and you know it.
QuoteExcept they ARE committing several of those five acts.
This is beyond argument. Hell, the wording of the law is so bad ('in part')that even killing one man could fall under genocide if you're completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording.
Except that you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate that they
are committing those acts for the motives necessary, and
this is what is "beyond argument."
Laws don't work the way you think they do. One cannot get a conviction for genocide for the killing of a single person. It is
you who is "completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording" in this argument. I have said nothing of the sort.
QuoteStating that green is green doesn't really need proving.
Ah, the old "this doesn't need evidence beause it is a fact" argument. I bet your fellow-scientists love hearing those arguments from you! :lol:
QuoteQuote
But are you going to argue that they are "technically" committing genocide?
That's what I've just said. We're not going to do that.
You say "yes but no?" WTF? Are you going to argue 9with evidence) that China is "technically" committing genocide, or not?
QuoteIt's not really something the Americans are controlling.
:huh:
QuoteHowever you could according to the technical definition say such like France is genocidal against its minority languages.
I wouldn't be that daft. Maybe
you are daft enough to argue that; be my guest.
QuoteDo you not acknowledge that the Chinese have silenced minority leaders, destroyed cultural artifacts and seriously harmed many members of these minorities?
Many such occurrences of this are not just suspicion, they are recorded fact.
Stricken as non-relevant. Non of these acts are "technical genocide."
QuoteThat was a valid answer.
Not the answer you would like but you can't pick and chose.
Stricken as non-responsive.
QuoteThat only one man is saying this here is irrelevant, a witness is a witness and just because he is all mentioned there does not mean that there are others.
One man who is a witness testefying about conclusions he reached thirty years ago as a four-year old is not convincing testimony.
QuoteOf course cultural genocide is genocide.
But not "technical genocide" (iaw the convention), which is what we are addressing.
QuoteAre you from Bizzaro world here?
Stricken as ad hominim.
QuoteI must ask you again to please read the document with an open mind. It's rather clear to see how broad and vague it really is.
I have read it and disagree, and note that you have completely evaded answering my question..
QuoteQuote
Nope, it does not technically qualify as genocide because it meets neither of the standards of the law.
To use your words against you; QuoteStricken as non-responsive.
You can try to use that phrase, but since my response goes directly to the heart of the matter, it only makes you look silly.
QuoteI wasn't using that as proof. I was posting it in the hope you would understand how he explains it where you don't when I do.
I understand what he is saying (though I think his whole concept of "democide" is absurd and pretentious). The problem isn't that I don't understand what you are saying (I have clearly demonstrated a much better grasp of the core issue here than you), it is that I disagree.
QuoteTrue. Nonetheless the common my image of genocide is mass murder.
Corrected for accuracy. You accepted my example as true, so the only counter to it is that
you don't think it genocide. That isn't relevant here, though.
QuoteLoads of them. As said the law is so ridiculous even the killing of one man could be technically termed genocide; if a bunch of neo-nazis murder a black guy then they have fulfilled the intention to wipe out (at least) part of a ethnic/racial group and the actual killing of part of it.
UN law of course only applies to governments though so that is too much of a stretch but governments do kill people too. The Chinese on many occasions have killed various priests/monks/whatever- even if these were individual incidents, if you want to take the law literally it counts.
So your argument is that the exact wording of the Convention would, in your opinion, create a genocide if one neo-Nazi killed on black person? That's it? That is your whole argument?
Please find me an authoritative source that would agree with this interpretation. I would be fascinated to read it.
QuoteIts a very broad document that could be interpreted for means far beyond its intention. Such as for instance that site I posted where the guy is on about American genocide against Hawaiians.
I think it is not nearly as broad as you claim, and your Dr. Rummel is not arguing that the Americans committed "technical genocide" against Hawaiians, so appealing to him is done in vain.
Quote from: Armyknife on July 13, 2009, 11:46:19 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 13, 2009, 11:34:51 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 13, 2009, 09:44:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 13, 2009, 09:34:05 AM
It seems to me that 'genocide' has come to mean merely 'doing unpleasant things to'.
Yup, there must be some sort of term for this - where a word has taken on a bad association that is universally agreed is bad, and then gets applied to ever-more dubious cases until it loses all meaning.
Genocide, racism, colonialism ...
the term used is either inflation of deflation of meaning I think. same as with money and value :p
what about to debase its meaning or diminution ?
those will do too I guess.
words enough.
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2009, 11:56:08 AM
So have you.
No I haven't. I posted quite a normal reply then you came in and in a rude way decided to tell me I didn't have a clue what I was talking about.
If you believed that you really could have chosen your wording better then I too would have been more civil in pointing you were wrong.
Quote
Repeating unsupported assertions doesn't make them more credible.
Repeating fully supported facts however doesn't hurt.
Quote
So you concede the point about "lining people up and shooting them?" Wise.
:rolleyes:
QuoteAha, if that's all you need then you'll find plenty of it. Check out the links I gave you last time and do some searching of your own.
Nope. Did the research, read your links (two of which agreed with me, one of which was ambivalent (on old court case remarking on a policy of thirty years ago, and supported by a single claimant who was four years old at the time), and two of which were not applicable). You haven't begun to make your argument yet.
1: None of the links agreed with you at all.
2: I noted myself that one of them was a bit crappy, it was just the first thing I found since I'm not going to give up my days for you.
3: You're missing the point on that one about the guy who was four at the time. Its been taking seriously enough that the Spanish are taking the matter to court. This article on it mentions three witnesses at least http://www.faluninfo.net/article/609/
My argument has been fully made yet you are ignoring it.
Quote:rolleye
:rolles: You are no0t saying the opposite of what I am saying, and you reconirm it one sentence after you deny it!
What?
Of course I'm saying the opposite. Its not genocide but according to the rules it could technically be classed as such.
Quote
Of course one can find many cases of people yelling "genocide" when the technical definition isn't met. I pointed out two cases in the links you provided (but apparently didn't read).
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html (http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html) is one on the Cambodian genocide, which clearly was not "technicall" genocide because it wasn't aimed at a specific "national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
A interesting point here is that the Soviet guy in the UN specifically had mention of political groups removed from the definition for his own purposes.
So yeah, it is true that killing people for that reason technically isn't genocide.
That's irrelevant though, it's not what's going on in China.
Quote
http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.htmll (http://www.int-review.org/terr35a.htmll) is someone "yelling genocide" about a brutal attack in Iraq under Huseein, but notes that the regime's actions were triggered by a report that the target had been taken over by rebel Kurds (thus presenting a non-"technically genocidal" motive for the attack).
Now the Kurds are quite a different matter. It was Arabs killing Kurds and attempting to wipe out parts of the population.
Quote
I could go on and on, and you know it.
Who cares?
Its not the issue.
Quote
Except that you have failed repeatedly to demonstrate that they are committing those acts for the motives necessary, and this is what is "beyond argument."
You're the one making the argument here. Its up to you to show that they aren't.
Quote
Laws don't work the way you think they do. One cannot get a conviction for genocide for the killing of a single person. It is you who is "completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording" in this argument. I have said nothing of the sort.
:lmfao:
Talk about strawmen.
Read what I said, I never said in any way that this was actually the case. You have to admit though that reading the law and ignoring all rational reason (yes, I admit it, I am doing that for this sentence, its the whole point of it) it can well be read that way.
Quote
Ah, the old "this doesn't need evidence beause it is a fact" argument. I bet your fellow-scientists love hearing those arguments from you! :lol:
Most scientists do not pick arguments with you on such basis as 'OMG the word overwrite doesn't mean overwrite!' as you are doing.
Quote
You say "yes but no?" WTF? Are you going to argue 9with evidence) that China is "technically" committing genocide, or not?
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
QuoteI wouldn't be that daft. Maybe you are daft enough to argue that; be my guest.
These days that would be a iffy argument, France is changing. But two centuries ago that wouldn't at all be a daft argument. The French undoubtedly followed a policy that under the modern UN definition could technically be called genocide.
Quote
Stricken as non-relevant. Non of these acts are "technical genocide."
That is very relevant. It is the entire point we are meant to be discussing here. Those acts ARE genocide according to the UN definition.
I'm going to ignore a lot now as long quote chains are annoying and none of it is relevant.
Quote
But not "technical genocide" (iaw the convention), which is what we are addressing.
Prove it.
I have my evidence which clearly covers that:
QuoteIn the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
What's yours?
Quote
I have read it and disagree, and note that you have completely evaded answering my question..
Pot...kettle....
QuoteI wasn't using that as proof. I was posting it in the hope you would understand how he explains it where you don't when I do.
I understand what he is saying (though I think his whole concept of "democide" is absurd and pretentious). The problem isn't that I don't understand what you are saying (I have clearly demonstrated a much better grasp of the core issue here than you), it is that I disagree.[/quote]
You have no grasp of the core issue at all. If you did you wouldn't disagree, it's not really something that can be disagreed with unless you are arguing against the authority of the UN or some such (which you're not).
Quote
So your argument is that the exact wording of the Convention would, in your opinion, create a genocide if one neo-Nazi killed on black person? That's it? That is your whole argument?
Please find me an authoritative source that would agree with this interpretation. I would be fascinated to read it.
Now that's how you're meant to make a strawman. Taking the other person's argument to a extreme. It took my help (well...I gave it to you) but you got there.
As I said myself that is a silly interpretation. It is however technically valid according to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm with the exception that this is meant to apply on an international level rather than between individuals.
If you're understanding this though then you're close to understanding that China in fact is technically in breach of the laws.
Quote
I think it is not nearly as broad as you claim, and your Dr. Rummel is not arguing that the Americans committed "technical genocide" against Hawaiians, so appealing to him is done in vain.
Read it for yourself. There are no lower limits to what constitutes a part.
And yes, that article did say exactly that according to the strictly legal definition of the word there was a Hawaiian genocide.
QuoteThis way of viewing genocide has become so ingrained that it seems utterly false to say, for example, that the United States committed genocide against ethnic Hawaiians by forcing their children to study English and behave according to American norms and values. Yet, in the legal view of genocide, this is arguably true. The equating of genocide with the killing people because of their indelible group membership I will label the common meaning of genocide.
Can you stop now please? You've got no argument and are just going round in circles insisting a spade isn't a spade.
Grumbler wins the argument due to his being American and likely taller.
Quote from: Tyr on July 13, 2009, 12:50:55 PM
No I haven't. I posted quite a normal reply then you came in and in a rude way decided to tell me I didn't have a clue what I was talking about.
Do a word search of all pages of this thread. the one person who has used the phrase "[didn't] have a clue" is... you guessed it, you! :lol:
QuoteRepeating fully supported facts however doesn't hurt.
Again, repeating that you have substantiated your claims 9when you have not even begun to adress motive, for instance) is futile.
Quote3: You're missing the point on that one about the guy who was four at the time. Its been taking seriously enough that the Spanish are taking the matter to court. This article on it mentions three witnesses at least http://www.faluninfo.net/article/609/
None of the "three witnesses" are testifying about genocide. They are all testifying about torture in a case of "an ongoing investigation into allegations of torture and genocide."
QuoteMy argument has been fully made yet you are ignoring it.
Yur argument hasn't begun to be made, and you conveniently ignore that fact by trivializing genocide through generalizing a few nasty thing the Chinese thug government does as "genocide."
QuoteOf course I'm saying the opposite. Its not genocide but according to the rules it could technically be classed as such.
No, it couldn't, as several of your own cites pointed out.
QuoteA interesting point here is that the Soviet guy in the UN specifically had mention of political groups removed from the definition for his own purposes.
So yeah, it is true that killing people for that reason technically isn't genocide.
That's irrelevant though, it's not what's going on in China.
Stricken as non-responsive. You are evading the issue.
QuoteNow the Kurds are quite a different matter. It was Arabs killing Kurds and attempting to wipe out parts of the population.
And yet people still cried "genocide" when it was not legally genocide - which is the point.
And I talke it that, since you snipped out the Cambodian example, that one is conceded as well?
QuoteWho cares?
Its not the issue.
It is the issue you raised, and I have decisively answered it. The "popular conception" of genocide is broader than the legal one.
QuoteYou're the one making the argument here. Its up to you to show that they aren't.
Nope. One is presumed innocent of violating the genocide convention ("the law") unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. Yu are arguing that the Chinese are guilty. Make the case.
QuoteQuoteLaws don't work the way you think they do. One cannot get a conviction for genocide for the killing of a single person. It is you who is "completely ignoring all rationality and just sticking to the wording" in this argument. I have said nothing of the sort.
:lmfao:
Talk about strawmen.
There you go, whining about "strawmen" when I am
quoting your very words! :lmfao:
QuoteRead what I said, I never said in any way that this was actually the case. You have to admit though that reading the law and ignoring all rational reason (yes, I admit it, I am doing that for this sentence, its the whole point of it) it can well be read that way.
Why would one want to ignore reason when discussing a law? How do you think doing this 9and bragging of it) advances your case?
QuoteMost scientists do not pick arguments with you on such basis as 'OMG the word overwrite doesn't mean overwrite!' as you are doing.
See, now
this is a strawman. I never said any of those words.
QuoteQuote
You say "yes but no?" WTF? Are you going to argue 9with evidence) that China is "technically" committing genocide, or not?
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
Stricken as non-responsive.
QuoteThese days that would be a iffy argument, France is changing. But two centuries ago that wouldn't at all be a daft argument. The French undoubtedly followed a policy that under the modern UN definition could technically be called genocide.
Feel free to make this case, if you think it important. Personally, I think it is another dodge of the issues, but I will grant you the benefit of the doubt.
QuoteThat is very relevant. It is the entire point we are meant to be discussing here. Those acts ARE genocide according to the UN definition.
Mere argument by assertion. I assert that http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm trumps your assertions.
QuoteI'm going to ignore a lot now as long quote chains are annoying and none of it is relevant.
That's wise, as most of it was you just dodging the issue some more.
QuoteProve it.
Are you sure you are a scientist? Most of us don't even consider challenging someone to prove a negative. We know it cannot be done.
QuoteI have my evidence which clearly covers that: QuoteIn the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
What's yours?
You have cited my proof. The acts you cite were not demonstrably committed with the necessary intent to violate the law, and in the absence of evidence innocence is presumed.
And, of course, the acts of "silenced minority leaders, destroyed cultural artifacts and seriously harmed many members" isn't even in the convention.
So, that's two factual arguments against one unsupported assertion.
(snipped a bunch of ad hominim and "if you understood the core issue you wouldn't debate it" bleats)
QuoteNow that's how you're meant to make a strawman. Taking the other person's argument to a extreme. It took my help (well...I gave it to you) but you got there.
WTF? :huh: I used
your exact argument in your exact word and you claim that I am thus making a strawman? You don't know what a strawman is. Look at the one by you I pointed out, and you will see the difference.
QuoteAs I said myself that is a silly interpretation. It is however technically valid according to http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm with the exception that this is meant to apply on an international level rather than between individuals.
No, a case of one person killing another = genocide is not "technically valid" as several of the understandings in the treaty and case law make clear.
QuoteIf you're understanding this though then you're close to understanding that China in fact is technically in breach of the laws.
I think it is clear who understands this.
McGill University had a conference http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2 (http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2) dicussing this, and agreed with me:
QuoteThe defining characteristic which separates the crime of genocide from other ordinary crimes is the special intent, or dolus specialis, to destroy all or part of a group. As the ICTY stated in 1999 in Jelisic, "Genocide is characterised by two legal ingredients according to the terms of Article 4 of the Statute: [1] the material element of the offence, constituted by one or several acts enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 4; [2] the mens rea of the offence, consisting of the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Theoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide if the aggressor's intent was to kill that person as part of larger plan to destroy a group.
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been the subject of much discussion. In the 2001 Krstic case, the ICTY found that the mass killing of approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica constituted genocide. Reflecting on the meaning of "in part," the tribunal stated: "[T]he part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." They concluded that while the number of individuals targeted is the "necessary and important starting point," one must also consider the number of victims in relation to the overall size of the entire group, as well as the prominence or importance of the targeted individuals within the entire group. In Krstic it was found that even though only Muslim men in one town were targeted, the number of victims was large and their significance was such that, to a certain extent, they represented the wider Bosnian Muslim community.
I invite your citation of a similarly authoritative source to support your contention that a single person killing another single person as a "hate crime" is "technically genocide" 9though, note, that if the killling is done as part of a larger campaign to kill a "substantial part" of the targeted population it would, indeed, be an act of genocide).
QuoteRead it for yourself. There are no lower limits to what constitutes a part.
And yes, that article did say exactly that according to the strictly legal definition of the word there was a Hawaiian genocide.
It is clear that you haven't done any research, relying strictly on your own interpretation of the law. And Dr. Rummel states that "in the legal view of genocide, this is
arguably true." He doesn't argue that it
is true, he merely notes (for rhetorical purposes) that someone, even knowing it "seems utterly false," might argue so. Does he actually
know you? :lol:
QuoteCan you stop now please? You've got no argument and are just going round in circles insisting a spade isn't a spade.
:lmfao: Can
I stop spanking your silly arguments? No. I am enjoying it too much. You may stop being spanked at any time by stopping the spankworthy statements.
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2009, 02:33:50 PM
Yur argument hasn't begun to be made, and you conveniently ignore that fact by trivializing genocide through generalizing a few nasty thing the Chinese thug government does as "genocide."
...:mellow:
No, from the start it's been my argument that not just any nasty thing equals genocide.
According to the official definition however it technically is.
Quote
No, it couldn't, as several of your own cites pointed out.
Like what?
Quote
Stricken as non-responsive. You are evading the issue.
:lmfao:
Of course I'm not.
Quote
And yet people still cried "genocide" when it was not legally genocide - which is the point.
No its not the point. Its nothing to do with the point.
Quote
It is the issue you raised, and I have decisively answered it. The "popular conception" of genocide is broader than the legal one.
No its not.
They both have areas where they do not overlap however the legal one covers a broader albeit fuzzier area.
Quote
Nope. One is presumed innocent of violating the genocide convention ("the law") unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty. Yu are arguing that the Chinese are guilty. Make the case.
Nope.
I said technically the Turkish guy is right (probably unintentionally on his part) which according to the official rules he clearly is. This was the base statement.
You then challenged this.
We're not in court, its a discussion, its up to you to prove me wrong.
Quote
There you go, whining about "strawmen" when I am quoting your very words! :lmfao:
Lovely selective quoting.
Quote
Why would one want to ignore reason when discussing a law? How do you think doing this 9and bragging of it) advances your case?
Are you so narrow minded?
One must always examine all possibilities. The wording of the law clearly does state that this is true. No one in their right mind would ever claim that this is what it actually means however if we ignore reason and just go entirely off the wording that's clearly what it says.
That the wording allows for such an absurd case to be made really doesn't bode well for cases that could fall anywhere near what its actually talking about.
Quote
See, now this is a strawman. I never said any of those words.
:rolleyes:
Of course you haven't. Your entire argument is based around the same lines as that example however.
Quote
Feel free to make this case, if you think it important. Personally, I think it is another dodge of the issues, but I will grant you the benefit of the doubt.
1: Its not the issue at hand
2: You'd just ignore it even if it was entirely relevant.
Quote
Mere argument by assertion. I assert that http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm trumps your assertions.
Very good. Point me.
Quote
Are you sure you are a scientist? Most of us don't even consider challenging someone to prove a negative. We know it cannot be done.
You are the one making the assertion though.
I have my proof, the UN document, if you wish to challenge it then please prove how it is wrong. Don't worry, you don't need to disprove it 100%. Just beyond reasonable doubt.
QuoteYou have cited my proof. The acts you cite were not demonstrably committed with the necessary intent to violate the law, and in the absence of evidence innocence is presumed.
Very few crimes are committed to purposefully break the law, that's just a side-effect.
QuoteAnd, of course, the acts of "silenced minority leaders, destroyed cultural artifacts and seriously harmed many members" isn't even in the convention.
So, that's two factual arguments against one unsupported assertion.
(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;
What do those fall into if not these three?
Quote
WTF? :huh: I used your exact argument in your exact word and you claim that I am thus making a strawman? You don't know what a strawman is. Look at the one by you I pointed out, and you will see the difference.
No I didn't. Stop quoting selectively and please read it in context.
Quote
No, a case of one person killing another = genocide is not "technically valid" as several of the understandings in the treaty and case law make clear.
Point to where in the treaty it says this please.
In broader law you may have a point but meh, what is actually happening isn't just one person being killed. How many people does there need to be for them legally to be regarded as a group? 2? 3? 100? As those are met.
QuoteIf you're understanding this though then you're close to understanding that China in fact is technically in breach of the laws.I think it is clear who understands this.
McGill University had a conference http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2 (http://efchr.mcgill.ca/WhatIsGenocide_en.php?menu=2) dicussing this, and agreed with me:
QuoteThe defining characteristic which separates the crime of genocide from other ordinary crimes is the special intent, or dolus specialis, to destroy all or part of a group. As the ICTY stated in 1999 in Jelisic, "Genocide is characterised by two legal ingredients according to the terms of Article 4 of the Statute: [1] the material element of the offence, constituted by one or several acts enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 4; [2] the mens rea of the offence, consisting of the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Theoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide if the aggressor's intent was to kill that person as part of larger plan to destroy a group.
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been the subject of much discussion. In the 2001 Krstic case, the ICTY found that the mass killing of approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica constituted genocide. Reflecting on the meaning of "in part," the tribunal stated: "[T]he part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." They concluded that while the number of individuals targeted is the "necessary and important starting point," one must also consider the number of victims in relation to the overall size of the entire group, as well as the prominence or importance of the targeted individuals within the entire group. In Krstic it was found that even though only Muslim men in one town were targeted, the number of victims was large and their significance was such that, to a certain extent, they represented the wider Bosnian Muslim community.
Wow, many of the same arguments I've been using are used there and I'd never even seen that. Thanks for that Grumbler, nice to see you being constructive.
Very interesting that they enhance upon the horrible wording of in part. Still two issues remain here.
1: These people aren't authoritative. They know their stuff certainly and a future law may well be built on what they have decided but for now what they've said doesn't matter when purely discussing the theory.
2: How do they define a 'group'. That the part must be substantial narrows down things there but what defines a people remains a broad term. A family could in many ways be counted as a 'people' (and indeed in some parts of the world is in practice)
QuoteI invite your citation of a similarly authoritative source to support your contention that a single person killing another single person as a "hate crime" is "technically genocide" 9though, note, that if the killling is done as part of a larger campaign to kill a "substantial part" of the targeted population it would, indeed, be an act of genocide).
[/quote]
You've just given my citation. Theoretically this hate crime is genocide.
Quote
It is clear that you haven't done any research, relying strictly on your own interpretation of the law. And Dr. Rummel states that "in the legal view of genocide, this is arguably true." He doesn't argue that it is true, he merely notes (for rhetorical purposes) that someone, even knowing it "seems utterly false," might argue so. Does he actually know you? :lol:
Much the same as I was doing. Rather than just saying 'Turks are dumb!' I noted technically the law was breached.
But still you decided to launch a argument.
You can't fight a ghost.
Quote
:lmfao: Can I stop spanking your silly arguments? No. I am enjoying it too much. You may stop being spanked at any time by stopping the spankworthy statements.
Which planet are you on?
You're the one coming up with silly arguments and I keep answering them. You keep dodging answering those which you feel show you to be wrong however.
If anyone is 'spanked' its quite clearly you.
I'm very tempted to just reply to you with one big 'stricken as non-responsive' as by your own definitions that is what 90% of what you are doing is.
Quote from: Tyr on July 13, 2009, 03:58:11 PM
...:mellow:
No, from the start it's been my argument that not just any nasty thing equals genocide.
According to the official definition however it technically is.
So far, your evidence that China is "technically" committing genocide today consists of:
(1) A Tibetan man who says that 30 years ago, when he was four, he found out that the Chinese were taken women off to prison camps to reduce the number of Tibetans;
(2) A man was beaten in a Chinese prison;
(3) an Australian whose husband was tortured to death
(4) a woman who spent a year in a labor camp after being abducted from her home
(5) China has silenced minority leaders
(6) China hasdestroyed cultural artifacts and
(7) China has seriously harmed many members [presumably of minorities]
Have I left anything out? that doesn't even add up to the second specific in the Convention, and ignores the first entirely (other than the 30-year-later recollections of a four-year-old).
QuoteLike what?
I already did this once. Maybe you will read it this time:
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 07:25:26 PM
Quotehttp://warcrimes.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/07/11/chinas-ethnic-policies-in-xinjiang-uighur-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-or-what/ (this one I can agree with quite a bit, it goes beyond the strict UN definitions of destroying parts of peoples equaling genocide and says genocide is only trying to get rid of the lot. They don't really come to this conclusion in a nicely sourced way though which is unfortunate.)
Actually, this one directly supports my position and opposed yours:
QuoteFirst, it is important to note that they do not constitute genocide. Or, at least, not in the way it is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Thanks for walking onto that land mine.
Quotehttp://www.tibetjustice.org/materials/govngo/govngo2.html (quite a bit of evidence here)
Uh, this is from 1960. We are talking about now. In any case, this one concluded that:
QuoteThe COMMITTEE did not find that there was sufficient proof of the destruction of Tibetans as a race, nation or ethnic group as such by methods that can be regarded as genocide in international law.
So, this group found that there was 'genocide' but not "technical genocide." That's another one for me.
QuoteNo its not the point. Its nothing to do with the point
.
It is directly to your point that
QuoteI very much doubt you would find any situations in the world where anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions.
I found several, and now that your point is disproven you want to argue that your point has "nothing to do with the point." Which is it?
QuoteNo its not. They both have areas where they do not overlap however the legal one covers a broader albeit fuzzier area.
Mere assertion again. Give me one cite from an authoritative source that says that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one. i have given you numerous cites to the contrary 9and used two of your to demonstrate the same thing).
QuoteNope.
I said technically the Turkish guy is right (probably unintentionally on his part) which according to the official rules he clearly is. This was the base statement.
This was arguing from a conclusion. He is not "clearly" right and in fact you have amassed no evidence (beyond a 4-year-old's conclusions) to support this statement.
QuoteWe're not in court, its a discussion, its up to you to prove me wrong.
Done. repeatedly.
QuoteAre you so narrow minded?
One must always examine all possibilities. The wording of the law clearly does state that this is true. No one in their right mind would ever claim that this is what it actually means however if we ignore reason and just go entirely off the wording that's clearly what it says.
So you base your argument on the most narrow possible construction of "part of" (an argument rejected by legal scholors like the McGill ones I cited) and accuse
me of being narrow-minded?
Ad homs are one thing, but patently absurd
ad homs are another.
QuoteQuoteSee, now this is a strawman. I never said any of those words.
:rolleyes:
Of course you haven't. Your entire argument is based around the same lines as that example however.
:rolleyes: Ah, no. Please use my actual arguments, and not strawmen. And don't try to defend your strawmen by repeating them and insisting that that
must be my argument. My argument never once used anything like the concept of 'OMG the word overwrite doesn't mean overwrite!' If you want to debate my arguments, use my arguments, not the ones you set up yourself because they are so trivially defeated.
Quote1: Its not the issue at hand
2: You'd just ignore it even if it was entirely relevant.
So it
was a dodge all along! :lmfao:
QuoteVery good. Point me.
You have used the UN Convention definition yourself. Why do you need to be pointed there again? Look in some older posts for a pointer.
QuoteYou are the one making the assertion though.
Nope. The assertion is "Technically what's going on in China is genocide."
Make your case.
QuoteI have my proof, the UN document, if you wish to challenge it then please prove how it is wrong. Don't worry, you don't need to disprove it 100%. Just beyond reasonable doubt.
I have my proof, the UN document, if you wish to challenge it then please prove how it is wrong. Don't worry, you don't need to disprove it 100%. Just beyond reasonable doubt.
QuoteVery few crimes are committed to purposefully break the law, that's just a side-effect.
Stricken as non-responsive. The law does not require intent to purposefully break the law. Look at the McGill cite for what is needed to demonstrate motive. Good luck in your endeavor.
Quote(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;
What do those fall into if not these three?
They fall into none of those groups.
QuotePoint to where in the treaty it says this please.
I don't need to point it out in the treaty. We are talking law here, and law is interpreted, not literal. Se the McGill cite I gave you.
I
Quoten broader law you may have a point but meh, what is actually happening isn't just one person being killed. How many people does there need to be for them legally to be regarded as a group? 2? 3? 100? As those are met.
See the McGill cite: "[T]he part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." I submit that you have yet to demonstrate that this standard has been met.
QuoteWow, many of the same arguments I've been using are used there and I'd never even seen that. Thanks for that Grumbler, nice to see you being constructive.
I have been constructive and using direct quotations from the works I cite all along. You have failed to do this (except to repeat quotes I have already made).
Since the "how many does it take" standard has been established, are you ready to back off from the "one man killing another is technically genocide" argument?
QuoteVery interesting that they enhance upon the horrible wording of in part. Still two issues remain here.
1: These people aren't authoritative. They know their stuff certainly and a future law may well be built on what they have decided but for now what they've said doesn't matter when purely discussing the theory.
They are quoting the ICTY! :huh: How much more authoritative can you get?
Quote2: How do they define a 'group'. That the part must be substantial narrows down things there but what defines a people remains a broad term. A family could in many ways be counted as a 'people' (and indeed in some parts of the world is in practice)
Look at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
QuoteYou've just given my citation. Theoretically this hate crime is genocide.
Please respond with a citation, not a vague statement that a citation was given.
QuoteMuch the same as I was doing. Rather than just saying 'Turks are dumb!' I noted technically the law was breached.
But still you decided to launch a argument.
You made a statement of fact that was incorrect. I pointed out that your statement was false, and we have debated it. So far, you have made no attempt to demonstrate either element of the proofs necessary (let alone proof beyond a reasonable dount) and instead have thrown up trivialities.
Keep on, if you wish.
QuoteWhich planet are you on?
Ah, the ad hom again!
QuoteYou're the one coming up with silly arguments and I keep answering them. You keep dodging answering those which you feel show you to be wrong however.
Name a single silly argument I have made. I won't ask for one as silly as the "a neo-Nazi shooting a black man is technically genocide" howler.
QuoteIf anyone is 'spanked' its quite clearly you.
Pretty clearly not.
QuoteI'm very tempted to just reply to you with one big 'stricken as non-responsive' as by your own definitions that is what 90% of what you are doing is.
Nope. I am responding directly to your statements with statements, quotations, and citations. You have completely dodged the issue of demonstrating intent, have completely dodged the issue of Uighur population increases, completely dodged the issue of Uighurs having privileged access to universities, and completely dodged repeated attempt to get you to cite authoritative sources to support your contentions.
I enjoy watching you squirm, though, so I'm not complaining.
This thread is worse than genocide.
Quote from: DGuller on July 13, 2009, 05:11:10 PM
This thread is worse than genocide.
[Siege]
You are worse than genocide![/Siege]
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2009, 04:52:49 PM
So far, your evidence that China is "technically" committing genocide today consists of:
(1) A Tibetan man who says that 30 years ago, when he was four, he found out that the Chinese were taken women off to prison camps to reduce the number of Tibetans;
(2) A man was beaten in a Chinese prison;
(3) an Australian whose husband was tortured to death
(4) a woman who spent a year in a labor camp after being abducted from her home
(5) China has silenced minority leaders
(6) China hasdestroyed cultural artifacts and
(7) China has seriously harmed many members [presumably of minorities]
Have I left anything out? that doesn't even add up to the second specific in the Convention, and ignores the first entirely (other than the 30-year-later recollections of a four-year-old).
Stricken as unresponsive.
Quote
I already did this once. Maybe you will read it this time:
None of your interpretations are valid to the point.
QuoteNo its not the point. Its nothing to do with the point
.
It is directly to your point that
QuoteI very much doubt you would find any situations in the world where anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions.
I found several, and now that your point is disproven you want to argue that your point has "nothing to do with the point." Which is it?[/quote]
Aha, that's what you're talking about.
Well you see, that's not the point. Its not even a reply to something relevant to the point.
I very much doubt there are != there in no way definatly ever exists.
It was something I was unsure of though leaning against. My hunch was wrong but meh, it was just a hunch and its not the point.
Quote
Mere assertion again. Give me one cite from an authoritative source that says that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one. i have given you numerous cites to the contrary 9and used two of your to demonstrate the same thing).
The UN document.
Yet again.
You know the link.
Quote
Done. repeatedly.
Done. Never. Bar your weirdly placed argument against my hunch however.
Quote
So you base your argument on the most narrow possible construction of "part of" (an argument rejected by legal scholors like the McGill ones I cited) and accuse me of being narrow-minded? Ad homs are one thing, but patently absurd ad homs are another.
The McGill scholars themselves agree with me.
You're just speaking blatant lies here.
Quote
:rolleyes:
Of course you haven't. Your entire argument is based around the same lines as that example however.
:rolleyes: Ah, no. Please use my actual arguments, and not strawmen. And don't try to defend your strawmen by repeating them and insisting that that
must be my argument. My argument never once used anything like the concept of 'OMG the word overwrite doesn't mean overwrite!' If you want to debate my arguments, use my arguments, not the ones you set up yourself because they are so trivially defeated.[/quote]
:lol: What arguments of mine are so trivially defeated? My argument (if you really must say I have one thats what it is. Singular) still stands, undefeated.
To the other part of it:
QuoteTechnically I don't think you know what the word "genocide" technically means.
QuoteI 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.
etc....
You're reading the UN convention and saying it doesn't say what it says.
Quote
So it was a dodge all along! :lmfao:
:blink:
err what?
Quote
You have used the UN Convention definition yourself. Why do you need to be pointed there again? Look in some older posts for a pointer.
No. Point -> me. Since you seem to be so obsessed that this is a contest I felt like using some of the language of one.
Quote
Nope. The assertion is "Technically what's going on in China is genocide."
Make your case.
I have. As I and your McGill article say technically all kinds of trivial activities are genocide.
And your case?
QuoteThey fall into none of those groups.
Killing != killing ?
Quote
I don't need to point it out in the treaty. We are talking law here, and law is interpreted, not literal. Se the McGill cite I gave you.
No we're not talking law. I should know as it was me who said it. I've no interest in law. We're talking about what it actually, ,literally says.
QuoteI have been constructive and using direct quotations from the works I cite all along. You have failed to do this (except to repeat quotes I have already made).
Because you have been selectivly quoting. Ignoring the context in which the quotes were placed so as to obscure their meaning.
Quote
Since the "how many does it take" standard has been established, are you ready to back off from the "one man killing another is technically genocide" argument?
1: Thats not an argument. Its an explanation.
2: The McGill article != the UN article. Its nice insite which helps make the UN article less silly but it hasn't changed it.
Quote
They are quoting the ICTY! :huh: How much more authoritative can you get?
The broader UN .
But thats not what I meant and you know it.
Quote
Look at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm
That answers nothing, it makes things even vaguer yet again.
Why are you even trying to refute my observations on the article? :lol:
Quote
Please respond with a citation, not a vague statement that a citation was given.
Are you trying to annoy?
QuoteThe defining characteristic which separates the crime of genocide from other ordinary crimes is the special intent, or dolus specialis, to destroy all or part of a group. As the ICTY stated in 1999 in Jelisic, "Genocide is characterised by two legal ingredients according to the terms of Article 4 of the Statute: [1] the material element of the offence, constituted by one or several acts enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 4; [2] the mens rea of the offence, consisting of the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." Theoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide if the aggressor's intent was to kill that person as part of larger plan to destroy a group.
The phrase "in whole or in part" has been the subject of much discussion. In the 2001 Krstic case, the ICTY found that the mass killing of approximately 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica constituted genocide. Reflecting on the meaning of "in part," the tribunal stated: "[T]he part must be a substantial part of that group. The aim of the Genocide Convention is to prevent the intentional destruction of entire human groups, and the part targeted must be significant enough to have an impact on the group as a whole." They concluded that while the number of individuals targeted is the "necessary and important starting point," one must also consider the number of victims in relation to the overall size of the entire group, as well as the prominence or importance of the targeted individuals within the entire group. In Krstic it was found that even though only Muslim men in one town were targeted, the number of victims was large and their significance was such that, to a certain extent, they represented the wider Bosnian Muslim community.
Quote
You made a statement of fact that was incorrect. I pointed out that your statement was false, and we have debated it. So far, you have made no attempt to demonstrate either element of the proofs necessary (let alone proof beyond a reasonable dount) and instead have thrown up trivialities.
Because it IS a triviality :lol:
Quote
Ah, the ad hom again!
Yet again you reply to everything I say as if it were a argument....
QuoteYou're the one coming up with silly arguments and I keep answering them. You keep dodging answering those which you feel show you to be wrong however.
Name a single silly argument I have made. I won't ask for one as silly as the "a neo-Nazi shooting a black man is technically genocide" howler.
QuoteIf anyone is 'spanked' its quite clearly you.
Pretty clearly not.
Quote
Nope. I am responding directly to your statements with statements, quotations, and citations. You have completely dodged the issue of demonstrating intent, have completely dodged the issue of Uighur population increases, completely dodged the issue of Uighurs having privileged access to universities, and completely dodged repeated attempt to get you to cite authoritative sources to support your contentions.
I have addressed the Uighar population increases directly numerous times. I haven't dodged itat all.
Youv'e never said anything about Uighars in universities. And I don't see how that could be at all relevant.
I have cited the authoritive source on what the UN technically defines as genocide; The UN themselves.
Quote
I enjoy watching you squirm, though, so I'm not complaining.
:blink:
Well. A few points here.
1: I'm not in any way squirming. You are being annoying and I am bored enough to reply.
2: That you somehow enjoy this 'thread worse than genocide' is really not a good argument for me to continue talking to you. If you're enjoying this then its in your interest to continue to be obstructive and not try and look for answers.
Countries are pledged to oppose genocide. Countries do not oppose China's treatment of the Uighurs. Therefore, that treatment cannot be genocide.
Quote from: Tyr on July 13, 2009, 06:23:13 PM
Stricken as unresponsive.
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
Mine wasn't a response, it was a direct statement! It is impossible for a statement made out of the blue to be "non-responsive!" Squirm, baby, squirm.
By the way, does this sum up your evidence, or would you like to add something to it?:
(1) A Tibetan man who says that 30 years ago, when he was four, he found out that the Chinese were taken women off to prison camps to reduce the number of Tibetans;
(2) A man was beaten in a Chinese prison;
(3) an Australian whose husband was tortured to death
(4) a woman who spent a year in a labor camp after being abducted from her home
(5) China has silenced minority leaders
(6) China hasdestroyed cultural artifacts and
(7) China has seriously harmed many members [presumably of minorities]
QuoteNone of your interpretations are valid to the point.
My responses quote and bold the very words of the articles. Calling conclusions not valid doesn';t invalidate them merely by your say-so. Squirm, baby, squirm.
QuoteAha, that's what you're talking about.
Well you see, that's not the point. Its not even a reply to something relevant to the point.
I very much doubt there are != there in no way definatly ever exists.
What is this supposed to mean? You said there were not uch responses, I disproved your claim, therefor the common percption of genocide is broader than the legal one, directly contrary to your central tenet the China is "technically" guilty of genocide even if not "commonly-accepted definition-guilty."
QuoteIt was something I was unsure of though leaning against. My hunch was wrong but meh, it was just a hunch and its not the point.
It is directly to the point, which is why you now try to weasel out of it!
QuoteThe UN document.
Yet again.
You know the link.
Stricken as non-responsive. I ask again: give me one cite from an authoritative source that says that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one. The UN document does not say that at all.
QuoteThe McGill scholars themselves agree with me.
I have cited specific extracts from the McGill document that support my argument. You vaguely assert that they somehow support you but provide not a single specific example. Squirm!
QuoteYou're just speaking blatant lies here.
Now you are simply engaging in personal attacks. How can my words be lies when I quote from the source, and yours be true when you refuse to quote from the source?
Quote:lol: What arguments of mine are so trivially defeated?
:huh: I never said that your arguments were trivially defeated. Defeated, yes, but by using sources and citation, not stawmen and ad homs.
QuoteMy argument (if you really must say I have one thats what it is. Singular) still stands, undefeated.
What argument is that? You have a series of assertions, but no real argument.
QuoteNo. Point -> me. Since you seem to be so obsessed that this is a contest I felt like using some of the language of one.
Oh, you are assigning yourself points of some sort. Well, good for you. Assign yourself as many as you like. You don't need to tell everyone on the board when you do it, though, as nobody cares.
QuoteI have. As I and your McGill article say technically all kinds of trivial activities are genocide.
You have not entered any credible evidence to make your case yet, and the McGill article says nothing off the sort. The word "trivial" doesn't appear in their document, nor the word "technically." So, I think the accusation "you're just speaking blatant lies here" looks like a case of the biter bit, doesn't it? Of course, you can find a quote from the document which actually says that, and proves me wrong, correct?
QuoteKilling != killing ?
Killing != killing ?
QuoteNo we're not talking law. I should know as it was me who said it. I've no interest in law. We're talking about what it actually, ,literally says.
I am unsure what the point is, here. Whether someone is "technically" guilty of a crime depends on how the law is interpreted. This is basic stuff. If you meant by "technically what's going on in China is genocide" something other than the law, then you should not have agreed to use the law as the standard. You cannot at this point suddenly decide "we're not talking law" because talking law destroys your point!
QuoteBecause you have been selectivly quoting. Ignoring the context in which the quotes were placed so as to obscure their meaning.
This is mere bleating. If you can show that i am quoting out of context, then quote the context and show me wrong, don't just whine that I am doing it.
I suspect, however, that this bleating is just an involuntary result of your squirming.
I still await any quotes at all from authoritative sources that support any of your interpretations of the Convention.
Quote2: The McGill article != the UN article. Its nice insite which helps make the UN article less silly but it hasn't changed it.
The McGill article (you should read it, really) quotes the ICTY, so that's what the law
is. ICTY pronouncements trump you unsupported assertions by so wide a margin it cannot be measured.
QuoteThe broader UN .
What is a broader UN? The current UN before it ate 4,000 pizzas?
QuoteWhy are you even trying to refute my observations on the article? :lol:
I was unaware that you had made any observations on an "article." Maybe you might want to re-make them. I generally don't refute "observations" unless they are really arguments in disguise. I just note that they are observations and not conclusions.
QuoteAre you trying to annoy?
No, I am trying to make you support your assertions. It is damned hard, but your squirming to avoid actually trying to muster a factual argument is amusing enough I will continue. Please, go ahead and cite a source, or quote the specifics from the McGill article and highlight the passages you think support your case.
QuoteYet again you reply to everything I say as if it were a argument....
There is a difference between responding to arguments and engaging in
Quotead homs
. Most people realize that debaters only engage in
ad homs when they are beaten, which is why i simply point them out and do not engage in them myself.
QuoteI have addressed the Uighar population increases directly numerous times. I haven't dodged itat all.
No, you have not engaged the problem at all. When there was a genocide in Germany, Jewish, gypsie, and Polish populations went down. When there was one in Armenia, ditto. Ditto for Rwandan Tutsis. Your argument that numbers of people go up during a genocide is self-evident crap, and yet you blindly repeat it. I suspect we know why.
Name one case of accepted homicide in which the numbers of people subjected to the genocide increased!QuoteYouv'e never said anything about Uighars in universities. And I don't see how that could be at all relevant.
You don't think China's preference for Uighars in University admissions is evidence that there isn't a plan to kill off the Uighurs? Why would a government spend education money on a people they are determined to annihilate?
QuoteI have cited the authoritive source on what the UN technically defines as genocide; The UN themselves.
The ICTY is part of the UN, and yet you reject their definition opf "part of." You cannot have it both ways. So, cite me a single authoritative source that supports your claim that the popular conception of genocide is more narrow than the legal one.
QuoteI'm not in any way squirming. You are being annoying and I am bored enough to reply.
Oh, yes you are!
1. You avoid direct answers to almost all of my direct questions (instead squirming around claiming to have "answered it elsewhere" or "the UN document answers that" when both statements are untrue).
2. You have absolutely refused to address the issue of proof motive, despite repeated requests, instead squirming around arguing that it is obvious or simply re-posting the convention.
3. At every point at which your arguments have been decisively disproven, you have squirmed around arguing that "it was just a surmise" or "it wasn't relevant"
QuoteThat you somehow enjoy this 'thread worse than genocide' is really not a good argument for me to continue talking to you. If you're enjoying this then its in your interest to continue to be obstructive and not try and look for answers.
This thread isn't "worse than genocide" for me (in fact, you are back to trivializing genocide again). I am enjoying it, and learning a thing or two. It clearly is in your interests to be obstructiionist and not look for the answer, because you are getting your ass chapped and you know perfectly well what the answers will be:
(1) The UN definition of genocide is more narrow than the popular definitions, and
(2) That while China could arguably be committing genocide by the popular conception of it, she isn't "technically" doing so (ie under the law).
Drill, baby, drill? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 02:14:56 AM
Drill, baby, drill? :unsure:
That line doesn't work unless you're a MILF :hug:.
Wow. That's alot of long ass posts.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 14, 2009, 06:25:36 AM
Wow. That's alot of long ass posts.
We get paid by the word. :P
Quote from: grumbler on July 13, 2009, 07:30:50 PM
What is this supposed to mean? You said there were not uch responses, I disproved your claim, therefor the common percption of genocide is broader than the legal one, directly contrary to your central tenet the China is "technically" guilty of genocide even if not "commonly-accepted definition-guilty."
Nope. I said I doubt that there would be many occasions where you can call genocide and it isn't covered. You leaped on this as if I'd said there in no way isn't any occasions where this can happen and it was directly relevant to the point.
That both have areas where they do not overlap does not in anyway make the common definition broader.
QuoteIt is directly to the point, which is why you now try to weasel out of it!
Of course its not.
Your point is that I don't know what I'm talking about, that technically committing genocide doesn't mean technically committing genocide. You have been proven wrong in your argument. My point stands as much as it was. Tada.
Quote
Stricken as non-responsive. I ask again: give me one cite from an authoritative source that says that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one. The UN document does not say that at all.
Yes it does.
Go back to the technicalities of killing one man please.
QuoteI have cited specific extracts from the McGill document that support my argument. You vaguely assert that they somehow support you but provide not a single specific example. Squirm!
You're the one squirming, that quote directly supports what I've been saying and goes contrary to your arguments.
QuoteNow you are simply engaging in personal attacks. How can my words be lies when I quote from the source quote the source and say it says something completely different, and yours be true when you refuse to quote from the source?quote the source and say what it says
Fixed.
Quote
:huh: I never said that your arguments were trivially defeated. Defeated, yes, but by using sources and citation, not stawmen and ad homs.
Yeah you did. Just ctrl+f for trivial on page 2 (max settings).
QuoteWhat argument is that? You have a series of assertions, but no real argument.
Thanks for agreeing with me. I didn't think that would be so easy.
QuoteYou have not entered any credible evidence to make your case yet, and the McGill article says nothing off the sort. The word "trivial" doesn't appear in their document, nor the word "technically." So, I think the accusation "you're just speaking blatant lies here" looks like a case of the biter bit, doesn't it? Of course, you can find a quote from the document which actually says that, and proves me wrong, correct?
:rolleyes:
Of course it doesn't use the exact wording, its point however is clear
Quotetheoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide
If killing one person is theoretically (in this context it means much very similar to technically) then it follows that killing two or three is also.
Quote
Killing != killing ?
That was your argument.
Killing priests doesn't count as killing members of a group.
QuoteI am unsure what the point is, here. Whether someone is "technically" guilty of a crime depends on how the law is interpreted. This is basic stuff. If you meant by "technically what's going on in China is genocide" something other than the law, then you should not have agreed to use the law as the standard. You cannot at this point suddenly decide "we're not talking law" because talking law destroys your point!
Except we never said we were using practical, real world law to begin with. The source statement you are arguing against is my technically China are comitting genocide. My entire point here was that technically they are. Not actually in practice. I never even mentioned the case being brought up in standard law as that was quite the given hence my use of technically rather than just stating it is genocide.
Quote
This is mere bleating. If you can show that i am quoting out of context, then quote the context and show me wrong, don't just whine that I am doing it.
Fine.
QuoteWTF? :huh: I used your exact argument in your exact word and you claim that I am thus making a strawman? You don't know what a strawman is. Look at the one by you I pointed out, and you will see the difference.
which is a reply to.
QuoteNow that's how you're meant to make a strawman. Taking the other person's argument to a extreme. It took my help (well...I gave it to you) but you got there.
I quite clearly wasn't saying you were making a strawman there, just doing my good deed for the day and giving you something that would be suitable for one (given your prior failed attempts)
QuoteActually, this one directly supports my position and opposed yours:
Quote
First, it is important to note that they do not constitute genocide. Or, at least, not in the way it is defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Thanks for walking onto that land mine.
So because in one point it (wrongly) states that the rest of it becomes invalid?
Amongst others.
Quote
What is a broader UN? The current UN before it ate 4,000 pizzas?
What is actually written down as standard UN regulations. Not the decisions they then reached in one case in practice.
QuoteNo, you have not engaged the problem at all. When there was a genocide in Germany, Jewish, gypsie, and Polish populations went down. When there was one in Armenia, ditto. Ditto for Rwandan Tutsis. Your argument that numbers of people go up during a genocide is self-evident crap, and yet you blindly repeat it. I suspect we know why. Name one case of accepted homicide in which the numbers of people subjected to the genocide increased!
That is not at all my argument. My argument is the absolute numbers of most people have risen over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Care to refute that?
That the numbers in those genocides decreased is irrelevant. Again that A and B are C does not make A B. China is not committing genocide, according to the exact wording of that law however it technically is.
QuoteYou don't think China's preference for Uighars in University admissions is evidence that there isn't a plan to kill off the Uighurs? Why would a government spend education money on a people they are determined to annihilate?
First time you've mentioned that.
And the answer to this is quite clear; how does it in anyway stop their attempts to destroy them?
In fact the argument that this supports if anything (very much more likely nothing) is a pro-genocide one, not anti.
QuoteT
Please provide a single authoritative source that supports your claim that the legal definition of genocide is narrower than the popular one.
er-eh. You don't turn this into a full legal talk so easily. If I wanted that I would have studied the stuff.
http://clg.portalxm.com/library/evidence.cfm?evidence_summary_id=250040 - it is unclear what counts as genocide
QuoteThe challenge is to formulate an understanding of genocide that is neither too narrow (so that major episodes of mass killing are ignored) nor too broad (so that almost anything can be described as a genocide). Researchers and policy makers have worked to clarify the notion of genocide in order to make it a legally and conceptually useful term.
Clearly it can technically be ridiculously broad.
I never said it WAS.
Just that technically you could see it that way.
QuoteI
1. You avoid direct answers to almost all of my direct questions (instead squirming around claiming to have "answered it elsewhere" or "the UN document answers that" when both statements are untrue).
:yeahright: Such as?
Quote
2. You have absolutely refused to address the issue of proof motive, despite repeated requests, instead squirming around arguing that it is obvious or simply re-posting the convention.
And how do you expect me to do that? As said people much better versed in such matters than you or I devote their lives to that.
I am not addressing that issue as I've no interest in discussing it, its not the issue you originally challenged.
Quote
3. At every point at which your arguments have been decisively disproven, you have squirmed around arguing that "it was just a surmise" or "it wasn't relevant"
To my recollection my arguments have never been disproven. If something isn't true I don't argue it.
Quote
This thread isn't "worse than genocide" for me (in fact, you are back to trivializing genocide again). I am enjoying it, and learning a thing or two.
Oh well, at least I'm teaching you and something good is coming out of it.
Quote
It clearly is in your interests to be obstructiionist and not look for the answer, because you are getting your ass chapped and you know perfectly well what the answers will be:
No I am not getting my 'ass chapped', not at all. Why are you under the impression you are somehow 'winning'? This is not even something that can be won or lost but if it were I'm on top, my point is sound lest I would not have made it.
Quote(1) The UN definition of genocide is more narrow than the popular definitions, and
(2) That while China could arguably be committing genocide by the popular conception of it, she isn't "technically" doing so (ie under the law).
The opposite is true.
(Though in the past 2 has held true on some occasions for China but in different areas to here)
TLDR :yawn:
Quote from: Tyr on July 14, 2009, 08:00:44 AM
Nope. I said I doubt that there would be many occasions where you can call genocide and it isn't covered. You leaped on this as if I'd said there in no way isn't any occasions where this can happen and it was directly relevant to the point.
Incorrect. You said "I very much doubt you would find
any situations in the world where
anyone will yell genocide but it couldn't be technically termed such under the broad UN definitions. "Any" and "anyone" are specific terms.
QuoteThat both have areas where they do not overlap does not in anyway make the common definition broader.
Then give me specific demonstrable cases where the two legal standards of the UN convention have been met and this would
not commonly be considered genocide. Remember the two standards are (according to ICTY, cited in McGill:
Quote"Genocide is characterised by two legal ingredients according to the terms of Article 4 of the Statute: [1] the material element of the offence, constituted by one or several acts enumerated in paragraph 2 of Article 4; [2] the mens rea of the offence, consisting of the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
Unless you can do so, then I have proven that there are popular conceptions of genocide that don't fall under the technical meaning, and you cannot prove the reverse. Don't just say "the Spanish case" because that has not demonstrated any men rea at all. You must show the mens rea.
QuoteYour point is that I don't know what I'm talking about, that technically committing genocide doesn't mean technically committing genocide. You have been proven wrong in your argument. My point stands as much as it was. Tada.
Again with the strawmen! :yawn: Don't tell me what my point is, especially in such a bogus fashion. Quote me to show what you think my point is. Your strawman is, of course, completely wrong.
QuoteQuoteStricken as non-responsive. I ask again: give me one cite from an authoritative source that says that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one. The UN document does not say that at all.
Yes it does.
:rolleyes: The UN convention does not even USE the term "popular definition of genocide." You cannot say that the UN Convention says that it does without citing the specific wording that you believe translates into "the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one."
QuoteYou're the one squirming, that quote directly supports what I've been saying and goes contrary to your arguments.
What quote? This seems like more vaguenes in an attempt to squirm away from the fact that you have no sources to support your argument. Give me the specific words from McGill that you believe support your contention that the legal definition of genocide is broader than the popular one.
QuoteYeah you did. Just ctrl+f for trivial on page 2 (max settings).
Nope. Isn't there. Quote me, baby.
Quote:rolleyes:
Of course it doesn't use the exact wording, its point however is clear Quotetheoretically, then, the murder of a single person could constitute an attempt at genocide
If killing one person is theoretically (in this context it means much very similar to technically) then it follows that killing two or three is also.
I notice that you drop the key rest of the sentece in your quotemining: "
if the aggressor's intent was to kill that person as part of larger plan to destroy a group."
:rolleyes:
So this statement (which I acknowledged when I quoted it) is perfectly consistent with my argument and supports your not at all. China cannot be found guilty of genocide if one man shoots another, though that one man could be found guilty of "acts of genocide" (quote from the McGill snippet you quoted) if he were acting as a part of a larger plan to commit genocide. A Nazi guard who shot a man trying to escape from Treblina would be "technically" guilty of an act of genocide even if he committed no other acts.
QuoteThat was your argument.
Nope. I never said that. Yet another strawman.
Quote
Killing priests doesn't count as killing members of a group.
Why not?
QuoteExcept we never said we were using practical, real world law to begin with. The source statement you are arguing against is my technically China are comitting genocide. My entire point here was that technically they are. Not actually in practice. I never even mentioned the case being brought up in standard law as that was quite the given hence my use of technically rather than just stating it is genocide.
I cited the UN Convention (which is "practical, real world law") and you agreed that that was the standard for "technical" genocide. Now you want to weasel out of that. Not sure what is left if you want to define "technical" as "Tyr's unsupportable private intepretation of what genocide 'technically' is."
(snipped a bunch of incoherent rambling off the topic)
QuoteQuoteNo, you have not engaged the problem at all. When there was a genocide in Germany, Jewish, gypsie, and Polish populations went down. When there was one in Armenia, ditto. Ditto for Rwandan Tutsis. Your argument that numbers of people go up during a genocide is self-evident crap, and yet you blindly repeat it. I suspect we know why. Name one case of accepted genocide in which the numbers of people subjected to the genocide increased!
That is not at all my argument. My argument is the absolute numbers of most people have risen over the 2nd half of the 20th century. Care to refute that?
Whether the "absolute numbers of most people have risen over the 2nd half of the 20th century" has nothing to do with genocide, and evades the question. Again, name one case of accepted homicide in which the numbers of people subjected to the genocide increased!
QuoteThat the numbers in those genocides decreased is irrelevant. Again that A and B are C does not make A B. China is not committing genocide, according to the exact wording of that law however it technically is.
Again, the evasions. You throw out concrete evidence as irrelevant in the face of your unsupported assertions. Simply repeating that China is "technically" committing genocide does not make the assertion stronger. Only evidence, not repetition, strengthens an assertion.
QuoteClearly it can technically be ridiculously broad.
I never said it WAS.
Just that technically you could see it that way.
It could be seen as ridiculously broad if, technically, one didn't know anything about genocide under the law. Which was my very first point.
QuoteQuote
2. You have absolutely refused to address the issue of proof motive, despite repeated requests, instead squirming around arguing that it is obvious or simply re-posting the convention.
And how do you expect me to do that? As said people much better versed in such matters than you or I devote their lives to that.
I am not addressing that issue as I've no interest in discussing it, its not the issue you originally challenged.
You cannot claim that China is "technically" (ie in accordance with the law) committing genocide and then refuse to loo at the technical requirements for committing genocide. Since you now concede that you have not even adddressed the technical requirements for guilt under genocide, I will re-assert that you technically don't know what "technical" genocide really means.
QuoteTo my recollection my arguments have never been disproven. If something isn't true I don't argue it.
You have just concede that you are "not addressing [motives for genocide] as I've no interest in discussing it." That absolutely abandons your original argument that "Technically what's going on in China is genocide" because, of course, it cannot "technically" be genocide unless "the mens rea of the offence, consisting of the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" is demonstrated.
QuoteOh well, at least I'm teaching you and something good is coming out of it.
Yes, you are teaching me that chapping your ass is as fun as chapping Paul Atreides' ass! :lol:
QuoteNo I am not getting my 'ass chapped', not at all. Why are you under the impression you are somehow 'winning'? This is not even something that can be won or lost but if it were I'm on top, my point is sound lest I would not have made it.
I would say that your abandonment of a required element of the "technical" definition of genocide is pretty clear evidence that you are in full retreat. So far, you have produced feeble evidence for the first element, to whit:
(1) A Tibetan man who says that 30 years ago, when he was four, he found out that the Chinese were taken women off to prison camps to reduce the number of Tibetans;
(2) A man was beaten in a Chinese prison;
(3) an Australian whose husband was tortured to death
(4) a woman who spent a year in a labor camp after being abducted from her home
(5) China has silenced minority leaders
(6) China has destroyed cultural artifacts and
(7) China has seriously harmed many members [presumably of minorities]
and you have abandoned the second. And there are
only two elements! :lol:
You know how some things are so terrible that their terribleness in itself is hillarious? I haven't read of of those posts, but just the fact that I have to "Page Down" four times just to scroll through a single one makes this "debate" qualify.
I vote this best thread ever so far today.
The work involved in breaking up each post to refute is impressive. I'd rather find one silly statement, change it slightly, call the person a nazi and then godwin the thread.
Or just masturbate.
Quote from: PDH on July 14, 2009, 10:03:39 AM
I vote this best thread ever so far today.
Disagree.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 14, 2009, 10:18:13 AM
The work involved in breaking up each post to refute is impressive. I'd rather find one silly statement, change it slightly, call the person a nazi and then godwin the thread.
Or just masturbate.
I wasn't aware that that was a "one or the other" choice. :Embarrass:
Have you guys figured out if Turkish has a word for irony yet? :unsure:
No, but we have seen that Jos likes to troll.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on July 14, 2009, 10:27:14 AM
Have you guys figured out if Turkish has a word for irony yet? :unsure:
Well, they have a word for wrinkly, so you'd think they had one for its opposite.
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 10:30:22 AM
No, but we have seen that Jos likes to troll.
Now now. I'm sure he believes the ridiculous things he says. It's just that he hasn't thought them through very well. He's from coal-mining country, and is thus not very clever.
Quote from: Neil on July 14, 2009, 11:06:27 AM
Now now. I'm sure he believes the ridiculous things he says. It's just that he hasn't thought them through very well. He's from coal-mining country, and is thus not very clever.
:Embarrass:
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2009, 10:30:22 AM
No, but we have seen that Jos likes to troll.
Just saw this. Is
that who "Tyr" is?
That explains a lot that was unclear to me before I had this info. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2009, 02:36:14 PM
Just saw this. Is that who "Tyr" is?
That explains a lot that was unclear to me before I had this info. :hug:
:yes:
Yep, it is Jos.
Jos who? Josquis?
Raise your hand if you read any of the Grumbler vs Tyr posts!