FediTips (@[email protected])
mstdn.social
Content warning: Please don't use Lemmy :( Human rights, oppression

Please don’t put any hate comments against the developers of lemmy or against the person who posted this.

I am also unhappy about what the main lemmy instance is doing.

What are your thoughts?

  • gaurniad_angel@lemmy.ml
    44·
    3 years ago

    So your denials and continued accusations of word games, and insistence on weird definitions for ‘insufficient’ have forced me to respond.

    Insufficient means not enough, the evidence they have of crimes against humanity is not enough evidence to prove genocide. They are not denying genocide is taking place, they are saying that have insufficient evidence to prove it. They are not saying they have no evidence, they are saying the evidence they do have is not enough.

    Insufficient evidence literally means that they do not have evidence.

    This is false. Your statement here is mistaken. I don’t really give you the benefit of the doubt, I think this is a malicious misinterpretation.

    Look up the definitions of the words.

    Here’s a large section from the article, it shows how your summary that they denied genocide is taking place is a lie:

    The cautious conclusions of State Department lawyers do not constitute a judgment that genocide did not occur in Xinjiang but reflects the difficulties of proving genocide, which involves the destruction “in whole or in part” of a group of people based on their national, religious, racial, or ethnic identity, in a court of law. It also points to a disconnect between public perception of the crime of genocide and the legal definition in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which has long been interpreted by State Department lawyers to require intent to bring about the physical and biological destruction of a group.

    “Genocide is difficult to prove in court,” said Richard Dicker, an expert on international justice at Human Rights Watch.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      73·
      3 years ago

      You just keep repeating the same thing over and over here. You’re also conveniently ignoring my follow up comment that provides a lot more context and sources other than US such as the recent report from Italy stating that the narrative is politically motivated.

      • gaurniad_angel@lemmy.ml
        32·
        3 years ago

        I am very sorry, but your follow up comments have nothing to do with your false claim in your summary that the state department lawyers denied genocide is or has taken place. There is nothing convenient about it.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          62·
          3 years ago

          The follow up comment clearly shows that the claims of genocide are not credible. Meanwhile, US state department is hardly a neutral actor here. My only point in the original comment was that even they, despite their clear desire to call it a genocide, are not able to do so. You’re working overtime to not understand this.

          • gaurniad_angel@lemmy.ml
            43·
            3 years ago

            My only point in the original comment was that even they, despite their clear desire to call it a genocide, are not able to do so.

            No, your only point in your original comment was that they denied that it was genocide. Now you are saying that you claimed ‘they are not able to claim it is genocide’. This also a lie, because you did not say that. You lied, saying they denied it was genocide. You can go back and read your comment again if you like.

            They say they are unable to prove it is genocide, not that they are unable to claim it is genocide.

            It’s not too hard to understand any of this.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              63·
              3 years ago

              You just keep repeating yourself like a broken record here. And you’re right it really shouldn’t be hard for you to understand what I said, yet you choose not to. Claims of genocide without proof are meaningless. Have a good day.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              63·
              3 years ago

              I was using language symmetric to the parent comment as a rhetorical tool. US state department very clearly states that there is insufficient evidence for claims of genocide. That’s denying the claim being made.

              They say they are unable to prove it is genocide, not that they are unable to claim it is genocide.

              Not being able to prove it is genocide literally means that they’re unable to claim that it is. It’s absolutely surreal that you keep twisting that into something other than what it is. Claims of genocide need positive proof.

              • gaurniad_angel@lemmy.ml
                1·
                3 years ago

                No they say there is insufficient evidence to prove genocide, I can’t be bothered to repeat myself any further.

                I was using language symmetric to the parent comment as a rhetorical tool.

                Thank you for this, I am going to take this as an admission that your initial statement was fallacious rather than a semantic error.

                  • gaurniad_angel@lemmy.ml
                    1·
                    3 years ago

                    here’s what I have:

                     adj.
Containing or based on a fallacy.
adj.
Tending to mislead; deceptive.
Pertaining to, of the nature of, or embodying fallacy; deceptively erroneous or misleading.
            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              54·
              3 years ago

              In order to say something is happening you have to be able to prove it. This is the only thing that shouldn’t be hard to udnerstand here.