this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2021
54 points (84.6% liked)
Lemmy
12823 readers
2 users here now
Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.
For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to [email protected].
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To deny something means to say something is false. Here the subject in question is 'the Uyghur genocide'.
In your link, the people you claim 'deny' it, say there is insufficient evidence to prove it - but they do believe there is sufficient evidence to prove crimes against humanity are occurring.
To say there is 'insufficient evidence to prove' a claim, is not the same as to deny it. Therefore your statement is a lie.
I take it that English is not your first language, but even so, this is textbook gaslighting. You are linking something with a false summary of its contents. And I have to say this is not the first time I have noticed people linking things with summaries contrary to their contents on this site.
Wondering how someone making a semantic mistake is textbook gaslighting lol.
Do you think Zenz is also gaslighting people btw?
yogthos: "I was using language symmetric to the parent comment as a rhetorical tool. "
I don't believe the above admission constitutes a semantic mistake.
I'm not familiar enough with the Zenz material to have an informed opinion.
You're just playing word games here. Insufficient evidence means there is no ground to claim that there is a genocide happening. This is coming from the lawyers of a country that's actively pushing the genocide narrative. If you bothered looking at my follow up comment, I provide a lot more evidence to support what I'm saying.
No, that's not a word game. Words have meanings. Redefining words to have non standard meanings is in fact a word game. Now you are trying to use 'no ground' as equal to 'insufficient'. They didn't say there was 'no' evidence, they said there was 'insufficient' evidence.
There's no point in talking to people who lie and change words to have weird meanings to support nonsense arguments. Again gaslighting is a word that springs to mind. You can't prove 'deny' is equal to saying there was 'insufficient evidence' just like you can't prove 'insufficient' is equal to 'no ground'.
It's quite obvious that the more you write, the more errors you make, so I'm done here.
Nobody is changing any meanings here or gaslighting you. Insufficient evidence literally means that they do not have evidence. You're the one changing definitions here while accusing others of lying. There has to be a positive proof of something happening, otherwise you're just asking to prove a negative. It's quite obvious that you do in fact want to play word games here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No they say there is insufficient evidence to prove genocide, I can't be bothered to repeat myself any further.
Thank you for this, I am going to take this as an admission that your initial statement was fallacious rather than a semantic error.
sure, we'll just use your private definition of the word fallacious if that makes you happy
here's what I have:
There is no fallacy here. US state department states that the evidence to support the claim does not exist. The fallacy is trying to turn that into something that it's not. We've literally gone over this for days, and the fact that you still can't understand that makes me think that we're not going to get anywhere. Have a good day.
The fallacy I refer to is your initial statement as to their denial of genocide. You stated it occurred when no such denial took place. When I say fallacious: I refer to this initial statement that you made as a rhetorical tool - in my view fallaciously.
Thank you for remaining patient and civil, also have a good day.
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.
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.