gaurniad_angel

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.

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.

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.

https://lemmy.ml/post/78808/comment/75214

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The rules can change rapidly and leaving a permanent record of your activity can be a liability, you can see many examples of this from history. e.g. the Khmer Rouge, or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

more recent examples: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/30/big-tech-firms-may-be-handing-hong-kong-user-data-to-china

About three million must be regarded as middle peasants, while barely two million consist of kulaks, rich peasants, grain profiteers... Ruthless war on the kulaks! Death to them! ... [Class struggle entails] ruthless suppression of the kulaks, those bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers, who batten on famine.

What income level would put you in line for having to hide in the modern era? Seems the old gaurd wanted to go after the top 2% to 3% rather than the top 5% -6%.

you had to be there I guess