After 4 days on hunger strike Maajid Nawaz secures debate about Uyghar Muslims

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

Debating what way? Multi-quotes? I don't see anything wrong with the discussion we're having. As long as we're respecting each other, I'm good with it.

Yes multi-quotes because its not helpful for a third party reader or even ourselves if we forget what we were talking about 2 quotes ago.

Take for example the very thing you start with.

Which went as such:

2u2me wrote: »

It's important that we start sending messages to the CCP. One such message is the UK telling all the residents of HK they are free to move to and live in the UK. Another is all the countries that have recently revoked their extradition bills with HK. Another is the US trade embargos, the UK looking to roll back on programs with Huawei and Canada's arrest of Meng Wanzhou.

Deleted User wrote: »

Those messages have been sent for decades. From the critical media reports, to the various independent groups throughout the US promoting China's crimes. You really think the Chinese haven't noticed the negative slant in US media/government over the last few decades? They have. It's reported in their own media, to reinforce the double standards of the West.

Not the messages that I described, no.

2u2me wrote: »

Those messages have not been sent for decades. The strategy towards China on a world stage has only recently changed. Show me trade embargos on china for the last few decades. Show me high profile Chinese being arrested.

Deleted User wrote: »

Shifting goalposts? Before we were talking about criticism and condemnation... now you're asking about arrests. Different scenarios entirely.

So I wasn't goal-post shifting. I have little interest in replying more as much of the conversation has now gone this way.

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

Yes multi-quotes because its not helpful for a third party reader or even ourselves if we forget what we were talking about 2 quotes ago.

The reader, if interested can follow quite easily. I know because I learned to post this way on boards, back on the old Politics and Humanities forums when people wanted to have long detailed conversations on topics. Those interested will read it, those not interested will wait until someone gets exasperated and stops responding.

Take for example the very thing you start with.

Which went as such:
Not the messages that I described, no.

You've been directly quoted and I respond directly to what I quote. I haven't changed your posts in any way. The reader can always see what I've responded to.. and my own response. They can decide then if my response was spot on.

The first time, could have been a misunderstanding. Sure, no problem. The second and third where I pointed out deflections, were deflections because you dismissed answering my points in favor of further making your own points.

2u2me wrote:

So I wasn't goal-post shifting. I have little interest in replying more as much of the conversation has now gone this way.

So... you're not interested in discussing the topic. Grand. I can understand that... but don't suggest that I'm doing... <whatever>.

You made your own dodgy points. Most people do. You also deflected more than once. Most people do. And yes, it's highly possible that I didn't answer you the way you wanted me to... I'm rather contrary... but you're stopping because you cant be bothered defending your own statements.

I understand completely. I've been there myself.

Yurt2

Pompeo orders the Chinese consulate in Houston to close (industrial espionage and plain old vanilla espionage). Fire brigade were called as Chinese diplomats were burning so many papers in front of the building as if the Red Army was closing in on Berlin.

Seems like a world away when Deng Xiaoping turned up to a rodeo in Texas with a ten gallon cowboy hat to broad American smiles.

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

The reader, if interested can follow quite easily. I know because I learned to post this way on boards, back on the old Politics and Humanities forums when people wanted to have long detailed conversations on topics. Those interested will read it, those not interested will wait until someone gets exasperated and stops responding.



You've been directly quoted and I respond directly to what I quote. I haven't changed your posts in any way. The reader can always see what I've responded to.. and my own response. They can decide then if my response was spot on.

The first time, could have been a misunderstanding. Sure, no problem. The second and third where I pointed out deflections, were deflections because you dismissed answering my points in favor of further making your own points.



So... you're not interested in discussing the topic. Grand. I can understand that... but don't suggest that I'm doing... <whatever>.

You made your own dodgy points. Most people do. You also deflected more than once. Most people do. And yes, it's highly possible that I didn't answer you the way you wanted me to... I'm rather contrary... but you're stopping because you cant be bothered defending your own statements.

I understand completely. I've been there myself.

I prove how I wasn't goalpost shifting in your very first point, how wrong you were, and this is what you come back with? OK then, it's not that I don't want to defend my points, it's that I'm sick of you strawmanning what I'm saying.

Let me remind you how wrong you were, as I did in my last post.

I saw it was important to send messages, such as arresting high profile chinese officials.
You said these messages were sent for decades
I said they weren't, show me
You said I wasn't talking about arrests when that's exactly what I was talking about. Do you not remember that?

Here it is again in case you forgot again.

Deleted User wrote: »

Shifting goalposts? Before we were talking about criticism and condemnation... now you're asking about arrests. Different scenarios entirely.

Dishonest and disingenuous, and you won't even admit it when called out on it. Can you blame me for not wanting to engage further?

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

Dishonest and disingenuous, and you won't even admit it when called out on it. Can you blame me for not wanting to engage further?

Blame? haha. I didn't blame you for anything. You're the one with your knickers in a twist.

Sure. Maybe I did misunderstand your first point. It happens. However, did you notice each of the deflections you made within the same post?

I pointed out two of them, with another one being rather strange answer, although possibly not an actual deflection. Did I jump up and down crying at the injustice of it all? Nope. There's a lesson there.

You're going nuts over my misunderstanding of your first point, and my saying it was a shifting of goalposts, and I could have been wrong in doing so... Possibly. It comes down to interpretation of the separate posts... but you did deflect later.

Christ. Get over yourself.

Now. Are we going to discuss the topic, or the content of your posts? Or are we going to circle the playground with this rubbish?

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

Blame? haha. I didn't blame you for anything. You're the one with your knickers in a twist.

Sure. Maybe I did misunderstand your first point. It happens. However, did you notice each of the deflections you made within the same post?

I pointed out two of them, with another one being rather strange answer, although possibly not an actual deflection. Did I jump up and down crying at the injustice of it all? Nope. There's a lesson there.

You're going nuts over my misunderstanding of your first point, and my saying it was a shifting of goalposts, and I could have been wrong in doing so... Possibly. It comes down to interpretation of the separate posts... but you did deflect later.

Christ. Get over yourself.

Now. Are we going to discuss the topic, or the content of your posts? Or are we going to circle the playground with this rubbish?

That's multi-quotes for ya. I've said it from the start it's not just unhelpful but very obfuscating. Dissecting paragraphs away from each other removes the context in which they were said, and allows the replier to add whatever meaning they so wish.

I'll try to start again.

Throughout the history of time; people have been conspiring to overthrow tyrants. From the poisonings in Greece, to the Magna Carta in the UK, to the allies working together against Hitler.
It's not something new.
Now I'm not advocating war with China, far from it, I was merely using this example to prove how sometimes things are objectively right or wrong and we as a people decide that.
If enough of the world's people decide they don't want slave labour in their supply chains(which they have done so for decades now), they will make it happen one way or another. Obviously not all interventions have been well-thought through and many leading to disastrous consequences; but many done with the right intentions. Even the Iraq war was constructed under the false pretense that they had WMD. The public were fooled for their support. Without this support the war could not have happened. Sometimes even we acted too late, for fear that we didn't know how to help or were trigger shy (e.g. Bosnian war-it wasn't until 1995 that Nato intervened that ended this ethnic cleansing)

Surely it can be proven how our strategy(The west - not Irelands)towards China has changed in recent times. It has become more aggressive. There used to be this mood of , let's let China play their sillly games; eventually they will fall in line with the rest of the international community.

So I'm not trying to say we should go to war with China.

Guantanamo bay I personally spoke out about quite a bit, and the numbers there have been reducing from 450 to about 50 people in the last few years. They receive better healthcare and food than your average American at present.

The scope of the concentration camps or re-education camps has been increasingly dramatically in the last few years as satellite images show in Xinjiang.

The Americans admit to Guantanamo, they allow t.v. crews inside to film it. The Chinese deny everything.

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

That's multi-quotes for ya. I've said it from the start it's not just unhelpful but very obfuscating. Dissecting paragraphs away from each other removes the context in which they were said, and allows the replier to add whatever meaning they so wish.

I disagree. Naturally. It helps to deal with the actual points being made, rather than picking and choosing. But sure... I'll stop taking your post apart, and dealing with each point individually.

I'll try to start again.

Well... you could start by answering the questions I posed to you...

I've little interest in discussing this topic, if this is simply you rehashing your opinions without consideration to the points I made earlier, which were ignored. (both posts) [since I've seen little to indicate that you would answer further questions, either.]

2u2me

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. Naturally. It helps to deal with the actual points being made, rather than picking and choosing. But sure... I'll stop taking your post apart, and dealing with each point individually.
Well... you could start by answering the questions I posed to you...

Because when you did that you lost what I meant and strawmanned my argument numerous times. The first example I gave you above I thought was enough but most of the conversation went that way.

You make the point that there's a difference between a death camp and a concentration camp. I would say there's little difference when people are being harvested for their organs on demand or being sterilized. I'd say that difference shrinks to nill.

Your quote

"so the majority aren't being killed"

so you admit there is a minority that are being killed?

You repeatedly said I am trying to justify a war. I'm doing no such thing, only using historical examples to show how we've come together throughout history to stop tyrants like the CCP. Not just through war but things like trade embargos, excluding them from sports, the international community, boycotting their goods etc.. etc.. all of which is well within our power.
Now that we know this slave labour is in our supply chains I wonder how we will react.
To say I'm trying to justify a war is not just incorrect but an obfuscation.

I'm not defending their use of ethnic cleansing, the sterilization initiatives, or their execution of "terrorists",

The US supposedly represents a higher moral position, yes?

I'd argue that there is a hypocrisy to western culture when it comes to human rights.

The US don't engage in these things and yet whenever this subject is broached your concern seems to be more pointing out the deficits of the US system. Not only in this thread but across multiple threads. I've even seen you argue against "Western" medicine. If you don't defend these things, how does it make you feel living in a society where such things take place? Are you happy with it?

Rubbish. Germany wasn't seeking to destroy humanity.

Another strawman. My point was that we were risking our civilization by engaging in war with Germany. The allies and especially the UK.

Your last example with regards to the cultural habits in the Amazon show that you are. You're placing your value system above theirs. No different to the missionaries who came to Africa, or the Americas pushing their morals on to another people regardless of their own desires. Essentially, you're approving of ethnic cleansing as long as it's your cultural values that are applied.

And you are deflecting once more. What is ethnic cleansing? Consider your first example about the Amazon.

Another strawman. Just because I say we should be free to criticize, to boycott, to isolate, to shun, to denigrate the Jivaroan peoples doesn't mean I'm in favour of killing them or 'ethnic cleansing'.

Edit: Just to add, "we" didn't go to war with them. Ireland remained relatively neutral.

Another falsehood. The we I was talking about was the west. The west has a shared understanding of human rights.

Nope. I'd argue the practicalities of our current reality. Can the lives of those being persecuted be improved? is the CCP or PRC likely to bow to international pressure? What would arise from the ashes of a defeated China? How much damage to the world, would an outraged China perform?

I think the more pertient question is who cares what China thinks if they are harvesting people for their organs; people who they have forced into 're education' camps because of the way that they think. If you think the US is doing something similar please start a thread about it.

2u2me

Ben Shapiro sums it up pretty well in under 3 mins on JR podcast.

"When people said "never again" they were full of crap; that's just not true" -Ben Shapiro"

The first use of the phrase "never again" in the context of the Holocaust was in April 1945 when newly liberated survivors at Buchenwald concentration camp displayed it in various languages on handmade signs. Cultural studies scholars Diana I. Popescu and Tanja Schult write that there was initially a distinction between political prisoners, who invoked "never again" as part of their fight against fascism, and Jewish survivors, whose imperative was to "never forget" their murdered relatives and destroyed communities. They write that the distinction has been blurred in the subsequent decades as the Holocaust was universalised. According to the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 because "the international community vowed never again to allow" the atrocities of World War II, and the Genocide Convention was adopted the same year.

Where's Antifa when you really need them.

I must admit I found the beginning of your post funny. You're against multi-quote because it loses what you meant, but when I quote you, I take whole points. There' an obvious place where points being made are separate to each other. I also included your logic prior/following the point. Nothing was cut out.

Now, look at what you did with mine here. You extracted single sentences.

What is up with you? I'm serious. You moan about being misunderstood, or my misrepresentation of your point but you ignore your own repeated dishonesty. And yes, I am calling it dishonest, because you're applying double standards to your behavior vs mine.

---

I actually had started answering your post. Got halfway down and realised that you were only repeating your own points all over again, and deflecting away from mine. You didn't actually answer even one of my questions. Instead, you throw out claims of strawman arguments, or pose your own questions instead.

Strawmanning is not used the way you think, and claims of it certainly should be backed up by more than your opinion. (notice I never used it? Because we were both throwing out opinions)

I'm done. I've tried to be patient and respect you, but this is ridiculous. You're not looking for a discussion. You're looking to spout your opinions repeatedly. Actually, you are very Chinese after all. :rolleyes: