And we’re again back to a source that itself doesn’t even claim genocide that sites such amazing people as Guantanamo bay torturer and Amerikan intelligence asset Rushan Abbas and a fee more than all site German evangelical on a self proclaimed “mission from god to destroy China” Adrian Zenz. And honestly I’m just more willing to take the OIC, UN and the first hand delegations at their word that there isn’t a genocide than you (especially considering you yourself are a genocide denier).
The genocide of Russians by Ukrainians. You also keep dodging White genocide in South Africa and the genocide of white people across America and Europe. All of these have been called genocide so to call any of these into question is by your logic to be a genocide denier.
No it’s called being consistent. I understand you prefer being a hypocrite but personally I prefer holding consistent values. If something lacks conclusive evidence it is perfectly reasonable to be sceptical and question it.
You’re presenting two extreme views when in actuality you can look at the evidence and the people making the claims and know there’s way more choices then those two options you presented so it’s a false dichotomy.
Anyways since you’ve proven my point I think this conversation is done.
Yes you can look at evidence and have questions exactly. Questioning things not backed by conclusive evidence is the reasonable normal thing to do. Thank you for agreeing even if by accident.
And we’re again back to a source that itself doesn’t even claim genocide that sites such amazing people as Guantanamo bay torturer and Amerikan intelligence asset Rushan Abbas and a fee more than all site German evangelical on a self proclaimed “mission from god to destroy China” Adrian Zenz. And honestly I’m just more willing to take the OIC, UN and the first hand delegations at their word that there isn’t a genocide than you (especially considering you yourself are a genocide denier).
Which ones am I denying?
The genocide of Russians by Ukrainians. You also keep dodging White genocide in South Africa and the genocide of white people across America and Europe. All of these have been called genocide so to call any of these into question is by your logic to be a genocide denier.
That’s because that’s transparent whataboutisms and they look foolish.
We’ve been over this.
It’s not though? Either it’s ok to question all claims without conclusive evidence or you must accept them all.
That’s a false dichotomy.
No it’s called being consistent. I understand you prefer being a hypocrite but personally I prefer holding consistent values. If something lacks conclusive evidence it is perfectly reasonable to be sceptical and question it.
You’re presenting two extreme views when in actuality you can look at the evidence and the people making the claims and know there’s way more choices then those two options you presented so it’s a false dichotomy.
Anyways since you’ve proven my point I think this conversation is done.
Yes you can look at evidence and have questions exactly. Questioning things not backed by conclusive evidence is the reasonable normal thing to do. Thank you for agreeing even if by accident.