• Tabooki2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    2 days ago

    And yours is based on???

    Are you saying you don’t believe in the treatment of wighurs

    • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Are you saying you don’t believe in the white genocide going on in south africa right now?

      Are you saying you don’t believe that Hamas beheaded 40 babies?

      It’s spelled “Uyghurs”, by the way

        • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          It’s only a non-answer if you have a sub-canine ability to process patterns

          Do you deny that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction and had to be toppled?

        • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          The burden of proof is on you. I can only provide context for the claims that have been raised. If you look at the sources they’re all western

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            22 hours ago

            Technically the white papers linked come from China, typically, but these are presented alongside western sources as the dominant viewpoint.

          • captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            22 hours ago

            The burden of proof is on you.

            The burden of proof should be on you since you claimed https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang as a source?

            Also, talking about burden of proof here makes not sense. You provided a source, one can either trust it or not. And the question was if you belived it to be true or not (which I assume you do since you linked it. I haven’t read it).

            • KimBongUn420@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 hours ago

              The burden of proof is on you since you claim: “There is a genocide happening in Xinjiang”. I can’t prove a negative. The proof your type (western propagandized libs) usually provides are western sources, which have been debunked by providing context (in the link I provided)

              • captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I’m not Tabooki2, I’m only here for the intresting dicussions and different view points and arguments. What stuck with me was the Tabooki2 asked if you believed what was stated in your link to which you responded with “the burden of proof is on you”.

                When a claim is stated, the burden of proof is on that person. My argument here was that you claimed a source, and if proof has to be provided the claimer should have that burden. But that is a strange take since a a source is a proof and one can chose to trust it (or not).

                So in the end, I was confused about your comment and tought you asked Tabooki2 to verify your source for you, not the original claim about “the treatment of wighurs”. I appologise for the confusion on my part.

              • captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I did, and they had to call an ambulance. I don’t think I will be able to walk again. /s

                I won’t read the whole thing, I don’t have that time. I read the ingress and (a summary to get a basic understand of the message meant to be convyed).

                Now what? I never disputed nor did I affirm anything.