Whattrees

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (7 children)

No, you hang up first. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (9 children)

I don't really understand your questions and am going to pretend they aren't relevant so...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (11 children)

I think you should talk to my friend, maybe he could explain my position to you since I can't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (13 children)

"I don't understand your questions and don't care to respond to them."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (15 children)

So, no evidence then?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Yes. Without the courts ability to determine if something is unconstitutional then it would always be up to Congress / the executive to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That presents an obvious separation of powers problem and could easily be misused by a Congress or executive branch that are hostile to certain rights.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (17 children)

So then, no evidence that they don't attempt to hide the information or ban people from holding memorial services? You could provide evidence that the government allows memorial services, or you could prove that the specific claims made in the evidence I gave you are incorrect. For example, you could show that access to the relevant wiki pages and Google searches are not blocked in China. None of this is proving a negative or an impossibly high bar to meet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Your edits do add additional context and information, but they miss the broader point

Forced marriages (sometimes called arranged marriages) are a breach of consent regardless of abuse or trafficking being involved. Having your parents set you up with a date you are free to ignore or choose to engage with is one thing, having them pick who you will marry and when without your consent is another. Regardless of culture, you don't get to violate others consent.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (19 children)

We already covered this multiple times. The claim is they can't because of government actions that you refuse to prove don't happen. Are you now backing off the other part altogether and saying the only thing you'll defend is that some Chinese people have said things about TS?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Or, better yet, increase the number of justices to at least the number of circuits we have. I would say take that number and multiply it by three so that there are 3 from each that can form a small panel to deal with smaller issues and form a larger, randomly selected, 9-11 judge panel to deal with bigger issues. It would also dramatically limit the power any one justice holds. Mandate a strict code of ethics and disclosure and put in term limits.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (21 children)

How could I accept something I haven't seen? Why would I accept something unrelated to the claim at hand?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (23 children)

My dude, it's been the same conversation this whole time. "People can't talk about TS" because the government hides information about it and bans memorial services. You've been pedantic about this for a while now but this is another level.

I like that the end of this road is just an attempt to shuffle me off to someone else who you hope could defend your position since you apparently can't. You can stop responding if you like, I have no idea why you keep responding but not providing any evidence for your claims. I'll keep asking you for evidence as long as it takes for you to either provide it, admit that you don't have a good reason to believe it, or walk away as you've always been free to do.

I know you don't care, that's been obvious this whole time even though you keep responding, but I don't for a moment believe you're too dumb to understand the connection or relevance. You've only been answering the questions you want to answer because that's easy but have pretty much always refused to answer the hard questions. You've been avoiding the questions that would highlight exactly how preposterous your claim was using identical logic to talk about other countries. You've refused to supply evidence unless I agree to accept it first. You've shifted the goalposts from is sinophobic and an anti China buzzword to has more than 0 racist underpinnings, a standard you know damn well you don't apply to other countries.

I just don't understand why you have such a strong need to protect an authoritarian government from criticism. China isn't smol bean and they don't need you to white-knight for them. They are a big-boy country who can handle criticisms of their actions. I don't care if their people faced oppression, the government doesn't get a pass for oppressing their citizens. Even if you think the criticism isn't true, I hope you can see how wrong and determental it is to call it sinophobic. It's a transparent attempt to co-opt liberal idpol to cover for the actions of a government you've decided you like. And you'll have to forgive me for not believing your "trust me bro someone else can totally prove this to you."

view more: ‹ prev next ›