Atheists destroy churches, attack the faithful

The Big Dog said:
"Rights advocates say the crackdown against underground churches and religious practice that's not state-sanctioned is less about religious practice itself and more about the Chinese Communist Party making sure it remains firmly in control of civil society."

How about the crackdown that IS state sanctioned?

Atheists disgust me.
Click to expand...


People who only read what they want out of a text disgust me.
It appears to be impossible for TBD to understand that the relative pronoun "that" in the clause you've highlighted refers to the "religious practice" that's not state-sanctioned and not to any crackdown that's not state-sanctioned?!
Does TBD also imagine that the US crackdown on the Branch Davidians (Wikipedia) was an Atheist or Marxist attack against religion?
 
'Nother jump rope song

The Big Dog said:
Jeezuzz peezus
In the sky,
Why'd you do that
In my eye?

Jeezuss peezuss
In the sky,
I sure am glad that
Cows don't fly.
Click to expand...

'Cept it don' go that way. Go like this:

Little Cock Robin
Sitting on a pole,
Niddle noddle goes his head,
POOP! goes his hole.
 
Atheist masters turn Muslims into slave laborerers

China has defied an international outcry against the vast internment program in Xinjiang, which holds Muslims and forces them to renounce religious piety and pledge loyalty to the party. The emerging labor program underlines the government’s determination to continue operating the camps despite calls from United Nations human rights officials, the United States and other governments to close them.
Click to expand...

Truly Appalling
 
The Big Dog said:
China has defied an international outcry against the vast internment program in Xinjiang, which holds Muslims and forces them to renounce religious piety and pledge loyalty to the party. The emerging labor program underlines the government’s determination to continue operating the camps despite calls from United Nations human rights officials, the United States and other governments to close them.
Click to expand...
Truly Appalling
Click to expand...

What was that loyalty pledge to, again? Appalling indeed that you should repeatedly fail to parse the ideologies involved. As for demonizing collectives, guess who is guilty of doing what he himself denounces. Oopsie.:o
 
The Big Dog said:
oh dear, whataboutism?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

So you don't know anything about whataboutism.

Example of whataboutism:

Sure, X is bad. But what about Y?

Example of legitimate comparison:

Sure X is bad. Why is X more important that Y?

The former is an attempt to distract. The later invites you to compare the two and retains the focus on the subject X.
 
The Big Dog said:
oh dear, whataboutism?

Seriously?
Click to expand...

No. I do notice that you are very preoccupied with human rights abuse in China. Nobody can be preoccupied with all human rights abuses in the world, so you have taken a pick. Fine!

Now I ask you: On what grounds do you insist that everybody else must also pick this particular instance as their preoccupation? You do this even to the point of accusing people of condoning the abuses, if they choose a different focus.

Hans
 
Doubt said:
So you don't know anything about whataboutism.

Example of whataboutism:

Sure, X is bad. But what about Y?

Example of legitimate comparison:

Sure X is bad. Why is X more important that Y?

The former is an attempt to distract. The later invites you to compare the two and retains the focus on the subject X.
Click to expand...

wrong, totally and utterly wrong.

Further, the line that starts "sure" contains ANOTHER blatant fallacy

sad.
 
"Sure X is bad. Why is X more important that Y?"

As we discussed, also whataboutism, and contains another fallacy that is quite obvious to intrepid critical thinkers.

Oh well, I guessed it served its purpose, because no one even bothered to pretend that they were addressing the article about slave labor.

day that ends in y for human rights apologists...
 
The Big Dog said:
"Sure X is bad. Why is X more important that Y?"

As we discussed, also whataboutism, and contains another fallacy that is quite obvious to intrepid critical thinkers.

Oh well, I guessed it served its purpose, because no one even bothered to pretend that they were addressing the article about slave labor.

day that ends in y for human rights apologists...
Click to expand...

Ah, you can't explain it.

No worries.

Hans
 
Doubt said:
Pretty much. I like the phantom unnamed fallacy though. I think it theme music.
Click to expand...

strawman, thought it was utterly obvious.

I am gratified to see that no one has even demeaned themselves by trying to defend the absurd claim that it was whataboutism.
 
Last edited:
Premise: Putting people under certain conditions, such as forced labor, because of their beliefs, or forcing them to renounce said beliefs in order to gain freedom/better circumstances, is bad and a violation of their innate rights as human beings.
 
The Big Dog said:
strawman, thought it was utterly obvious.

I am gratified to see that no one has even demeaned themselves by trying to defend the absurd claim that it was whataboutism.
Click to expand...

Ah, no. There was no actual argument attacked there. Before you can have a strawman you must first have an argument to deviate from while claiming to address the argument made by the other party.

You claimed somebody did whataboutism but that was false. I provided the actual structure of somebody else's argument.

Get thee to a critical thinking class.
 
Doubt said:
Ah, no. There was no actual argument attacked there. Before you can have a strawman you must first have an argument to deviate from while claiming to address the argument made by the other party.

You claimed somebody did whataboutism but that was false. I provided the actual structure of somebody else's argument.

Get thee to a critical thinking class.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that'll happen!!!!:):D:p:p:p:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom