Hopechange wins Nobel Peace Prize.

There's some tension with Uyghurs, yes. But making such broad generalizations won't help your case.

 

I wasn't generalizing. Tibetans and Inner Mongolians would beg you to differ. You, on the other hand, are trivializing matters greatly. "Some" tensions? Demanding loyalty to the state is one thing. Ethnic cleansing is a whole different matter.

A note on the tensions, it used to be that the Chinese wouldn't dare go that strict on the Uighurs. Things changed the moment Chinese started getting a sizeable population and economical advantage in there.

 

Tensions? There is a reason these people run from the place.

 

Maybe that's the reason of the tensions, don't you think? No government will answer kindly to such insulting claims. No wonder you guys get labeled as terrorists. Shit happens, discrimination and xenophobia are in human's nature, but you have to negotiate.

 

What? Which insults? You mean the Chinese government is cleaning us out because we told them they were cleaning us out? Then why would we claim they were cleaning us out in the first place?

The last argument made no sense whatsoever. We aren't the aggressors here.

 

I don't even know what to say about a bunch of people cussing me out for saying they're prejudiced against Muslims and then suggesting bombing Mecca (as well as various other places) based on religious grounds.

There have been discussions on this forum before where people have stated that Islam is a dangerous and harmful religion, however. And it's not the first time that mass genociding Muslims has been suggested.

 

To be fair, he's promoting mass genociding of all religion. He just started with Mecca.

 

Instead of trying to reach an agreement with the Chinese you guys are committing acts of terror and using smear tactics to make the Chinese look like nazis or whatever. Now that's what I call ridiculous.

Uyghur problem for Obama and Medvedev
Let's NOT meet the Uighurs
Terrorism in China

 

I disagree. There are varying degrees of "don't want". When facing several options, none of which are something you want, wouldn't you choose the one that you "don't want" the least? Of course, one can always choose not to choose, but if - for example - one's life is being threatened, I think this can be considered a non-option.

There will of course always exist exceptional individuals with great integrity, choosing rather to withstand torture, death, humiliation, or whatever other method their opressor has devised to make them comply with their wishes, but would you expect this behaviour from everyone on the planet? Would you let their lack of this rare quality condemn them in the case of said (although quite hypothetical and absurd) situation of the street preacher that would be put to death without trial?

Shades of grey etc...

 

Actually, Darkfool suggested Mecca. I merely said to include Rome, Jerusalem, and whatever holy city one can think of. It's hardly prejudiced against any particular religion. I didn't suggest so much as committing religious genocide, merely suggesting to revoke all the outstanding rights and privledges religious institutions currently enjoy and making it illegal to display such things in a public setting. I'll admit, the death setence without trial may be a bit harsh (it was obviously an asburd joke not to be taken serious). A fine similar to disturbance of the peace would probably be better.

Pretty much. An extreme example would be if you kill someone because another person "forced" you to by threatening to kill your family if you didn't. You're still guilty of murder. That's called a shitty lose-lose situation.

This is an idealistic opinion, but I don't think the quality is all that rare, it's just that society doesn't demand it from the people and the legal system doesn't enforce it in the courts.

 

Now this is weird. In one of the links, this guy is shown as a terrorist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolkun_Isa

The guy is an activist. He does nothing but protest and speak up. Yet he's classified as a terrorist? Just goes to show you how Chinese view "terrorism". Did you say negotiation?

By the way, you seem to awfully defensive about the Chinese? Do you have Chinese origins by any chance? If you have, coupled with the way you present your arguments, you will have given me good reason to end this tangent of the conversation - as there will be no point to the conversation.

I should also add that if you had any intention of emphatizing/understanding the situation, your first words would not accuse me of generalizing and exaggerating ("some" tensions?), but would ask me why I think the way I do. Like I ask a Kurd or an Armenian if the topic ever comes up. Check Turkish History to see why I'd need to ask them - what you're doing is very like the argument saying "Nah, the Armenians shouldn't have dealt with the Russians, good riddance". The event might not be a genocide by definition, but the whole Armenian nation wasn't completely comprised of Russian auxilaries and there was no point reallocating all of them to southern provinces, especially when 80000 soldiers died because of improper logistics in a single night in Sarikamis. And it is still an atrocity.

 

Well, if you think about it that way, the conversation is already pointless. As an Uyghur, you will always be prejudiced against China.

It was funny hearing about an 'ethnic cleansing' and a 'genocide' from you, but please let's try to not blow this out of proportion.

 

Yet I base my arguments on solid ground. Ethnicity is only an issue if a person is making it one. Some nationalism can take reason from even the most logical.

Umm... Funny?

I say let's end this discussion, or this'll get just worse. I want to be able to speak of Arcanum without... having complicated feelings, let's say.

 

OK, let's end it.

One last question, though, if I may. Have you actually been to Xinjiang (as a teen/adult)?

 

As a child and as a teen. Also, my mother annualy visits the place, as we still have my mother's relatives there (luckily for her part of the family, her father was a significant person in the Urumqi's Medical University -forgot the full name-, which spared him torture in the Cultural Revolution - he did have to bear with the screams of other people in the night though).

The most noticable thing I saw was that the security of the airport in/near Kashgar (the traditional capital) was much heavily guarded than even the airport in Urumqi (the current capital of Xinjiang). By the way, my father hails from Kashgar.

I also remember the living conditions to be quite sub-standard.

I've also been to Turfan and most of Xinjiang, and Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong in China by the way. The Chinese cities seemed to be doing quite well.

Anyways, let us mark the end of this discussion then. Agree to disagree, no hard feelings.

 

Actually, I have no major quarrel with other religions. I dislike the idea that the Catholic Church may have books locked away that will never be viewed by public eye, but given that that's more rumor than fact, I hold no issue. I disagree with you quite readily, actuallly, Orintil. I think people should have the right to worship freely. However, your right to worship does not include comming genocide, terrorist acts, or anything else relating to war/torture, upon others for a differing faith, belief, or culture system.

 

The fact that you seemingly think I was serious just goes to show I was right. People just don't seem to be able to take religion lightly. It turns otherwise decent sarcastic folks into rational conversationalists.

Please reread specifically the numerous times I stated *public* displays. You're not allowed to stand in the street yelling and cursing at passerbys. It's considered disturbance of the peace and is illegal. I see no reason why that if someone does the exact same thing but with their personal dogma rather than curse words (sometimes both!) should it somehow be different.
Oh, dear, your rationality has infected my demented mind. Must...indulge...in...Foamy...

 

I live in a country in which, sadly, whenever a discussion about euthanasia/abortion/in vitro/death penalty emerges, arguments of not only ethical/logical/scientifical but also religious nature are taken into acount by the members of the parliament, and eventually those religious arguments more of less affect the way how the particular subject is being dealed with here. Neither of those things fall under "genocide, terrorist acts, or anything else relating to war/torture, upon others for a differing faith, belief, or culture system", yet it is a situation in which religion takes the floor while it should hold it's peace.