Tiananmen Square

[_Mister Scratch]

The comparison may not be the absolutely best and most illuminating one out there, but I think it successfully illustrates my point, which is that you were engaging in hyperbole when you claimed that the Chinese government "ordered a massacre."

Not according to any serious sources, including the one I used, that I'm aware of.

What are you talking about? Let me say this again for you, slowly: you were engaging in hyperbole. Of course none of your sources is going to say that!

Deng and Li Peng ordered the military to use deadly force on thousands of peaceful student demonstrators.[/qtueo]

That is not what your source says, Loran! Is your reading comprehension impaired? It says he authorized the use of lethal force. The difference is *not* one of semantics; it is a difference of intent and culpability. C'mon, anyone who is familiar with MMM apologetics knows exactly what I am talking about here.

I would describe such use of force as a "massacre" You are playing semantic games, and your point is meaningless.

No, Loran, and given your poor writing abilities, I would advise you against trying to make arguments on semantic grounds.

[_Coggins7]

Deng and Li ordered the use of lethal force. The victims were defenseless, peaceful students. Some four to six thousand were killed.

Therefore, it logically follows, that Deng Xiao Ping and Li Peng ordered a massacre ("The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly") and knew perfectly well, given the numbers in Tienanmen, that the death toll would likely be high.

Your semantic game is of course in that you wish to quibble, apparently, over the meaning of the term "lethal force" and the term "massacre" and, apparently, are trying to establish that "lethal force" against unarmed masses of civilians has nuanced shades of meaning that would preclude the use of the term "massacre" regarding the slaughter of unarmed civilians.

This is rather too convoluted to hash out logically, since your argument does not partake of that particular intellectual discipline. And in any case, your arguing with me for no other reason than to be arguing with me. This thread is closed, as far as I'm concerned.

[_Mister Scratch]

Deng and Li ordered the use of lethal force.

No, Loran. Where in any of your sources does it say this this was *ordered*??? It says it was "approved." Surely someone so well-versed in political philosophy can understand this very simple difference.

Therefore, it logically follows, that Deng Xiao Ping and Li Peng ordered a massacre ("The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly") and knew perfectly well, given the numbers in Tienanmen, that the death toll would likely be high.

Have you not said before that you consider yourself to be a political philosopher of the highest, "most serious" order? Would you also claim that Harry S. Truman "ordered a massacre"? Or Nixon? Or George W. Bush?

Your semantic game is of course in that you wish to quibble, apparently, over the meaning of the term "lethal force" and the term "massacre"

No, I am quibbling over the terms "ordered" versus "approved." In politics (as I assume you know?), the two are often worlds apart. Are you sure that you really intend your posts to be taken as being "intellectually serious", Loran? These are very, very basic principles---the sort of thing that high schoolers involved in student government are acutely aware of... You cannot be this naïve... Or can you?

and, apparently, are trying to establish that "lethal force" against unarmed masses of civilians has nuanced shades of meaning that would preclude the use of the term "massacre" regarding the slaughter of unarmed civilians.

This is rather too convoluted to hash out logically,

I'm glad that you admit that real-world issue such as this fly right past your Neanderthal head.

since your argument does not partake of that particular intellectual discipline.

You cannot possibly even understand the concept of "intellectual discipline," since you do not hold a college degree.

And in any case, your arguing with me for no other reason than to be arguing with me. This thread is closed, as far as I'm concerned.

Good riddance to more of your bad rubbish. by the way: who are the "other folks" who are nodding their heads in agreement with your posts? Please, do tell!