UnderpantsWeevil lemmy.worldObviously, Social Murder never counts in these calculations. And all those Falun Gong organ harvest victims who I am being told definitely exist and are filling up mass graves by the millions count double.29Reply
ppineapple lemmy.ml1Hide 1 replyIs there an actual source for this? Or is it purposfully an exaduration to make libs mad?9Reply
Sandouq_Dyatha lemmy.mlLove China's half naked rabbits. Excited whenever they make an appearance.6Reply
ppineapple replylemmy.mlI watched that with subtitles on and now the work "billion" looks like it's spelt wrong.1Reply
ddeadbeef79000 lemmy.nz3Hide 3 repliesI'd have assumed at least 100m, maybe 200m, deaths for ol' commies. Let's say I'm under estimating that by a factor of, say, ten? Then it's only about even.-4Reply
ppineapple replylemmy.ml2Hide 2 repliesI mean you have showed the floor in your own argument. It's an assumption, if you don't have any real evidence then your number is almost worthless.9Reply
ddeadbeef79000 replylemmy.nz1Hide 1 replyFlaw. The flaw in my argument. That was the point. There is no providence given for those numbers, so me pulling some more out of thin air is exactly as valid.4Reply
ppineapple replylemmy.mlMy bad I didn't see the sarcasm. I agree with your point now. Flaw. The flaw in my argument. 😱😭😢😱😭😢😱😭😢😱😭 5Reply
14 replies
Obviously, Social Murder never counts in these calculations.
And all those Falun Gong organ harvest victims who I am being told definitely exist and are filling up mass graves by the millions count double.
Is there an actual source for this? Or is it purposfully an exaduration to make libs mad?
exaggeration*
Love China's half naked rabbits. Excited whenever they make an appearance.
https://youtu.be/kOnIp69r6vg
I watched that with subtitles on and now the work "billion" looks like it's spelt wrong.
Both bad we should go back to caveman 🥀
Go ahead and live in a cave then
I'd have assumed at least 100m, maybe 200m, deaths for ol' commies.
Let's say I'm under estimating that by a factor of, say, ten?
Then it's only about even.
I mean you have showed the floor in your own argument. It's an assumption, if you don't have any real evidence then your number is almost worthless.
Flaw. The flaw in my argument.
That was the point. There is no providence given for those numbers, so me pulling some more out of thin air is exactly as valid.
My bad I didn't see the sarcasm. I agree with your point now.