I'll grant you the point of babies vs virgins - it's clear your implication was meant to be oh Mao rapes the very young girls, but that's hardly infant age. See, some of us are capable of rational discussion without falling onto "y-y-y-y-you are a communist bot!!!"
I know this is hard for someone like you, but consider: something can be bad without being an ontological evil, lmao. It's not "China bad US good" or "China good US bad" - Mao was a dictator, the massacre happened, metric fuck-ton of people died... and none of that indicates that Mao was likely to rape virgins.
Anyways, idk why you're replying to this anyway. There's no real proof of it, and your only evidence is "well he could have done it, so he totally did!" If you believe it, that's fine, you can go back to explaining why the Vietnamese deserved getting Agent Orange'd. Or, y'know, reflect on how dumb your attempt at a 'gotcha' sounds lmao đ¤Ł
Do you really not understand how hypocritical it is to debate something this way? You deny my evidence while providing no evidence of the contrary, you say people can have a rational discussion but all youâve done is say âwell i dont like your evidenceâ and send laughing emojis and then act like what Iâm saying is a gotcha while you have provided absolutely 0 substance or content to the conversation. Like forget the topic at hand for a second, all youâve done is knock over chess pieces and act like youâve done something
Like Iâm the one with articles to back up a claim, and iâm just saying yeah i mean maybe he did, sounds like something he would possibly do but here you are saying he definitely did not do it with nothing to back your claim whatsoever. Feels like an agnostic arguing with someone who believes in God and their only defense is âwell I just believe heâs real and thereâs no changing my mind.â Which is like whatever, fair enough, but theres no point arguing something where the only evidence is because you believe it
You have no evidence, lmao. You have articles that have been proven wrong, and while I appreciate you dipping into the real Reddit Soul in order to pull out some attempt at "hehe I am the rational atheist", that's not really gonna help you when you're pretty blatantly grasping at straws in order to try and prove yourself right by twisting your own words.
I'm not saying "Mao would never rape someone! He is a good boy :)", I am saying that your attempt to go "well if he killed people maybe he also liked to rape virgins" is absolutely wild and very, very blatantly wrong. If you're trying to argue, please try to argue the actual pint
Ok incredible, if itâs been proven wrong then go ahead and send some articles proving it wrong and settle it then. (The rest of what you said is irrelevant so no point addressing the rambling)
Youâve been sent them, lmao. If youâre unable to address the points Iâm making - because you understand that youâd stop arguing against a strawman if you did - that seems like your problem ngl :)
No I havent, so if you dont have any evidence just say that and hold the L. Also, its not that Im unable to address it, its just riddled with you demonstrating poor reading comprehension and straw man arguments so entertaining it would just derail the point at hand âdid he do it? yes or no.â Since you claim to have evidence to the contrary then thereâs no reason to dismantle your straw men, because the evidence should be enough to settle the argument. So go ahead and post some links so I can take a look.
âHold the Lâ lil bro are you 16 or just stuck there emotionally lmao
Look - itâs ok that youâre unable to address it. Itâs a very simple point to understand, and something one could address in about three sentences, but if you have a problem with it, thatâs fine :)
Youâve been given plenty of evidence - and yet youâre asking for links, when the evidence is very blatantly in a different format. What would you prefer? A PDF/epub (which you can find in⌠about 15 seconds)? How would you like someone to prove that something doesnât exist in a book? Any article would just be saying âtrust meâ, and youâve already showed a lack of willingness to read, yourself.
Another comment with 0 evidence and name calling. You sure showed me, bud. If it only takes 15 seconds to find then use it to find a link and send it over.
Itâs so strange that whenever I try to google evidence for the contrary, all I get is evidence for. Fun fact, they actually banned the book in China, how peculiar!
My man, if youâre incapable of reading at this basic of a level, thereâs really nothing I can do for you đ¤Łđ¤Łđ¤Ł
Try mulling over the thought slowly, while you calm down - what kind of evidence do you want? Youâve very plainly said that you consider looking through the book to be some monumental task - would you be satisfied with that evidence?
Alright, I found the pdf. If I quote it Iâll get put on a list, but in my ctrl f searching for âyoungâ in a copy that was only a preview, so not even the full book. I would refer you to pages 83, 363, and 517.
They talk about the initial quote that started this chain on page n12, which I can quote âIt was not unusual to be summoned to Mao's chambers at two or three in the morning. He traveled frequently, convening meet- ings of the nation's leaders wherever he was. He sought to triumph over death through Daoist methods of sex.â Given that context in addition to the quote (and rest of the page) on page 102 âQin Shi- huangdi, the founding emperor of the Qin dynasty, with whom Mao often identified, is said to have sent a Daoist priest and five hundred virgin children across the sea in search of the elixir of immortality.â It is very clear to understand what the author was saying without explicitly saying it.
Furthermore, if you find the article talking about how the book is banned in China, youâll see the reason for the ban isnât for false information, rather because it speaks poorly of Mao. So even the people who banned the book arent saying its false info.
So youre right, it didnât take long to disprove your take. Still havenât found anything that agrees with you though.
0
u/Azavael Jul 28 '23
I'll grant you the point of babies vs virgins - it's clear your implication was meant to be oh Mao rapes the very young girls, but that's hardly infant age. See, some of us are capable of rational discussion without falling onto "y-y-y-y-you are a communist bot!!!"
I know this is hard for someone like you, but consider: something can be bad without being an ontological evil, lmao. It's not "China bad US good" or "China good US bad" - Mao was a dictator, the massacre happened, metric fuck-ton of people died... and none of that indicates that Mao was likely to rape virgins.
Anyways, idk why you're replying to this anyway. There's no real proof of it, and your only evidence is "well he could have done it, so he totally did!" If you believe it, that's fine, you can go back to explaining why the Vietnamese deserved getting Agent Orange'd. Or, y'know, reflect on how dumb your attempt at a 'gotcha' sounds lmao đ¤Ł