Hacker News Reader

Comment by trasz | Hacker News Reader

The studies already exist, though. I don't think any of them questions the fact that monasteries benefited greatly from serfdom/slavery; the dispute is about how horrible it was for the rest of the population. (Random Wikipedia quote: "Tibetan communist Phuntso Wangye recalled his anger at seeing freshly severed human ears hanging from the gate of the county headquarters in Damshung north of Lhasa in 1945".)

View on HN

Random Wikipedia quotes aren’t verifiable, and thus aren’t valid sources in this context.

But to keep in the spirit of debate, Communist sources would be suspect, as would Tibetan ones. Neutral bystanders or third parties have less incentive to misrepresent events and context to put their side in a better light, like Communist and Tibetans would both naturally be suspected to be doing.

Do you have any third party sources for these time periods and events?

Of course I do, and had you bothered to read the linked article you'd find them.

Wikipedia’s sources are Wikipedia’s. I’m asking you to post some specific links here in the discussion so we can discuss them. We already discussed your last batch of Wikipedia sources and found them inconclusive and lacking. If you’d like to discuss specific links, then link me to the specific original source and we can look at them. I am open to being convinced, but only you know what sources you’re finding so convincing. Simply saying you already posted them is a dodge because we already discussed the Wikipedia page you linked, but you don’t say which sources in that article you are referring to. Please clarify so we can all be on the same page together.

I don’t follow the discussion between the plural you; the discussion that happened here on HN was that I provided sources, and you ignored them.

You posted one inconclusive Wikipedia article, and no further links to primary sources, by my count. And you would have me find this lack of adequate sourcing acceptable. I don’t. Despite your attempt, bare minimum that it was, I remain unconvinced. If you wanted to appeal to your sources, link one. Wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia; it is not a primary source. This concept is subtle to some people. I did not mean to be confusing in that regard.

Am I missing anything?

Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It only makes the thread even worse. Please avoid tedious tit-for-tats also.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I can only do as well as the debate and my debate partners allow. No offense intended; I am trying to ascertain the truth claims and justifications of my partner’s statements of fact and their position on the topic. I didn’t choose this topic, I just have standards of sourcing that may be unfamiliar to others. That’s why I asked for sources before continuing. I seek to figure out why we disagree, and what we disagree about and why. I can’t comment on why none were provided beyond the initial Wikipedia page, which is inconclusive on the topic of this discussion, making it a uniquely unhelpful source to use in a discussion of this ambiguity.

Would you please stop posting in the flamewar style to HN? It only makes the thread even worse. Please avoid tedious tit-for-tats also.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'll try.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com