Quake3World

Images of an emaciated elderly woman have rattled Chinese social media users, after papers in the southern Guangxi region reported that the 92-year-old had been kept in a pigsty by her son and daughter-in-law "for years".
The woman, whose surname is Yang, lived in a padlocked 10-sq-metre cell and slept on a wooden bench, says Southern Morning Post.
Suggestions that she may have been there voluntarily have sparked debate about whether anyone will be held to account.
In recent months, online users have been up in arms over a number of cases of where elderly people have seemingly been neglected by their children.
'How could you?'
Yang's conditions were exposed by a local woman, "Pretty Nan Gualan", who posted a video of Yang sitting by a cage door on the popular video service Miaopai.
"How could you make her live in here?" she asked of the woman's captors, "And not give her food?"
The video has been watched more than 1.8m times since it was uploaded on 6 January, and many viewers have taken to popular microblog Sina Weibo to voice their outrage.
Tens of thousands posted using the hashtag #92YearOldKeptInPigsty, calling Yang's son and daughter-in-law "beasts" and "scum" and calling for some form of "retribution".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38597464

what's your personal take on this story, Lars?

Make some sense, Memphis. Right now you're looking kind of racist again

End of test

Memphis wrote:

Eraser wrote:Make some sense, Memphis. Right now you're looking kind of racist again

satire is for smart people

Care to explain for us that aren't on the same godlike levels of intellect as you are?

Memphis wrote:

Eraser wrote:Make some sense, Memphis. Right now you're looking kind of racist again

satire is for smart people

Satire is usually funny or at the very least amusing.

obsidian wrote:Satire is usually funny or at the very least amusing.

welcome to Q3W, new guy

Memphis wrote:

Eraser wrote:Care to explain for us that aren't on the same godlike levels of intellect as you are?

Yeah, ur dumb

You cheated. You edited your post

seremtan wrote:what's your personal take on this story, Lars?

I don't believe everything I read in the news, I'm sure you don't either

so you're admitting to posting fake news at Q3W?

dude

i support lars's thread efforts so i'm posting !

seremtan wrote:so you're admitting to posting fake news at Q3W?

dude

*sigh* I'm admitting to no such thing, I have no idea if its true or false, you asked me my take on it and I gave it to you. If you want to find out if its true go searching for the article, I gave you the link to the post at BBC News, what do you think? Do you think that BBC News posts fake news on their web sites?

lars63 wrote:*sigh* I'm admitting to no such thing, I have no idea if its true or faults, you asked me my take on it and I gave it to you. If you want to find out if its true go searching for the article, I gave you the link to the post at BBC News, what do you think? Do you think that BBC News posts fake news on their web sites?

to be honest, i just wanted to know your opinion on the story itself, given that you didn't provide it in the OP

as for the BBC posting fake news: can you define "fake"? can anyone? because all media is inevitably biased due to the need to tell a story (which involves making decisions about what to include and what to leave out), the line between 'real' and 'fake' is pretty vague

for example, after the downfall of Saddam, a BBC correspondent called Nick Robinson stood outside Downing St and said that Bush/Blair's 'strategy' had been 'vindicated' due it taking only 3 weeks to overthrow Saddam's regime (not the months/years of quagmire some people were predicting). but isn't this just editorialising? and given that there were no WMDs and no really credible evidence that there were any, didn't that really demonstrate that the Bush/Blair 'strategy' was *not* vindicated. and furthermore in what way is the policy of making aggressive war against other countries 'vindicated'? this is an example of what *real* 'fake news' looks like

seremtan wrote:

lars63 wrote:*sigh* I'm admitting to no such thing, I have no idea if its true or false, you asked me my take on it and I gave it to you. If you want to find out if its true go searching for the article, I gave you the link to the post at BBC News, what do you think? Do you think that BBC News posts fake news on their web sites?

to be honest, i just wanted to know your opinion on the story itself, given that you didn't provide it in the OP

as for the BBC posting fake news: can you define "fake"? can anyone? because all media is inevitably biased due to the need to tell a story (which involves making decisions about what to include and what to leave out), the line between 'real' and 'fake' is pretty vague

for example, after the downfall of Saddam, a BBC correspondent called Nick Robinson stood outside Downing St and said that Bush/Blair's 'strategy' had been 'vindicated' due it taking only 3 weeks to overthrow Saddam's regime (not the months/years of quagmire some people were predicting). but isn't this just editorialising? and given that there were no WMDs and no really credible evidence that there were any, didn't that really demonstrate that the Bush/Blair 'strategy' was *not* vindicated. and furthermore in what way is the policy of making aggressive war against other countries 'vindicated'? this is an example of what *real* 'fake news' looks like

All very true and you will get no argument from me, sorry if I misunderstood what you were asking, yesterday was a bad day for Lars so I guess I was looking for any thing I could find to jump on.
My take on the story is that it is a pitiful thing to treat old people like that or any people for that matter. In that article there was a hint that they wanted to be in there, that isn't a excuse, there is something wrong with a person I think who wants to be locked up, there should have been other help given, don't know the help that is available in that country so maybe there wasn't any other help available. A sad story.