Forcibly relocating a child away from their parents is the literal definition of kidnapping. Whether or not he ended up having a good life afterwards does not change that fact.
Thank you for the clarification, I see that now. What I also see from further research is that he and his family were taken by force and have not been seen publicly since. Whether or not that would be technically considered kidnapping or abduction feels like splitting hairs.
I never said it wasn’t kidnapping or wasn’t wrong i just think there is nuance if he is really living as an ordinary citizen because i don’t support forcing a six year old to become a religious figure, disallowed friends or any semblance of a normal childhood and forced to take lifelong vows of poverty and chastity which is what the Pachen Lama would do even if they gain political and religious power by doing so despite supporting religious freedom i don’t think allowing that is part of it when it involves a child.
Both sides are allowed to suck, here. I get what you’re saying- everyone seems to have made decisions without allowing the child, who would be incapable of making such life altering decisions, to have any kind of agency. Being concerned for his welfare is empathetic.
The other posters are concerned that the CCP has a terrible human rights record, and are notorious for being untruthful. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
Sure, that’s a reasonable opinion, but that also clearly wasn’t the purpose behind his abduction. Without any evidence, it’s impossible to say whether or not he is actually living, as an ordinary citizen or otherwise. I’m not trying to say that there isn’t any nuance in the situation, but without knowing with certainty his ultimate fate and also living in his shoes, it’s impossible to say which path would be preferable.
In your first reply, you put kidnapping in quotes and made it sound exclusively beneficial. Then in your follow up, you undercut my definition of kidnapping (and to be clear, you were technically correct). I interpreted all of that as a refutation of the idea that he was kidnapped. I apologize if I misunderstood at any point.
Forcibly relocating a child away from their parents is the literal definition of kidnapping. Whether or not he ended up having a good life afterwards does not change that fact.
His parents were relocated with him.
Thank you for the clarification, I see that now. What I also see from further research is that he and his family were taken by force and have not been seen publicly since. Whether or not that would be technically considered kidnapping or abduction feels like splitting hairs.
I never said it wasn’t kidnapping or wasn’t wrong i just think there is nuance if he is really living as an ordinary citizen because i don’t support forcing a six year old to become a religious figure, disallowed friends or any semblance of a normal childhood and forced to take lifelong vows of poverty and chastity which is what the Pachen Lama would do even if they gain political and religious power by doing so despite supporting religious freedom i don’t think allowing that is part of it when it involves a child.
Both sides are allowed to suck, here. I get what you’re saying- everyone seems to have made decisions without allowing the child, who would be incapable of making such life altering decisions, to have any kind of agency. Being concerned for his welfare is empathetic.
The other posters are concerned that the CCP has a terrible human rights record, and are notorious for being untruthful. Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
There is no proof of life except word from xinnie the poo that the child is alive, they refuse to allow any external orgs to verify if it is true.
Sure, that’s a reasonable opinion, but that also clearly wasn’t the purpose behind his abduction. Without any evidence, it’s impossible to say whether or not he is actually living, as an ordinary citizen or otherwise. I’m not trying to say that there isn’t any nuance in the situation, but without knowing with certainty his ultimate fate and also living in his shoes, it’s impossible to say which path would be preferable.
In your first reply, you put kidnapping in quotes and made it sound exclusively beneficial. Then in your follow up, you undercut my definition of kidnapping (and to be clear, you were technically correct). I interpreted all of that as a refutation of the idea that he was kidnapped. I apologize if I misunderstood at any point.