I took your advice and did a quick google search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Kong_Qingdong_incident
> In January 2012, Ken Wai, a Hong Kong passenger, asked a Mainland Chinese woman and her child to stop eating on an MTR subway in Mandarin Chinese on a train bound for Mong Kok East Station.[15] Eating and drinking is prohibited on the MTR. While the kid stopped eating, the mother reacted with hostility towards Wai.[16] This infuriated Mr. Wai, who began to shout at them passionately in Cantonese... On 18 January Mr. Wai conducted an interview with Xinhua News Agency on the issue and expressed his anger.[16] (by calling Hong Kongers dogs)
It seems like it was not Hong Kongers that started this but a Beijing professor that called people "dogs". And the incident was pretty clear-cut on who was wrong. Although, the old man could have handled the situation better, the professor calling people "dogs" was inappropriate.
Were you genuinely misinformed? May I ask where did you get your information?
And I don't really care who started it. Two wrongs does not make one right.
I am not condoning the word "locust" either. All these words are disgusting, and have no place in a civilized discussion.
A Google search and one Wikipedia article do not give you the whole story.
Please refrain from jumping to conclusions and spreading partial truth, unless you intend to misinform and mislead.
2) When I find the truth, you say I am saying its the partial truth.
So basically, what I am getting, is that you are right because you said so.
> you intend to misinform and mislead
You made an accusation and I refuted it. The person misleading others is not me as I like you to recall that you are the one accusing Hong Kong of "starting it".
Please provide some evidence to back your claim instead of just saying you are Chinese (I am assuming not from Hong Kong). That means absolutely nothing in the context of the argument.
> That incident was not even relevant here
It is 100% relevant.
> That incident was not even relevant here, it specifically did not start the name calling from either side.
So where's your proof? Again, you are saying the same thing as your last, which is, I know better because I am Chinese.
> You clearly know next to nothing about the situation.
Ad hominem
> unless you intend to misinform and mislead
Accusation with no proof. Just name calling.
Let's end this argument, because it clearly is going nowhere.
It's in response to Hongkongers calling mainlanders "locusts". IOW, Hongkongers started it. You might want to know the whole story before deciding to pick a side.