That is a very causatively specific thing you are claiming I said, which I didn’t. Again.
Your comments are frustrating to me because they’re born out of ignorance. You have not spent the time to actually understand how Chinese system works
…if you bothered to learn a bit of history you’d see that…
I urge you to actually spend the time to learn about China instead of regurgitating demagogy.
That’s making quite a few assumptions and accusations about someone you’ve never met and know nothing about. Have you genuinely considered that many of those assumptions and accusations might be wrong? And no, I won’t (and shouldn’t) fall into the same “courtier’s reply” trap by itemising first-hand experiences, interactions, etc here because A) that would be inappropriate and should be irrelevant to a healthy discussion-focused dialogue - free of such “appeal to authority” logical fallacies, B) as stated before it is clear you keep arguing past what I’m actually saying - to how you reinterpret what I am saying, and C) after working through your false assumptions, false accusations, ad hominems, and misreading it seems you didn’t actually say anything else for me to reply to.
I made statements about various global systems of government, in general, and when you redirected and contextualised every statement to being consistently only about China, at first I did you the debater’s courtesy of addressing that, but unfortunately that courtesy has a limit, especially when you don’t reciprocate. As much as people displaying Said’s concept of Orientalism irreparably bias and taint global-context discussions, Occidentalism is also harmful for the same reason. Both of them often veer discussions into two-sided, one-dimensional (and often zero-sum) arguments to be “won”, rather than multivariable, multidimensional, fallibilistic and constructive debates. I have only been here for the latter but you are either only able or only willing to participate in the prior, so I say again it makes sense to just agree to disagree and move on. Anything else is just browbeating.
Lastly, I would have thought those ad hominems alone should be delete-worthy due to rule 1, no?
@rowanthorpe@yogthos Yogthos is a doomscrolling troll I wouldn’t engage in conversation with. The points that Yogthos makes are based on some idealistic viewpoint while also arguing with anyone that responds that it is they, in fact, who are idealizing.
I will not respond to anything Yogthos writes back.
That is a very causatively specific thing you are claiming I said, which I didn’t. Again.
I’m pointing out that unless you’re claiming that to be the case then you don’t actually have any meaningful point to make here. Thanks for confirming that you didn’t have any actual point to make.
Have you genuinely considered that many of those assumptions and accusations might be wrong?
I can only go by the statements you make here which are either factually wrong or devoid of all meaning.
I made statements about various global systems of government, in general, and when you redirected and contextualised every statement to being consistently only about China, at first I did you the debater’s courtesy of addressing that, but unfortunately that courtesy has a limit, especially when you don’t reciprocate.
What I did is point out that your statements in regards to China were wrong. Instead of admitting being wrong, you just keep doubling down on doing sophistry here and acting injured. You’re not fooling anybody.
Lastly, I would have thought those ad hominems alone should be delete-worthy due to rule 1, no?
Perhaps you should learn what the term means if before using it. Ad hominem would be me trying to discredit what you’re saying based on your attacks on personal qualities. I’ve explicitly addressed your arguments in my replies on their own merits.
So you confirm that we agree our most recent comments don’t constitute a constructive discourse (we agree for our own differing reasons, but that’s beside the point). So rather than itemising the hows and whys of disagreeing with your latest comment I will instead just wish you well and say goodbye. If you reply and don’t hear back from me, please know that is not out of concession or rudeness on my part, just that at some a discussion needs to stop (especially when all agree it is not constructive).
That is a very causatively specific thing you are claiming I said, which I didn’t. Again.
That’s making quite a few assumptions and accusations about someone you’ve never met and know nothing about. Have you genuinely considered that many of those assumptions and accusations might be wrong? And no, I won’t (and shouldn’t) fall into the same “courtier’s reply” trap by itemising first-hand experiences, interactions, etc here because A) that would be inappropriate and should be irrelevant to a healthy discussion-focused dialogue - free of such “appeal to authority” logical fallacies, B) as stated before it is clear you keep arguing past what I’m actually saying - to how you reinterpret what I am saying, and C) after working through your false assumptions, false accusations, ad hominems, and misreading it seems you didn’t actually say anything else for me to reply to.
I made statements about various global systems of government, in general, and when you redirected and contextualised every statement to being consistently only about China, at first I did you the debater’s courtesy of addressing that, but unfortunately that courtesy has a limit, especially when you don’t reciprocate. As much as people displaying Said’s concept of Orientalism irreparably bias and taint global-context discussions, Occidentalism is also harmful for the same reason. Both of them often veer discussions into two-sided, one-dimensional (and often zero-sum) arguments to be “won”, rather than multivariable, multidimensional, fallibilistic and constructive debates. I have only been here for the latter but you are either only able or only willing to participate in the prior, so I say again it makes sense to just agree to disagree and move on. Anything else is just browbeating.
Lastly, I would have thought those ad hominems alone should be delete-worthy due to rule 1, no?
@rowanthorpe @yogthos Yogthos is a doomscrolling troll I wouldn’t engage in conversation with. The points that Yogthos makes are based on some idealistic viewpoint while also arguing with anyone that responds that it is they, in fact, who are idealizing.
I will not respond to anything Yogthos writes back.
I’m pointing out that unless you’re claiming that to be the case then you don’t actually have any meaningful point to make here. Thanks for confirming that you didn’t have any actual point to make.
I can only go by the statements you make here which are either factually wrong or devoid of all meaning.
What I did is point out that your statements in regards to China were wrong. Instead of admitting being wrong, you just keep doubling down on doing sophistry here and acting injured. You’re not fooling anybody.
Perhaps you should learn what the term means if before using it. Ad hominem would be me trying to discredit what you’re saying based on your attacks on personal qualities. I’ve explicitly addressed your arguments in my replies on their own merits.
To clarify for any pseudo intellectual who happens to be reading:
“<X> is true for <reason> you utter idiot” is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
“<X> is true because you’re an utter idiot” is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
Glad to be of service.
So you confirm that we agree our most recent comments don’t constitute a constructive discourse (we agree for our own differing reasons, but that’s beside the point). So rather than itemising the hows and whys of disagreeing with your latest comment I will instead just wish you well and say goodbye. If you reply and don’t hear back from me, please know that is not out of concession or rudeness on my part, just that at some a discussion needs to stop (especially when all agree it is not constructive).