So it’s called a strawman when you disagree with someone and your reason for thinking something is good is different from the reason someone else thinks something is bad?
I think strawberries are good because they are sweet. You think strawberries are bad because the little seeds bother you.
Have I committed a strawman because I didn’t talk about the little seeds when I said strawberries are good?
That’s not what i said. I don’t think you actually addressed what i said. I only said this post is a strawman, because OP is trying to frame it like most criticisms of China are based on infrastructure as opposed to other things.
The fact that you don’t like how my argument reflected yours does not mean it isn’t valid.
Exactly right. I don’t have a problem with the argument. It is valid. China has better infrastructure than the US, but that’s not what the “China bad” discourse is about. It’s really more of ignoratio elenchi.
And post isn’t about debunking your racist disinformation. This post is about talking about good things.
Then it should’ve been more specific in its title instead of reducing the whole discourse to a point that most people dont debate on. The post’s title makes it seem like it has solved the whole “China bad argument” when there’such more to it than infrastructure. I have already conceded to you that i agree with the post. China invests properly and is economically far ahead of its contemporaries.
I think you broadly understand what I’m saying but you just want to keep arguing because you don’t want to reach common ground with a “dumb stupid liberal”.
I have explicitly stated that you are wrong and explained why. Now you’re trying to psychoanalyze the fact that I’m not moving from my position for vague social pressure related reasons?
I said in another comment that if OP was making this post as a response to another person where they were talking about infrastructure, then this post is fine. But if they’re generalizing “China bad” comments and the only response is “infrastructure”, then it’s a straw man, because arguments about infrastructure development doesn’t make up the bulk of “China bad” discourse.
To make it more clear, let me give an example. If i say China is “bad” because it censors media, and you respond by saying “ok, but look at the difference between infrastructure in the US and China—China’s is far better”, you have strawmanned my position because i wasn’t talking about infrastructure.
This post strawmans the whole “China bad” discourse because it makes it seem like it’s about infrastructure. I hope this makes more sense.
There’s no need for you to tediously restate your position. I understand where you’re coming from. You cannot enlighten me to your perspective as a way of making your argument seem less stupid to me.
So it’s called a strawman when you disagree with someone and your reason for thinking something is good is different from the reason someone else thinks something is bad?
I think strawberries are good because they are sweet. You think strawberries are bad because the little seeds bother you.
Have I committed a strawman because I didn’t talk about the little seeds when I said strawberries are good?
That’s not what i said. I don’t think you actually addressed what i said. I only said this post is a strawman, because OP is trying to frame it like most criticisms of China are based on infrastructure as opposed to other things.
This argument is completely fine otherwise
Thinking people are only allowed to respond to what you say on your own terms is baby brained
Just like I’m trying to frame most criticisms of strawberries as based on flavor.
The fact that you don’t like how my argument reflected yours does not mean it isn’t valid.
Exactly right. I don’t have a problem with the argument. It is valid. China has better infrastructure than the US, but that’s not what the “China bad” discourse is about. It’s really more of ignoratio elenchi.
And post isn’t about debunking your racist disinformation. This post is about talking about good things.
Are you under the impression that you’re only allowed to talk about bad things when discussing whether something is good or bad?
Then it should’ve been more specific in its title instead of reducing the whole discourse to a point that most people dont debate on. The post’s title makes it seem like it has solved the whole “China bad argument” when there’such more to it than infrastructure. I have already conceded to you that i agree with the post. China invests properly and is economically far ahead of its contemporaries.
I think you broadly understand what I’m saying but you just want to keep arguing because you don’t want to reach common ground with a “dumb stupid liberal”.
I have explicitly stated that you are wrong and explained why. Now you’re trying to psychoanalyze the fact that I’m not moving from my position for vague social pressure related reasons?
You have the brain of a baby.
Sorry? I don’t follow.
I said in another comment that if OP was making this post as a response to another person where they were talking about infrastructure, then this post is fine. But if they’re generalizing “China bad” comments and the only response is “infrastructure”, then it’s a straw man, because arguments about infrastructure development doesn’t make up the bulk of “China bad” discourse.
To make it more clear, let me give an example. If i say China is “bad” because it censors media, and you respond by saying “ok, but look at the difference between infrastructure in the US and China—China’s is far better”, you have strawmanned my position because i wasn’t talking about infrastructure.
This post strawmans the whole “China bad” discourse because it makes it seem like it’s about infrastructure. I hope this makes more sense.
There’s no need for you to tediously restate your position. I understand where you’re coming from. You cannot enlighten me to your perspective as a way of making your argument seem less stupid to me.