Secondly, when I make my point (“my moral code does not allow me to accept that certain means, especially those based on cruelty, can be justified by any number of material results measured by any metrics”) you keep rebutting it by pointing me back to those very result-metrics. It means I feel we are just talking past each other in a failed dialogue on that point, meaning the only constructive response is to just “agree to disagree” on baselines regarding it.

Again, there is zero evidence that cruelty is state policy in China. Meanwhile, if you think that society can completely eliminate individual acts of cruelty and other human vices then you're once again engaging in fantastical thinking.

I suspect my comments are frustrating you (?) because, on the one hand you are championing a political system and inherently accepting that its expediencies are acceptable, whereas I am arguing from a moral standpoint which explicitly considers many of those expediencies to be unacceptable, irrespective of the political ends.

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, and your criticism is rooted in idealistic thinking that ignores the realities of the world we live in.

You have made many strident criticisms of many political systems and governments, many of which i concur with. I just also include the Chinese government in those criticisms along with the others.

Nobody is arguing that the system in China is perfect. What's being argued is that it is a system that actually works in the interest of the majority, and it's a preferable real world alternative to what the west is doing. It's a tangible improvement.

Conversely, I think all governmental implementations which think they can get away with sidestepping those moral baselines in the name of expedience are destined for corruption and collapse, while leaving a trail of cruelty in their wake.

Again, if you bothered to learn a bit of history you'd see that the general principles of the Chinese model has proven to be very stable historically. China has enjoyed centuries long stretches of peaceful existence, while the west has been drenched in blood and violence. I urge you to actually spend the time to learn about China instead of regurgitating demagogy.

[–] rowanthorpe@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (4 children)

...cruelty is state policy in China.

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 day ago

To clarify for any pseudo intellectual who happens to be reading:

" is true for you utter idiot" is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

" is true because you're an utter idiot" is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

Glad to be of service.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)