Darth Hoth wrote:mr friendly guy wrote:Obviously the parts about demographics and why china actually needs to limit its population flew over your head. Give yourself an A for awesomely stupid.
No, I saw your attempt at a "point". You are the only one here dense enough not to realise that it was and is a red herring, and thus continue to push it.
Wah wah wah. What you meant to say was you dodge the point because you couldn't deal with it like the chicken shit you are.
By your retarded logic a country which has been afflicated with a disaster of some sort and must impose some hardship on its citizens to deal with it would automatically be criticise for worse human rights treatment.
Hey dumbshit, since China's attempt to control its population is clearly arbitrary policy (your words), perhaps you should justify why its not a good idea given the current stage of the world's population and environmental problems already associated with industrialisation os that population. Sounds like good reasons to limit population growth. Oh wait, you are just going to hand wave it away.
And again, retard, I read all this the first time.
Sure you did.
That's why you criticise me for talking about taxes directly as opposed to an analogy of how your stupid logic works. I love you can dismiss analogies and examples as we are not directly talking about them, even though they aren't meant to be anything more illustrative of your underlying logic. Its about as stupid as creationists dismissing examples of cars changing over the years as an analogy to evolution on the grounds that evolution deals with natural things and not artificial.
If you really did realise it was meant in that context you would have attacked it in that context right away (you know, like a false analogy) rather than pretend I was comparing taxes seriously and then back track when your stupidity was evident.
Can you say "red herring"? The point in question was whether China treats its minorities better than the West does its in absolute terms, and this does jack and shit to address that. Try again.
Oh Pleeease. Absolute comparisons suffer from weakness in that a rich country would theoretically treat its minorities better simply because its richer. Or a country whose environment isn't struggling to support its growing population would obviously not have to introduce means to curb population.
Another way to do it is to see what the country does to help the minority offset the disadvantages of simply being less numerous.
Because dictatorships have never played with numbers before in history. Obviously the
Anschluss was supported by 99.73 per cent of the Austrian population, just as Hitler claimed? Try again.
So your entire argument comes down to a gross generalisation fallacy. I am impressed.
Non dictatorships also spin the truth. Should I dismiss any stats which weakens my position using the same gross generalisation.
I mentioned it as an example, not the major point you are trying to inflate it into. And yes, if one takes the example of American Indians, for instance, their lesser resistance to infections still affects their health today. Try again.
So you say its invalid to compare health statistics in Australian minorities with those in China because lesser resistance to infections in a different minority group in a different part of the world which we are not even comparing would distort the result.
At worse this is gross stupidity, at best its a red herring. Would you like me to explain to you in small words why its a red herring? Hint we aren't comparing American Indians, and assuming even if your claim is true, (that lesser resistance to infection is actually due to opportunity to develop it naturally rather than other factors which could potentially be controlled by human intervention) its a gross generalisation to assume that transcribes to the other side of the world.
Also I can hardly be accused to trying to inflate your examples (on why such comparisons are invalid) to a major point when you ONLY made 2 points, unless you count "so forth" as a third point.
And hunter-gatherer societies exposed to modern civilisation do not tend to accrue these more than the general population, as a general rule? Try again.
Even if one didn't realise that among the diseases listed, several of them can be preventable or their effects lessened with modern medicine, it doesn't take a genius to realise that the entire statement fails to look at other causes / risk factors for those diseases, other than just being a hunter gatherer.
"Western countries" cannot be taken to mean anything less than "a representative sample of" at the very least, and most any standard would take it to be the majority. It certainly does not mean "Australia, and only Australia". So, either he backpedalled hard (which he has not said, if so), or you cannot read. Try again.
The same logic can simply be applied to Sweden. In other words your position is no better than hers. Since you have subsequently acknowledge it needs more than one example I will wait for more examples.
Since China at least seems to have done something better than the outliers one would think these countries should be subjected to the same level of criticism and scrutiny China gets from the rest of the world (in regards to treatment of minority groups). Except, they don't.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.
Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Does China allow for objective checks and controls on its figures? Do they have a free press that can call the official line on its bullshit, as is done here in the West in such cases?
Except that your side made the claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. While I should not have gotten involved in that sub-debate, which was irrelevant from the start, you cannot use this as a loophole to weasel your way out of Debating Rule 6.
