Common knowledge shouldn't need a source. Asking for one is a technique used to dissuade further discussion. If someone has evidence contrary to the common knowledge then they should be the one to produce that evidence
You're arguing that you shouldn't need a source to say that the Economist has an anti-China bias. But that's not common knowledge, and the link you provided elsewhere didn't point to an Economist article demonstrating that you either didn't read it or are acting in bad faith.
Also bringing up the Holocaust in this context is just fucking weird.
Buddy, they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA" as the heading.
Anyone who actually reads The Economist is well aware of the constant articles about China's imminent collapse. What's happening in this thread is a bunch of people who clearly don't read it very often are asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who does actually read but is hard to prove without a formal study. I can, and have, link(ed) you many articles but no single article will change your mind anyways.
If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck. There is nothing to be gotten from this exchange except to waste energy into the void of the internet.
(and you give anarchism a bad name. You're probably more similar to ancaps then you'll ever admit)
Common knowledge shouldn't need a source. Asking for one is a technique used to dissuade further discussion. If someone has evidence contrary to the common knowledge then they should be the one to produce that evidence
You're arguing that you shouldn't need a source to say that the Economist has an anti-China bias. But that's not common knowledge, and the link you provided elsewhere didn't point to an Economist article demonstrating that you either didn't read it or are acting in bad faith.
Also bringing up the Holocaust in this context is just fucking weird.
If by "common knowledge" you mean "previously agreed between the sides", sure. But that is not the case, evident by the reply thread.
If by "common knowledge" you mean "common sense", I refer you to search about the appeal to common sense fallacy. Here's a link:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...
Nothing can dissuade discussions more than fallacies.
Buddy, they literally had a magazine cover with "GREAT FALL OF CHINA" as the heading.
Anyone who actually reads The Economist is well aware of the constant articles about China's imminent collapse. What's happening in this thread is a bunch of people who clearly don't read it very often are asking for proof of something that is obvious to anyone who does actually read but is hard to prove without a formal study. I can, and have, link(ed) you many articles but no single article will change your mind anyways.
If you genuinely cared you would just google it yourself. But you don't. You are a time suck. There is nothing to be gotten from this exchange except to waste energy into the void of the internet.
(and you give anarchism a bad name. You're probably more similar to ancaps then you'll ever admit)
3 replies →