3 ms·

I reject all your premises. How would it be more persuasive to take a weaker position?

by xtian 5y ago

chitowneats 5y ago
You would be persuasive if you weren't a blatant CCP astroturfing account. Constantly making strange arguments that seek to distract and confuse. Obvious to anyone familiar with the tactics.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 5y ago
  You can't break HN's rules like this, regardless of how you feel about another account. This is a well-established principle that has been explained ad nauseum in the past. If you want to see those past explanations, many are at these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20-recycling%20chin&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
jmpman 5y ago
The weaker position concedes reality and let’s you build an argument on the nuances. China does have a reason to want to detain and control the population. Even the US has detained 22 Uyghurs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantana... The Uyghurs have many individuals who have joined terrorist organizations. Maybe we are looking at China’s Guantanamo. China has the ability to suppress knowledge of any abuse. The United States has Guantanamo, which was the site of many “enhanced interrogation” techniques. That torture took a long time to surface, with years of lawyers involved to get the details out. China has an interest in covering up any abuses. Of course they would. The US wouldn’t want details about torture in Guantanamo to come out either. It’s a blight which will be used against the US for hundreds of years. Now that a baseline is established, why would the “West” want to use this situation against China? Political points at home? Taiwanese separatists trying to make China look bad? Trade disputes. Sure those are all possibilities. Unfortunately, those motivations can exist, and China could still be doing something other than making shoes in those camps. They weren’t making Nikes in Gitmo either. But we aren’t talking about 22 people in a Chinese terrorist prison. The accusation is millions. And yes, maybe 22 are being tortured, and the other million are making shoes. Allow hundreds of reporters loose, and one of them is going to find the Chinese Guantanamo, and suggest that all million are subject to that level of detention. But how else do you assure the west that China is just making shoes around a tiny Chinese version of Guantanamo. That’s really the argument. Denying that China has the motivation, the means, and the ability to cover it up - those are all weak arguments. And I really am trying to help you with your arguments. If the end game is war, it’s my children who will be fighting. Your arguments need to be stronger.

I reject all your premises. How would it be more persuasive to take a weaker position?

by xtian 5y ago

I reject all your premises. How would it be more persuasive to take a weaker position?

You would be persuasive if you weren't a blatant CCP astroturfing account. Constantly making strange arguments that seek to distract and confuse. Obvious to anyone familiar with the tactics.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dang 5y ago
You can't break HN's rules like this, regardless of how you feel about another account. This is a well-established principle that has been explained ad nauseum in the past. If you want to see those past explanations, many are at these links: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=true&page=0&query=by:dang%20astroturf https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20-recycling%20chin&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

jmpman 5y ago

The weaker position concedes reality and let’s you build an argument on the nuances. China does have a reason to want to detain and control the population. Even the US has detained 22 Uyghurs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantanamo_Bay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_detainees_at_Guantana... The Uyghurs have many individuals who have joined terrorist organizations. Maybe we are looking at China’s Guantanamo. China has the ability to suppress knowledge of any abuse. The United States has Guantanamo, which was the site of many “enhanced interrogation” techniques. That torture took a long time to surface, with years of lawyers involved to get the details out. China has an interest in covering up any abuses. Of course they would. The US wouldn’t want details about torture in Guantanamo to come out either. It’s a blight which will be used against the US for hundreds of years. Now that a baseline is established, why would the “West” want to use this situation against China? Political points at home? Taiwanese separatists trying to make China look bad? Trade disputes. Sure those are all possibilities. Unfortunately, those motivations can exist, and China could still be doing something other than making shoes in those camps. They weren’t making Nikes in Gitmo either. But we aren’t talking about 22 people in a Chinese terrorist prison. The accusation is millions. And yes, maybe 22 are being tortured, and the other million are making shoes. Allow hundreds of reporters loose, and one of them is going to find the Chinese Guantanamo, and suggest that all million are subject to that level of detention. But how else do you assure the west that China is just making shoes around a tiny Chinese version of Guantanamo. That’s really the argument. Denying that China has the motivation, the means, and the ability to cover it up - those are all weak arguments. And I really am trying to help you with your arguments. If the end game is war, it’s my children who will be fighting. Your arguments need to be stronger.