3 ms·

That comment threw no insults and made a bunch of easily verifiable claims.

mmooss 4mo ago
"lazy Americans" > easily verifiable claims. I disagree that they are verifiable, not being factual statements. But if you think so, then verify them. I'm not going around HN verifying the claims in everyone else's comments.
- nixon_why69 4mo ago
  If you can't be bothered to verify claims then don't cast doubt. The EV claims are the most trivially verifiable, the rest go down from there. Some of them have more nuance but you did not engage with that. Don't worry, reality will catch up eventually, you being convinced is strictly optional.
  - mmooss 4mo ago
    > If you can't be bothered to verify claims then don't cast doubt. It's the opposite: If you post claims then others will absolutely cast doubt and it's up to you to verify them. No way other people should do it for you (that's also very inefficient - you already know how to verify them and also it's redundant for everyone else to do it). Even better, you'll see people cite their claims before anyone asks. In any serious field, you don't make claims and then require others to verify them. Imagine a scientist or courtroom lawyer doing that. It's up to you and if you don't, then it's nonsense by default.
    - nixon_why69 4mo ago
      It's a comment section, and those are common sense observations about the Chinese economy. Like I said, you don't need to be convinced, it will continue happening whether you agree or not.
      - mmooss 4mo ago
        They're not commonsense - most disagree with what I know - and just saying they are is just stuff. Saying it will continue to happen isn't evidence. Just saying things doesn't mean anything. > It's a comment section Not just any comment section; HN plays by different rules. Look at how others interact. Just spouting claims doesn't get you far.
- reinitctxoffset 4mo ago
  I didn't mean to call you lazy, I hadn't seen any evidence that you see Beijing and Moscow as undifferentiated other, which is the habit of thought I did call lazy. You are awfully contrarian for someone whose response to an argument is "that's not proven to my satisfaction" and when asked what citations would satisfy you replies "it's not my job to define what citations I will and won't admit". You do you king, but it's not exactly the incandescent childlike wonder of the perpetual student's mind. I'll wager your mind was made up before we started having a conversation.
  - mmooss 4mo ago
    > when asked what citations would satisfy you replies "it's not my job to define what citations I will and won't admit". That exchange never happened - maybe you're thinking of someone else? > I'll wager your mind was made up You can see how empty the Sinophile side is: they will talk about anything, say anything, but provide actual substance as a basis for their claims.
    - nixon_why69 4mo ago
      Having a side is a habit of the uncurious.
      - mmooss 4mo ago
        I agree, and there's clearly a Sinophile side here: I wish people would engage in a substantive discussion instead of attacking others, this time as 'uncurious'. As I've pointed out, anything but engage on substance.

"lazy Americans" > easily verifiable claims. I disagree that they are verifiable, not being factual statements. But if you think so, then verify them. I'm not going around HN verifying the claims in everyone else's comments.

nixon_why69 4mo ago
If you can't be bothered to verify claims then don't cast doubt. The EV claims are the most trivially verifiable, the rest go down from there. Some of them have more nuance but you did not engage with that. Don't worry, reality will catch up eventually, you being convinced is strictly optional.
- mmooss 4mo ago
  > If you can't be bothered to verify claims then don't cast doubt. It's the opposite: If you post claims then others will absolutely cast doubt and it's up to you to verify them. No way other people should do it for you (that's also very inefficient - you already know how to verify them and also it's redundant for everyone else to do it). Even better, you'll see people cite their claims before anyone asks. In any serious field, you don't make claims and then require others to verify them. Imagine a scientist or courtroom lawyer doing that. It's up to you and if you don't, then it's nonsense by default.
  - nixon_why69 4mo ago
    It's a comment section, and those are common sense observations about the Chinese economy. Like I said, you don't need to be convinced, it will continue happening whether you agree or not.
    - mmooss 4mo ago
      They're not commonsense - most disagree with what I know - and just saying they are is just stuff. Saying it will continue to happen isn't evidence. Just saying things doesn't mean anything. > It's a comment section Not just any comment section; HN plays by different rules. Look at how others interact. Just spouting claims doesn't get you far.
reinitctxoffset 4mo ago
I didn't mean to call you lazy, I hadn't seen any evidence that you see Beijing and Moscow as undifferentiated other, which is the habit of thought I did call lazy. You are awfully contrarian for someone whose response to an argument is "that's not proven to my satisfaction" and when asked what citations would satisfy you replies "it's not my job to define what citations I will and won't admit". You do you king, but it's not exactly the incandescent childlike wonder of the perpetual student's mind. I'll wager your mind was made up before we started having a conversation.
- mmooss 4mo ago
  > when asked what citations would satisfy you replies "it's not my job to define what citations I will and won't admit". That exchange never happened - maybe you're thinking of someone else? > I'll wager your mind was made up You can see how empty the Sinophile side is: they will talk about anything, say anything, but provide actual substance as a basis for their claims.
  - nixon_why69 4mo ago
    Having a side is a habit of the uncurious.
    - mmooss 4mo ago
      I agree, and there's clearly a Sinophile side here: I wish people would engage in a substantive discussion instead of attacking others, this time as 'uncurious'. As I've pointed out, anything but engage on substance.