I don't "ply my trade in the margins and shadows afforded by vagueness". I stated, quite simply, that you cited a few examples of strong nations conquering weak ones, and then you generalized those examples to apply to every relationship of the strong and the weak. This is the "hasty generalization" fallacy, if you need the technical term.
I'm not the one with a premise. You are. Your premise is: "the strong will always conquer the weak". I stated that this was simply not true in every case. I gave you another example -- that even in leftist cities during riots that were without police support, most people were just living their lives. The rioters were less than 1% of the population. In fact, some people defended not only their own property, but that of others, Kyle Rittenhouse being the obvious example.
I think you believe that I had set a goalpost, but you're the one making the claims and setting the goalposts in the first place. You are accusing me of doing every thing that you have been doing. You are arguing not with me, but with yourself.
This conversation started with your assertion that China would attack the U.S. and that we needed to be prepared.
My argument is that the U.S. government is a far greater threat, that the "threat" of a military strike by China is simply U.S. gov't propaganda akin to the Russia propaganda at the start of the Trump Presidency, and that China's power is projected primarily through trade. It is not likely that China would attempt to attack the U.S. military, both for logistical reasons and because we are China's largest customer base. Why would they kill the golden goose? At some point, the dollar will collapse and the Chinese will have to find other markets, but in the meantime, there is no reason to try to "conquer" the U.S. It's silly to pretend that they would.
You say that we should be prepared for it. Well, if you want to waste resources preparing for a very unlikely possibility, go for it. But since time, energy and other resources are limited, we should probably allocate resources more efficiently than that. And since the U.S. government is clearly a far greater threat to our liberty than the Chinese will likely ever be, we should allocate our resources towards the goal of defending ourselves against the federal government.
Are we done now? This has consumed a great deal of time that could be better spent doing other things.
you generalized those examples to apply to every relationship of the strong and the weak.
Please direct us to my statement where I said it applies to "every" relationship.
I'm not the one with a premise.
My bad. I thought you had an argument. Apparently you feel otherwise.
This conversation started with your assertion that China would attack the U.S. and that we needed to be prepared.
I said no such thing. You inferred it by piecing together several of my statements and making an unwarranted inference.
My argument is that the U.S. government is a far greater threat
I think you mean more "imminent" threat, not greater. Otherwise you're arguing that your freedoms are threatened more by the US government than they would be if you lived under Chinese rule.
You say that we should be prepared for it. Well, if you want to waste resources preparing for a very unlikely possibility
That's like not wearing a seatbelt because crashes are unlikely, or not being armed because needing to defend yourself with deadly force is unlikely.
I hope I'm doing the quoting thing right. I guess I'll find out when I hit "send comment".
>Please direct us to my statement where I said it applies to "every" relationship.
It was this earlier comment:
> Because that's human nature. The strong conquer the weak. It's been true for all of history and will be true for all times to come.
Human nature. The nature of all humans. Don't pretend like this means something different than every human relationship. If it's human nature, then it must apply to all human relationships, by definition. Unless we start playing semantics, at which point I'll dip out of this conversation because that would truly be a waste of my time.
>My bad. I thought you had an argument. Apparently you feel otherwise.
I'm simply disagreeing with the argument as you originally proposed it. It was your original comment to which I replied, after all. I'm not sure why this is complicated for you.
I said no such thing. You inferred it by piecing together several of my statements and making an unwarranted inference.
The inference is very warranted. I will quote the conversation again to you:
Me: "I'm not sure why you think the Chinese are just waiting for the opportunity to attack us at all. Why do you believe this?" You: "Because that's human nature. The strong conquer the weak. It's been true for all of history and will be true for all times to come."
You did not deny my statement. You actually confirmed it. My inference is warranted from a single statement of yours.
>I think you mean more "imminent" threat, not greater. Otherwise you're arguing that your freedoms are threatened more by the US government than they would be if you lived under Chinese rule.
I agree, they are a more imminent threat, but I also do believe the U.S. government is a greater threat. The U.S. government has control over the geographical area referred to as "the United States"; it has military bases in every state, as well as many abroad. The U.S. has a well-armed, well-trained (in the case of combat soldiers, spec ops, pilots, etc.) military, and the bulk of its resources are located here. The U.S. government has control of the education system, the corporate press, and heavily influences Hollywood, and has used them to indoctrinate and propagandize the people into compliance. The U.S. government is a far greater threat. The Chinese might have more soldiers and a comparable military in terms of technology and training, but they'd have to transport all of it over here, then gain control of every inch of territory with a country where the guns outnumber the people. And they'd have to gain control over all of our institutions. It would be incredibly difficult and likely not worth the effort.
I'm saying this for the third time, but the anti-Chinese rhetoric is propaganda that comes straight out of the state department. Trump pushed this nonsense narrative and the corporate press continues to push it with Biden in office.
>That's like not wearing a seatbelt because crashes are unlikely, or not being armed because needing to defend yourself with deadly force is unlikely.
No, it's not. Crashes are unlikely but it isn't costly in terms of time or resources to wear a seatbelt. Similarly with being armed. Preparing for a physical war with China is extremely costly and in my opinion, a lot less likely than it is that I will get into a car accident.
Human nature. The nature of all humans. Don't pretend like this means something different than every human relationship.
The logical conclusion of your argument is that there is no such thing as human nature, because for everything you can come up with I can find at least one human for whom it's not rue or is not unique to humans.
No, it's not. Crashes are unlikely but it isn't costly in terms of time or resources to wear a seatbelt. Similarly with being armed. Preparing for a physical war with China is extremely costly and in my opinion, a lot less likely than it is that I will get into a car accident.
You're like the bipolar who stops taking their meds because they feel better now. Well, of course it's fucking rare when we have the ability to incinerate the entire existence of any nation that tries. What is the frequency of conflicts where the target has no such capability?
(post is archived)