The discussion was about the unreliability of Chinese propaganda. You moved to funding scientific research. You didn’t just move the goalpost a bit. You relocated it to a different city.
Incorrect. Someone posited that China’s scientific achievements were merely propaganda, and I pointed out that they have invested heavily in research, which tends to produce outcomes.
In fact, you attempted to move the goalposts to non-scientific anti-China propaganda, and it fell flat. Then you attempted to DARVO by accusing others of what you are doing.
If you’ve actually forgotten what we’re discussing, look at the original post. We are discussing China’s scientific breakthroughs.
No. If true, the achievements are achievements. Actual achievements aren’t propaganda. However, the claims of the alleged achievements are coming from a country notorious for whitewashing history and making claims of scientific discoveries that later turn out to be optimistic at best, and often complete fabrications. So, skepticism of their claims of achievements (aka propaganda) is justified.
And that’s what this thread, that I started, is about. Responding to a post about some alleged scientific breakthrough, stating that such claims should be taken with a big grain of salt (aka, skepticism).
YOU then moved the goalpost to try to argue about whether increased funding for scientific research leads to better results. We don’t know that these results actually happened. We don’t know that there was actually any increase in funding. All we know is that a notorious liar is claiming so. This thread was never about whether funding scientific research can lead to discoveries. It’s about claims of discoveries from China are not reliable.
and I pointed out that they have invested heavily in research, which tends to produce outcomes.
And that’s when you moved the goalpost, likely because you don’t want to discuss China’s history of lies and propaganda.
The discussion was about the unreliability of Chinese propaganda. You moved to funding scientific research. You didn’t just move the goalpost a bit. You relocated it to a different city.
Yo if we’re throwing around logical fallacies you might wanna consider this one= https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
There’s been a whole chain of dialogue here without you substantiating your perspective on the topic at hand 👀
Incorrect. Someone posited that China’s scientific achievements were merely propaganda, and I pointed out that they have invested heavily in research, which tends to produce outcomes.
In fact, you attempted to move the goalposts to non-scientific anti-China propaganda, and it fell flat. Then you attempted to DARVO by accusing others of what you are doing.
If you’ve actually forgotten what we’re discussing, look at the original post. We are discussing China’s scientific breakthroughs.
Me
alleged achievements
No. If true, the achievements are achievements. Actual achievements aren’t propaganda. However, the claims of the alleged achievements are coming from a country notorious for whitewashing history and making claims of scientific discoveries that later turn out to be optimistic at best, and often complete fabrications. So, skepticism of their claims of achievements (aka propaganda) is justified.
And that’s what this thread, that I started, is about. Responding to a post about some alleged scientific breakthrough, stating that such claims should be taken with a big grain of salt (aka, skepticism).
YOU then moved the goalpost to try to argue about whether increased funding for scientific research leads to better results. We don’t know that these results actually happened. We don’t know that there was actually any increase in funding. All we know is that a notorious liar is claiming so. This thread was never about whether funding scientific research can lead to discoveries. It’s about claims of discoveries from China are not reliable.
And that’s when you moved the goalpost, likely because you don’t want to discuss China’s history of lies and propaganda.
Yes, you referenced the Tiananmen Square incident, which itself has been propagandized by the west with claims that have all been debunked.
Using a debunked western hoax as your reference really isn’t helping your point.
Lol you’re asserting the Tianenmen Square Massacre was a hoax?