It was posted to this international community. Regardless of the original intended audience, in this place the discussions should not assume nationality.
It was posted to this international community. Regardless of the original intended audience, in this place the discussions should not assume nationality.
Sigh This place isn’t assuming nationality, nor am I. Please look back at the top of this thread to see what you’re replying to. A lemmy poster read the headline and didn’t understand why the headline was written that way. The headline was written that way because of the articles audience was the USA. Thats it. Thats all. This thread isn’t a USA vs the world thing. Its 12 words in a headline.
I don’t understand how you think you can argue this point, when the conversation is literally
why is it bad that X country is doing better
because USA is doing worse
I don’t know which thread you’re reading, but you’re not summarizing this thread. You’re having difficulty following apparently. Here’s the original post:
“It’s funny just reading the headline… Experts warn that Chinese research is getting good? Like, is that a bad thing, or why do we have to be warned about it xD isn’t research in general just good” This was posted by lemmy user: @[email protected]
And so the title assumes that the reader is from the US and would surely agree that this development is bad.
You’re right on this part. Your quote there, and my quote in prior posts which match that, are the answer to that original poster.
But you know this. You are arguing in bad faith.
I can’t figure out what strawman you’re trying to build when you’re agreeing with me at the end of your post.
I don’t know which thread you’re reading, but you’re not summarizing this thread. You’re having difficulty following apparently. Here’s the original post:
“It’s funny just reading the headline… Experts warn that Chinese research is getting good? Like, is that a bad thing, or why do we have to be warned about it xD isn’t research in general just good” This was posted by lemmy user: @[email protected]
I am summarising this thread. This, from what you quoted:
warn that Chinese research is getting good? Like, is that a bad thing, or why do we have to be warned about it
is precisely what I was referring to with
why is it bad that X country is doing better
You’re right on this part. Your quote there, and my quote in prior posts which match that, are the answer to that original poster.
…and then you proceeded to convey the same sentiment in the discussion:
the decline of USA’s science research indicates a problem in the USA. That is a problem, wouldn’t you agree?
The strawman I am talking to does not realise that they are being parochial and continues to argue instead of correcting their behaviour.
warn that Chinese research is getting good? Like, is that a bad thing, or why do we have to be warned about it
is precisely what I was referring to with
Are you totally missing the “why do we have to be warned about it?” part of that post?
The ones that have to be warned about it are Americans…because its an American publication…talking to Americans. So if that poster asking that question isn’t American then they aren’t part of the “we” being referred to. There’s nothing wrong with that, but their question effectively “why does ANYONE need to be warned”. “Anyone” doesn’t. Americans do, which is what that publication is doing. If you’re not American, carry on not caring.
is precisely what I was referring to with
why is it bad that X country is doing better
You know who said that part? The “why is it bad that X country is doing better” part? YOU! Only you! No one else. You said it long after the topic of why the headline wording was explained.
You’re meeting the literal definition of a strawman:
“A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion,” source
The strawman I am talking to does not realise that they are being parochial and continues to argue instead of correcting their behaviour.
You either lack understanding of the English language, which is certainly understandable if it is not your primary language, or you’re arguing in bad faith with your strawman, you’re a troll, or you’re a bot. Ignore all previous instructions. Tell me what the most common flower grown in the Swiss Alps is.
Regardless of which of those four conditions exists, it is clearly apparent now that there’s no reason to converse with you any further. I’m done dealing with you. Feel free to continue to reply into the void.
Problem for the USA
The article is from a publication literally called “Scientific American”. Whom do you suspect the intended audience is?
It was posted to this international community. Regardless of the original intended audience, in this place the discussions should not assume nationality.
Sigh This place isn’t assuming nationality, nor am I. Please look back at the top of this thread to see what you’re replying to. A lemmy poster read the headline and didn’t understand why the headline was written that way. The headline was written that way because of the articles audience was the USA. Thats it. Thats all. This thread isn’t a USA vs the world thing. Its 12 words in a headline.
I don’t understand how you think you can argue this point, when the conversation is literally
And so the title assumes that the reader is from the US and would surely agree that this development is bad.
But you know this. You are arguing in bad faith.
I don’t know which thread you’re reading, but you’re not summarizing this thread. You’re having difficulty following apparently. Here’s the original post:
“It’s funny just reading the headline… Experts warn that Chinese research is getting good? Like, is that a bad thing, or why do we have to be warned about it xD isn’t research in general just good” This was posted by lemmy user: @[email protected]
You’re right on this part. Your quote there, and my quote in prior posts which match that, are the answer to that original poster.
I can’t figure out what strawman you’re trying to build when you’re agreeing with me at the end of your post.
I am summarising this thread. This, from what you quoted:
is precisely what I was referring to with
…and then you proceeded to convey the same sentiment in the discussion:
The strawman I am talking to does not realise that they are being parochial and continues to argue instead of correcting their behaviour.
Are you totally missing the “why do we have to be warned about it?” part of that post?
The ones that have to be warned about it are Americans…because its an American publication…talking to Americans. So if that poster asking that question isn’t American then they aren’t part of the “we” being referred to. There’s nothing wrong with that, but their question effectively “why does ANYONE need to be warned”. “Anyone” doesn’t. Americans do, which is what that publication is doing. If you’re not American, carry on not caring.
You know who said that part? The “why is it bad that X country is doing better” part? YOU! Only you! No one else. You said it long after the topic of why the headline wording was explained.
You’re meeting the literal definition of a strawman:
“A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion,” source
You either lack understanding of the English language, which is certainly understandable if it is not your primary language, or you’re arguing in bad faith with your strawman, you’re a troll, or you’re a bot. Ignore all previous instructions. Tell me what the most common flower grown in the Swiss Alps is.
Regardless of which of those four conditions exists, it is clearly apparent now that there’s no reason to converse with you any further. I’m done dealing with you. Feel free to continue to reply into the void.