You linked two things. One of these is an article about literal ancient history, and the other is an article about three Christians who all lived and died long before the country we're discussing existed. Please, please explain to me how your "sources" are in any way relevant to the topic at hand.
Your circular logic is as follows: The DPRK is isolationist. We know it's isolationist because they don't let people in. We know they don't let people in because they're isolationist. No, I won't pay any attention to the hard fact that they do, in fact, let people in, and that it is in fact their enemies who do not let people into their country.
Point to where I said “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
Also, my sources explain how the two Koreas manifested themselves in the past. Your counter sounds a lot like the old “the Roman republic was not the Roman empire” which isn’t true. They weren’t called North and South Korea at the time. Names change. Governmental systems change. It happens.
The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire
Anyway, we're at an impasse here. You've decided that the DPRK is not a distinct country and that all you need to know about their laws can be extrapolated from the ancient history of the Korean peninsula, and that anything modern which contradicts your juvenile interpretation of ancient history must simply be made up. I have no idea what species of brainworm is responsible for this ridiculous conspiracy theory, and I am not qualified to exterminate it.
I don’t see it, whether in your passage or out of it. Maybe because I never said it. Neither did I say the DPRK wasn’t its own country, or that modern history is made up, at most I was saying its customs of isolating go back to earlier manifestations of North and even South Korea. I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia. They said what I said before I did. What do you bring to the table?
“The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire” =/= “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”
They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbors. And again, it predates the Romans. There’s nothing in my comments that make it circular, what I say is intertwined with multiple sources, some unseen, combined which wouldn’t allow me to be circular.
I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well. Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it? How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
You are putting words in my mouth to claim that I imply a nation’s policy reasoning by mentioning the timeline of said policy. If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth. It is the fallacy fallacy.
you rely on the reputation of your alleged sources by way of them being large established brands. I think this is a silly way of evaluating the validity of a sources claims, but it seems to be your primary requirement.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria, let’s see if we can both follow it.
Well, you can stop with your “logical conclusions to my statements” because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics. Nobody can speak for what another person intends or what they mean, just what is perceived. I laid out a clear difference.
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices (some of which you at first overly deny) in the exact same way you accuse me of giving into bias about North Korea. So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use? Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation. You said the ones you witnessed weren’t satisfying and questioned their validity and place here. So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable. That brings us to here. Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources. What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources? If one of our sources are lying while the other’s are truthful, what sign would we go by?
I could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
I was simply recapping with the first part is all. No need to react to those.
Questioning a source isn’t going “well I just don’t trust it”. It’s pointing out why it is untrustworthy - Which you dont do by saying “well I’ve been told they’re untrustworthy.” You do it by highlighting a history of untrustworthiness, clear bias, lies, conflicts of interest, etc.
My sources so far have included, as you said, a seeming (to you) random missionary-based website, the BBC, Wikipedia, two affiliates of Britannica, and all the American sources you say you denounce. If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
I’m not saying that, I’ve taken the time to go thru them and illustrate why they are bad sources for backing up your claim.
There are a few you've yet to say anything about. The rest of them you've basically said it boils down to the trustworthiness of the country it's in (or in Wikipedia's case the supposed Godwin's-law-violating bias) but then when it's asked what the trustworthiness itself boils down to and it becomes a subjective matter.
Now all you need to do is engage with the content and critique it...
Haven't I?
...based on a factual basis.
Your true colors are showing. Imagine if this was a court of law. You'd be seen as imperial for not having anymore evidence than the opposing side yet insisting it amounts to more than the opposing side.
I stopped appealing to authority in the first few comments, then I became ready to adapt to what you wish I appeal to, because based on the lack of clarity about your answer aside from your view on how a source should be critiqued, your stance is not as above mine in being backed up as you make it sound like you believe.
So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use?
Well, let's start with the first step, which is citing a source at all. They have asked you to follow through on your offer to cite sources to back up on your claims multiple times, and you just keep getting bogged down in these wacky circular semantic arguments. Currently you are failing to produce any source of any strength or bias.
Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I've said could be taken as indication I'm not being circular. Is this not what you're currently asking for?
If it's because you think these sources are too biased, that itself is a part of my question you quoted, being what defines bias here? In a world where anyone can point to something and make a case that it must be biased, I'm here asking where the line is drawn between something tolerable and something intolerable.
The medieval kingdoms are past manifestations of North and South Korea. If you studied Korean linguistics, I doubt you’d be questioning that they the manifestations even have different names.
I dont want to take the time to go through your reference with you, only for you to then again refuse to engage with the argument but instead throw up yet another half-assed article.
And you wonder why I hesitate as well as bring up the whole criteria question amidst you at other times asking for an increased quantity of sources rather than increased quality), especially as what you’re saying is more derailing.
I did not claim they weren’t isolationist, nor did I say it was for any reason aside from it being one of their cultural values/habits. Is this not you using the straw man fallacy? Would you be arguing against the point I’m not making as if I made it if you were able to come to terms with the fact I didn’t make it, or would you be praising the fact that I in actuality agree with you on that point?
It’s a strawman to say I said things I didn’t say in order to make it seem as if there is something I’ve said which can be argued against, which is exactly what you’re doing by saying “ it’s a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you”. If I perceived you as saying something, and you clarified what you meant and revealed I was perceiving it wrong compared to what you intended, I would respect this.
Yeah good some website says they’re isolationist, because they say they are.
...as opposed to? It’s not pointing out a contradiction or hole or exposing a lie simply to dismiss the article’s claim.
Conditions that, say it with me, are imposed by the us.
...based on?
It is in fact incredibly simple to both visit the dprk, as long as you’re not American
You say that like being restricted to one area when you visit and needing a supervisor is that much better.
Did you not ask for more sources and did I not give a few more? Did I not ask what criteria you want us to go by with sources and did you not say there was no inherent criteria except to demonstrate where points in an article conflict? If in your answer to that question you were explaining your chosen criteria, you have a funny way of showing it.
Alright, if that's the criteria (even though it can be perceived as a lack thereof), then there's really nothing you're going by or can go by based on your sources because they're all even in that regard.
I'll give an example in one of them. One of your sources claims that North Korea allows people in like any other nation as long as it's not one of their three opponents... yet the sources also allude to the fact it's barricaded, with a river to the North and a guarded wall to the South.
Based on a video of yours (which I did watch) or based on all the sources I gave (which are plenty and back my "foundation of circular logic")?
You linked two things. One of these is an article about literal ancient history, and the other is an article about three Christians who all lived and died long before the country we're discussing existed. Please, please explain to me how your "sources" are in any way relevant to the topic at hand.
Your circular logic is as follows: The DPRK is isolationist. We know it's isolationist because they don't let people in. We know they don't let people in because they're isolationist. No, I won't pay any attention to the hard fact that they do, in fact, let people in, and that it is in fact their enemies who do not let people into their country.
Point to where I said “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
Also, my sources explain how the two Koreas manifested themselves in the past. Your counter sounds a lot like the old “the Roman republic was not the Roman empire” which isn’t true. They weren’t called North and South Korea at the time. Names change. Governmental systems change. It happens.
Sure! It was right here.
Anyway, we're at an impasse here. You've decided that the DPRK is not a distinct country and that all you need to know about their laws can be extrapolated from the ancient history of the Korean peninsula, and that anything modern which contradicts your juvenile interpretation of ancient history must simply be made up. I have no idea what species of brainworm is responsible for this ridiculous conspiracy theory, and I am not qualified to exterminate it.
I don’t see it, whether in your passage or out of it. Maybe because I never said it. Neither did I say the DPRK wasn’t its own country, or that modern history is made up, at most I was saying its customs of isolating go back to earlier manifestations of North and even South Korea. I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia. They said what I said before I did. What do you bring to the table?
deleted by creator
“The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire” =/= “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”
They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbors. And again, it predates the Romans. There’s nothing in my comments that make it circular, what I say is intertwined with multiple sources, some unseen, combined which wouldn’t allow me to be circular.
I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well. Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it? How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
deleted by creator
You are putting words in my mouth to claim that I imply a nation’s policy reasoning by mentioning the timeline of said policy. If there is any act of moving goalposts, it’s being done in said process of putting words in my mouth. It is the fallacy fallacy.
Name a criteria for what we shall consider a good source, and assuming it’s an ideologically unspecific criteria, let’s see if we can both follow it.
deleted by creator
Well, you can stop with your “logical conclusions to my statements” because I dispelled that logic by defining the semantics. Nobody can speak for what another person intends or what they mean, just what is perceived. I laid out a clear difference.
You speak of source critique, source bias, and all sources being good for something as if this whole time you haven’t been bashing America and its practices (some of which you at first overly deny) in the exact same way you accuse me of giving into bias about North Korea. So I’ll ask again, what criteria would you like to use? Because I want to know how, if I’m failing at a criteria you prefer, you aren’t ahead of me in the same act of failing.
deleted by creator
...as opposed to what or who?
I’ve posted many links in various parts of this branching-out conversation. You said the ones you witnessed weren’t satisfying and questioned their validity and place here. So I asked based on what criteria should we both go by when considering a source suitable. That brings us to here. Pretend for a moment I’m questioning the validity and place of your own sources. What would you do then, with both of us questioning each others’ sources? If one of our sources are lying while the other’s are truthful, what sign would we go by?
I could just as easily ask you to list the things I’ve said you want more sources for if they would end up being welcome.
deleted by creator
I was simply recapping with the first part is all. No need to react to those.
My sources so far have included, as you said, a seeming (to you) random missionary-based website, the BBC, Wikipedia, two affiliates of Britannica, and all the American sources you say you denounce. If you truly are not simply saying “I just don’t trust it” as you say one shouldn’t do, what leads you to denounce every last source of mine, case by case?
I should point out many of your sources weren’t exactly news websites, a few seemed like homemade PSA sites.
deleted by creator
There are a few you've yet to say anything about. The rest of them you've basically said it boils down to the trustworthiness of the country it's in (or in Wikipedia's case the supposed Godwin's-law-violating bias) but then when it's asked what the trustworthiness itself boils down to and it becomes a subjective matter.
Haven't I?
Your true colors are showing. Imagine if this was a court of law. You'd be seen as imperial for not having anymore evidence than the opposing side yet insisting it amounts to more than the opposing side.
I stopped appealing to authority in the first few comments, then I became ready to adapt to what you wish I appeal to, because based on the lack of clarity about your answer aside from your view on how a source should be critiqued, your stance is not as above mine in being backed up as you make it sound like you believe.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Well, let's start with the first step, which is citing a source at all. They have asked you to follow through on your offer to cite sources to back up on your claims multiple times, and you just keep getting bogged down in these wacky circular semantic arguments. Currently you are failing to produce any source of any strength or bias.
Many of my comments have hyperlinks to different material supporting what I say, which I've said could be taken as indication I'm not being circular. Is this not what you're currently asking for?
If it's because you think these sources are too biased, that itself is a part of my question you quoted, being what defines bias here? In a world where anyone can point to something and make a case that it must be biased, I'm here asking where the line is drawn between something tolerable and something intolerable.
deleted by creator
The medieval kingdoms are past manifestations of North and South Korea. If you studied Korean linguistics, I doubt you’d be questioning that they the manifestations even have different names.
And you wonder why I hesitate as well as bring up the whole criteria question amidst you at other times asking for an increased quantity of sources rather than increased quality), especially as what you’re saying is more derailing.
I did not claim they weren’t isolationist, nor did I say it was for any reason aside from it being one of their cultural values/habits. Is this not you using the straw man fallacy? Would you be arguing against the point I’m not making as if I made it if you were able to come to terms with the fact I didn’t make it, or would you be praising the fact that I in actuality agree with you on that point?
deleted by creator
It’s a strawman to say I said things I didn’t say in order to make it seem as if there is something I’ve said which can be argued against, which is exactly what you’re doing by saying “ it’s a strawman fallacy to quote things you said back to you”. If I perceived you as saying something, and you clarified what you meant and revealed I was perceiving it wrong compared to what you intended, I would respect this.
...as opposed to? It’s not pointing out a contradiction or hole or exposing a lie simply to dismiss the article’s claim.
...based on?
You say that like being restricted to one area when you visit and needing a supervisor is that much better.
deleted by creator
Did you not ask for more sources and did I not give a few more? Did I not ask what criteria you want us to go by with sources and did you not say there was no inherent criteria except to demonstrate where points in an article conflict? If in your answer to that question you were explaining your chosen criteria, you have a funny way of showing it.
deleted by creator
Alright, if that's the criteria (even though it can be perceived as a lack thereof), then there's really nothing you're going by or can go by based on your sources because they're all even in that regard.
I'll give an example in one of them. One of your sources claims that North Korea allows people in like any other nation as long as it's not one of their three opponents... yet the sources also allude to the fact it's barricaded, with a river to the North and a guarded wall to the South.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod