What is the biggest lesson that employment has taught you?

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

595 comments

It has existed at various times throughout history in different forms and even aspects of the state ideology such as Cheondoism are simply modern manifestations of ancient tradition. There is nothing new about it or its cultural attitudes, not if you ask the Chinese and not if you ask the later Christian missionaries who attempted to do anything there only to be punished for existence.
- you have some very strange, very incorrect ideas about the DPRK built on a foundation of circular logic. please start de-propagandizing yourself with that video i linked earlier, it's a very good one.
  
  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.
  
  Point to where I said “we know they don’t let people in because they’re isolationist”.
  Sure! It was right here.
  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.
  
  Sure! It was right here.
  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?
  
  They literally quoted you...
  The restrictions for leaving and entering have not been imposed on them externally, this attitude of Korea predates even the Roman empire
  This is you saying the thing you said you didn't say.
  I did give sources. Many sources, ones that weren’t Wikipedia.
  "Giving sources" isn't just mentioning them. If that's the case then I can back up the other user by saying they have their data from Reuters, the UN, the CIA, CNN, AP, internal military documents made available by FOIA, BBC, MSNBC, NPR, etc.
  "Providing a source" means you give a reference to a specific text which supports the claim you're making - in other words it's it's linking to them, providing them as references. You've only done this for the aforementioned ancient history and three christian dudes.
  Listen to Blowback season 3, it would do you some good.
  
  “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?
  
  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”.
  You're saying the same thing twice there. The fact you say it isn't, doesn't mean anything when the actual statements are functionally the same. No matter what they both place this issue at the feet of the Koreans, which is what the disagreement was about.
  They’re isolationist because it’s a cultural value derived from their location relative to their neighbor
  So you are saying they are isolationist. Super. ut that has already been argued with you and instead you moved the goalposts to be about proving you said something you thought you didn't say, which you are now once again saying
  I’ve hyperlinked to a few sources. I can hyperlink to more as well.
  As we have already gone thru, you've hyperlinked to two things. Do you not understand how references work? Do you need everything explained twice? Yes please provide your sources for god's sake this is the third time I'm telling you how sources work.
  Are we basing validity of sources based on fame? How many others agree with it?
  You do - 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.
  How many narrative holes their messages have? How old the sources are? Their nationalities? Whether they’re blocked where you live?
  Yes this is called being critical of your sources. It's an inherent part of any dissemination of information - not to just blindly accept statements presented by others. All of the things you mention help evaluate wether the source might have a bias, though the really big thing is cross-referencing claims. Interests of conflict and bias are helpful when conflicting narratives occur.
  Do you not get the point of references? Why do you think we are taught from an early age to engage sources with skepticism?
  
  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.

595 comments