Ya and when there are cops around you have disincentives toward theft. When you have a direct interest in something you have more incentive to talk it up than if you don't have a direct interest in something. There is no argument here unless you are trying to argue on purpose.
Also I never talked in terms of absolutes this entire debate, only likelihood.
So there is an incentive to theft when the cops not around then. In other words, incentive goes both ways. There is incentive to do something, and there is incentive not to do it. You try to highlight one while conveniently ignoring the other. That's called
, another logical fallacy.
You claimed that China has an incentive to over report its military capability, but China has an explicit interest in under reporting its military capability as pointed out in post
#4056. Your argument simply does not work, because you are unable to show one is more likely than another. Your argument is also irrelevant, because it is not about the state of WS-10.
Many people arguing against me, like yourself, have demanded I 'prove' a certain claim, whereas I never claimed the ability to prove anything. I only ask you to use your brains and realize what a reasonable inference looks like. That's it.
You have not provide any logical inference in your argument, perhaps because you have none to begin with. It is not the responsibility of others to do your homework for you.
You are the one making a fallacious argument here because you are acting like I've been arguing a specific claim about the WS10 while my whole argument has simply been about why Blackstone's skepticism is not entirely unjustified and didn't deserve the amount of antagonism he got. And what I've received has been small bit of rational debate and a whole heaping pile of straw men + ill conceived accusations of fallacy.
Since it doesn't seem like you understand how to assess fallacy, nor are you capable of reasonably considering views that differ from your own, I see no point in arguing with you on this any longer.
Certain poster's skepticism is not reasonable because it is based on ad hominem. He attacked an entity rather than the points under contention. It's that simple. Your perception on whether the ad hominem is justifiable is irrelevant, because it is still an ad hominem.
Your defense of his post means you agree with his conclusion. It is then reasonable for others to ask you for proofs to support his conclusion, specifically on how the report is inaccurate. Others have also reasonably provided their views on why the report is accurate. Instead of addressing the points, you made more rants about media bias, which got you the antagonism you deserved.
