I agree with the sentiment, but it just isn't relevant at all. It's a sidetrack to the primary point, which is, all things considered, what exactly are we looking at. Is the J-20 a platform that has comparatively more lift or not? Does it have trade offs or not? If it does what are those trade offs? If it doesn't, why not?
Mig-29 constantly references the entire "all planes have trade offs", but there's hardly a discussion of what those trade offs are. He asserts something very general and when someone makes an argument for why that's wrong, instead of addressing those points he simply resorts to the "all planes have trade offs" argument as if everyone else doesn't know that. The issue here is that people dispute him on the specifics, and instead of engaging on the critique of the specific, he merely tries to wall off with general statements.
Classic Avoidance, its called you got me, but I can't admit the truth, 1. Eurofighters did not eat the Raptor, the Germans suggested that, the Raptor boys called "foul", Col. Moga is to classy to nail em. 2. T-50 is never gonna be a fifth gen, it will be agile, it may even be fast, it will "maybe" supercruise, It "ain't" stealthy, it too will have "excuses", but then I guess thats fitting! With the cancelation of F-22 production, the big rush for fifth gens is now a marathon, not a 100 meter dash!