I wrote: We're enslaved and we must bend over to china otherwise they can destroy us in a week.
And you asked:
By stopping all export.
No, see, that’s not what I meant at all, and and it’s honestly a bit telling that you read it that way. When I said
“How so?”, I was very clearly asking
how they destroy us, the “destroy” part not
how we stop getting products from them.
That’s basic comprehension.
You took it like I was asking about the supply chain mechanics, when what I actually said was about the
impact, the
how they destroy us thing, which is not the same question.
English has nuance, you know.
You can explain all you like about them stopping exports and us not getting Chinese goods for a week, but that doesn’t answer what I asked. My question wasn’t
“How do they stop sending stuff?” it was
“How does that destroy us permanently?” There’s a pretty big difference between those two things. I was literally challenging the word
destroy, not asking for a step by step of trade logistics. You seem to have just latched onto one part of what I said and ignored the actual meaning.
And this is exactly what I mean when I talk about comprehension.
People read one word,
decide what they think you meant,
and then charge off explaining something completely different.
You’ve done the equivalent of answering a question I didn’t ask. If you’d actually taken two seconds to read what I said, you’d realise
“How so?” was me calling out the exaggeration, not begging for an explanation of how imports work.
I’ll spell it out. If someone says, “China could destroy us in a week,” and I reply “How so?”, I’m clearly asking, “How, exactly, would they manage to destroy us?” It’s an invitation to justify that ridiculous claim. It’s not me saying, “Please explain how containers stop arriving.”
See the difference?
So, to be clear you explained
differently. You didn’t answer my How so? in the context I meant it. I wasn’t asking about trade flows, I was asking about your logic.
It’s not me misunderstanding, it’s you answering the wrong question. Bit of reading comprehension, that’s all.
But, currently, it really doesn't matter if it would destroy us if we stopped receiving goods from China.
It looks like you don't know the real meaning behind trolling too.
It's contagious.
Let's say you buy a product/service from a legitimate business and it turns out to be something else e.g. counterfeit and/or dangerous. In that scenario you have my sympathy.
Are these folk thick? Tbh I have zero sympathy for them. Where's the self responsibility?
You’re saying you have sympathy for consumers when they buy from legitimate businesses, but why is there so little or no sympathy for the systemic failures that allow dangerous products to enter the market in the first place?
So the problem is that people are stupid, not that anyone is selling dangerous products to them?
Should we really applaud the naive because they didn’t read a warning label on something that literally could kill them? Or should we focus on asking why there are zero safeguards?
And who exactly is responsible when these products make it to market without proper checks? Should we blame the consumer, or do we finally start holding the platforms and sellers accountable for the harm they’re knowingly enabling?
I get it, people should be more cautious buying stuff online, but shouldn't we also ask why there's no proper system in place to stop dangerous stuff from getting through?
Which generated,
This doesn't even make sense. Why would I have sympathy for systemic failures?
Unless someone is mentally challenged, I have zero sympathy for them if they buy stuff to ingest, slap on their skin/teeth, or inject when they know little to nothing about the 'company' or individual selling the stuff, or indeed the product itself.
I have sympathy with this person:
I bought a car from an established car dealership and found out it has outstanding finance on it. The dealer is arguing the point so I'll need to take them to court.
I have zero sympathy with this person:
I bought a car last month from someone I don't know in the Asda car park at 10pm. Found out it has outstanding finance on it. I can't trace the seller cause they've used a burner phone and I paid them in cash.
Which then was followed with my post
If you really can have sympathy for someone being misled by a licensed car dealership, where the system failed them, why can’t you have sympathy for someone if they were misled by an online seller, where the system also fails them every day?
How is that different from the Asda car park example other than the medium? Isn’t it exactly the same principle system fails, buyer suffers, consequences follow.
So tell me, if a system failing you at a car dealership deserves sympathy, why does a system failing you online deserve nothing at all?
First he says it “didn’t make sense,” which, fine - if he didn’t understand, he could’ve just asked what I meant. But the moment someone points out what I was actually saying, suddenly I’m a troll.
Convenient, isn’t it?
When he can’t follow the conversation, it’s my fault for not writing clearly enough, and when someone shows him he’s misread it, it turns into “you’re just trolling.”
Which then, later on, you came up and started with the whole China thing, as if that somehow explained everything that came before.
It didn’t.
But you’ve trapped yourself in a logic loop, haven’t you?
Stopping imports from China doesn’t automatically mean those products vanish overnight.
Saying “everything nearby is made in China” doesn’t magically turn the the things diy_fun_uk mentioned into Chinese made goods.
