What weight of evidence? The studies use flawed methodology, the people involved have shown their bad faith. You can’t prove a negative, all you can do is discredit the evidence. People are always going to have a rejoinder which amounts to “I just know in my heart that China is evil”.
unless you can demonstrate how his others beliefs affect how he interprets his research.
He believes god sent him on a quest to destroy China, I’m pretty sure it affects how he interprets his research. He also works for the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, known CIA cutout IIRC.
He can believe all these things and still have a correct methodology with accurate data.
Yeah, but the methodology isn’t correct. For instance, there was a study that involved a lot of extrapolation from a small number of interviews, and people were regularly bringing that up as a criticism.
Also, regardless of what you think, Zenz being a nutcase does cast doubt on what he says and is a very convincing argument for many people.
Just to add: I know his methodology is flawed and the data is poor. Because I read his fucking papers. That is what allows me to talk intelligently about it, and then go on to explain that he is likely motivated by ideological reasons. This is far more effective.
See that’s a real argument though.
“The methodology is flawed in these ways which invalidate the conclusions.”
Not ad hominem.
Ad hominem on the other hand: It’s persuasive some of the time, but it leaves you with nothing if the source is anyone but Zenz. Also it’s still fallacious. I mean, I find Zenz fucking abhorrent and am highly confident that his wacko religious views motivate his work, but if I tried to argue that in any kind of intellectually serious sphere I’d be laughed out of the room, and rightly so.
Unless you can demonstrate how his work is flawed I don’t find it persuasive.
Just read the fucking papers. They’re not complicated, find the evidence backing up the claims they’re making and figure out how it poorly supports the claims made. Same thing with the organ harvesting stuff. When you actually read the original stuff you can readily take apart the arguments being used there.
You’re right because most of the time these propagandists rely on their audience not doing the investigation. Personally, I find your prescribed method the most persuasive. I’ll use this example link here.
What I admire about this specific example of your method is that it simultaneously establishes one’s credibility (it makes people want to listen to you, want to come to your side) by demonstrating intellectual rigour and also puts the claimant on the defensive by asking them to justify every claim, big or small. I included the whole comment chain to show the claim being defeated (then deleted) and the comments of the lurkers praising it. This is the exact phenomenon we want to see replicated everywhere on whatever internet forum.
Having said that though, I think we should understand that it’s not about what any individual here finds persuasive. If there’s a method people find effective in their circles, I say go ahead.
