>and couldn't be used to either bolster or discredit this particular issue
Why not? You're making the argument that north korean lying about where they're from is fine because they're "just doing the job description". However, if you think that chinese goods should be properly labeled, even if they're effectively the same as non-chinese goods, it stands to reason that north korean labor should be properly labeled, even if they're effectively the same thing. Failure to address this inconsistency makes your reasoning seem capricious and unpersuasive.
its prudent to identify and never engage in a strawman fallacy, which involves introducing an argument that was never the one under discussion in order to discredit the one that was, in amusing textbook fashion you follow this with
> Failure to address this inconsistency makes your reasoning seem capricious and unpersuasive
When the typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition
looks like we are at an impasse, but maybe you can find someone else to engage with
>its prudent to identify and never engage in a strawman fallacy, which involves introducing an argument that was never the one under discussion in order to discredit the one that was, in amusing textbook fashion you follow this with
I'm not sure what your basis for the "strawman fallacy" is from. If you read my comments carefully, I've never claimed that you supposed mislabeled chinese goods, only that it's the logical conclusion if you support workers lying about where they're from. That's not the same as strawman.
>[...] do you think a chinese manufacturer labeling their products as non-chinese is also a "fake problem?
>However, if you think that chinese goods should be properly labeled [...]
(emphasis mine)
Now that I restated my argument more clearly, why don't you think the two cases can be equated? You haven't address aside from casually dismissing it with "I think they are separate problems in isolation".
I'm not familiar with the downstream consequences in your example enough to say, specifically what various stakeholders are affected by.
I'm not sure what introspective capabilities this analogy is supposed to illuminate and I don't find them related. I have no opinion on your example at all, aside from not seeing it to bolster or discredit my thoughts on the regulations of my example.
Why not? You're making the argument that north korean lying about where they're from is fine because they're "just doing the job description". However, if you think that chinese goods should be properly labeled, even if they're effectively the same as non-chinese goods, it stands to reason that north korean labor should be properly labeled, even if they're effectively the same thing. Failure to address this inconsistency makes your reasoning seem capricious and unpersuasive.