> for the vast majority of products its more likely to be fantasy that exists only in stereotypes Wow. This is a sophism class in just one sentence. This is no

> for the vast majority of products its more likely to be fantasy that exists only in stereotypes Wow. This is a sophism class in just one sentence. This is not a personal criticism to you as a person, but these "arguments" are not solid. > for the vast majority of products Quantifier-Shift Fallacy: from something does not exist to it does not exist for the vast majority. A much weaker assertion and not equivalent (also unsourced) > its more likely We are not discussing the likelihood, but the truth. You are confidently asserting something based on claimed likelihood. > that exists only in stereotypes It is just a stereotype, nothing to see. Then some comments about automated factories. As if those 2 cannot be compatible (false dichotomy). This is sophism with zero arguments, sorry. The quote you are replying to is > The key to this sort of business model is not innovation, but instead the externalization and compression of cost. Somewhere upstream, people work seventy-five hours a week, in conditions most readers of this website So we are not only talking about factories (Hasty Generalization). Delivery, for example, could be considered in that quote, as well as pollution, hand-work (most clothing garments are not automated btw) or many others. I am going to recommend a great book I read on the working conditions of a delivery person in China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Deliver_Parcels_in_Beijing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Deliver_Parcels_in_Beijing