[csee]

I'm not trying to present a 'two sides' story in the sense that it's exactly 50/50, since I think the viewpoint I was countering is quite a bit more false than it is true, which is why I flatly asserted that developed countries provided a net benefit to underdeveloped countries. My opinion here doesn't stop me from admitting that there's facts that underlie the narrative that are true, even if I believe the subsequent conclusions to be false.

An underdeveloped country can be suffering from the consequences of colonialism, while still benefiting significantly on net from technology, trade, and so forth, with the ratio between the former and the latter expected to decline over time. This can all be true simultaneously.

> You create a false dichotomy between a star trek prime directive no contact world and then say in a net sense it was of benefit.

That's not an example of a false dichotomy. It's a hypothetical, or a thought experiment.

> Using the likes of Singapore or South Korea as a counter example is also typical.

Typical != incorrect.

> Take a look here at life expectancy and when exactly it started to rise above 40.

Having the boot of colonialism being lifted is one of many reasons for this graph.

> Take a look at the correlation between post colonialism and death from violence.

Which is confounded by poverty/education/etc, the main drivers of death from violence.

[eliasmacpherson]

Then I would encourage you to think of all the infinite options in between hundreds of years of colonialism being a 'net benefit' and the 'prime directive, no contact'/South Korea/Singapore extremes as a thought experiment.

> Having the boot of colonialism being lifted is one of many reasons for this graph.

Here we agree, it's a shame it was ever inserted.

[csee]

I never said that colonialism was a net benefit. I said that developed countries have been a net benefit for underdeveloped countries. That's an important difference, and it's a claim that my thought experiment supports.

On South Korea; it was valid to bring that up, not only because it shows the positive benefits that the developed world brings to underdeveloped countries, but because it's the counterexample that exposes the incorrectness of the claim that the underdeveloped world is intentionally oppressed in order to maintain our way of living. We in the rich world have benefited from South Korea's, and China's, rise. They make us richer, as we them. This is basic comparative advantage. It's absurd to think that we benefit from Africa's poverty. To put it bluntly, Africa of all places is where we obtain the least benefit. We make more money from Europe and Asia. If they could raise up to $15,000 GDP/annum, we in the rich world would be more rich as a result.

They could maybe argue that underdeveloped countries have been oppressed intentionally for the benefit of the military industrial complex, but that's very distinct to arguing that that happened in order to maintain our lifestyle. As it stands, their statement is factually incorrect, and South Korea shows why.

I believe the truth of that statement may have been different 100-200 years ago, where colonialism was done to pillage resources. No longer so in the modern globalized world.

[eliasmacpherson]

Your argument here is again premised on the benefits of colonialism & post colonialism outweighing the costs of colonialism, but exceptions like South Korea and e.g. Singapore do not prove the rule. It's completely unrealistic to compare these success stories, and the idea of 'no contact'. The reality is far grimmer. The comparison is to be made between what could have happened, and what did. The 'net' benefit then becomes very clear.

South Korea & Co are no longer intentionally oppressed. There are many other countries besides them that continue to be.

It's absurd to argue that because the developed countries could benefit more from Africa than they already do, that Africa is not oppressed. South America also.

> They could maybe argue that underdeveloped countries have been oppressed intentionally for the benefit of the military industrial complex, but that's very distinct to arguing that that happened in order to maintain our lifestyle

Every industrial complex besides that too. Raw materials are vitally important. Every act of Foreign Policy is done in order to maintain a lifestyle, to protect national interests. I don't know how you can argue that it is not.

> I believe the truth of that statement may have been different 100-200 years ago, where colonialism was done to pillage resources. No longer so in the modern globalized world.

I think you should really look at what resources are being exracted from Africa and South America, by whom and for what level of profit.

[csee]

  "The comparison is to be made between what could have happened, and what did."

Disagree. If the question we are asking is whether developed countries have provided a net benefit, the hypothetical has to be with them never having interacted with the country in question at all.

  "South Korea & Co are no longer intentionally oppressed."

This is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

  "Every act of Foreign Policy is done in order to maintain a lifestyle, to protect national interests. I don't know how you can argue that it is not."

I already provided my argument. In the modern world we are richer when they are richer due to comparative advantage. Afghanistan made us much poorer, not richer, besides one or two special interests. More countries like SK means more wealth for us.

[eliasmacpherson]

The hypothetical does not have any such restriction on it, your star-trek hypothetical is as valid as mine, even if it is less realistic.

You are the one generalizing South Korea to say that intentional oppression does not occur, there is a 'net benefit'. Intentional oppression does not have to be universal to be true, it is selective and opportunistic in nature. The short years of benefit in South Korea do not undo the horrors elsewhere.

The argument that you stand to benefit even more does not invalidate any facts of their intentional oppression, past or present. Don't be absurd.

Minor addition: I don't believe you can say it's a 'No True Scotsman' situation unless you also consider South Korea to be 'underdeveloped' currently.