And yet coincidences happen. So of course it can be.
I suggest avoiding starting any sentences you intend to be credible with that phrase. And avoid starting any sequence of reasoning you wish to have validity with that type of thinking.
> And yet coincidences happen. So of course it can be
For some reason, those 'coincidences' seem to always coincide with something China is doing. China has a revolutionary cancer drug? Cue misleading articles in the Western press about some drug that doesn't even compare. China reforests deserts? Cue numerous articles in the Western media saying how "Deserts are good because they help rainforests". And that also was misleading - no other rainforest on the planet receives any kind of dust as the Amazon receives from the Sahara and they are just as good.
So all these 'coincidences' seem to 'coincide' with China's stuff. That couldn't possibly be because of stuff like the $500 million fund that the US Congress allocated to doing propaganda against China now, could it...
> For some reason, those 'coincidences' seem to always […]
You are doing it again.
Only if you actually find hard statistical evidence, or direct (not pre-supposed) causational evidence, can you can talk about coincidences and non-coincidences with any rationale for being able to tell the difference.
Otherwise, you are passing off self-bullshitting as reasoning.
The fact that you can, and are willing and motivated to, fool yourself with subjective “logic” isn’t something advantageous to share with other people.
And that is the only actual information you are sharing.
Don’t accept or publish imaginary results as results. If you want to reason effectively or be credible to others.
And yet coincidences happen. So of course it can be.
I suggest avoiding starting any sentences you intend to be credible with that phrase. And avoid starting any sequence of reasoning you wish to have validity with that type of thinking.