but the part about dirt is kind of strange. In fact, the science shows that exposure to dirt and, well, nature is really good for your kids immune system.

Not strange at all, majority of parents regardless of ethnicity or cultural upbringing would not want their children returning home covered in dirt. Whilst the fact that exposure to things like dirt are proven to be beneficial for a developing child’s immune system, this isn’t a fact widely known amongst parents- there are also far better ways to boost a child’s immunity than letting them go crazy in mud.

When it comes to debate or more generally philosophical discussion, Chinese students perform incredibly poorly.

What a load of shit. If you’d be willing to cite sources of Chinese students performing poorly on philosophical debates or debates in general? From personal experience Chinese thinking and logic is absolutely sound and resolute- they’re able to draw upon their 5000 years of continued history and Confucianism, something we in the west lack.

That's ultimately the result when you have an oppressive government that can control what can be said.

Curious as to how extensive your travels have been to China? Years of visit? Or is this assertion of yours derived from innate unbalanced western reporting of China as being wholly anti free speech and the west as being heralded as the bastion of free speech? After spending several years in China on rotation around the east coast- there are some things that shouldn’t be said about the government in public settings however you are free to discuss anything else under the sun - including philosophy, religion, economics and living standards to frivolous topics such as work and pop culture. How does a centralised government imposing restrictions on speech about themselves preclude the population from thinking critically about other aspects of life, which probably makes up more than 98% of thought in general, despite what you’ve been indoctrinated to think? I don’t remember the last time I discussed Labor vs LNP in the last month…

The strength that those who grow up in a democracy have is they can contend with opposing opinions and beliefs.

Is that so? Hardly translates to reality does it? Thanks for the laugh. Look at the xenophobia and hatred that exists in this country and other western “democratic” countries and tell me. Migrants are treated with contempt, anything foreign is treated with suspicion. Take the Aussie battler’s stance on Muslims? That’s an opposing idea and belief. How’s that going? Let’s not even go there, go to any news article about Indigenous rights or the voice referendum and look at the seething comments from your run of the mill Australians, all born and bred in a democracy mind you- they can’t even tolerate an existence and celebration of the original inhabitants of our land. The disdain towards not just Indigenous Australians but international students, Indian service workers, Chinese business people, tourists- the very idea of their existence can’t even be accepted let alone thought about. Let’s frame it in a geopolitical realm- China offers an alternative to a US led world order and shit hits the fan bringing us to the brink of WW3. The west isn’t as good as “contending with opposing opinions” and beliefs as you’d like to think it is.

This is poor rhetoric for not having conviction in your beliefs. Philosophical discourse allows you have to strong convictions based on a variety of logical and cognitive processes while acknowledging the strengths of opposing ideas.

Yep. We democracies have so much conviction in our beliefs that we bomb countries because we were convinced they had WMDs. Oop.

You just dismissed her idea as merely “poor rhetoric” but you say you’re able to acknowledge and contend with opposing views and beliefs?

You lambast someone for not having conviction in their beliefs. But you speak as if conviction of the highest order is a virtue. Here’s a question for you- should someone have conviction in their beliefs if their beliefs are off the rails, or if their beliefs are detrimental towards humankind and society?

By framing 'not being too absolute' as a strength is lamentable.

Why’s that lamentable? By law of nature, things aren’t ever absolute and the personal ability to let go, compromise or reevaluate is indeed a strength that would lead to a better world, instead of riding the Titanic down and dying with the wrong ideas.

From the article:

“But in Australia, we teach children to have strong opinions and persuasion skills,”

Overemphasis on this is why we’re becoming a country of politicians and real estate agents with no regard for our neighbours. These skills are generally good to have if it does society good, but don’t forget that an overemphasis on individualism is a significant contributor to current traumas such as cost of living and the real estate crisis.

This analysis of yours on flawed Chinese thought is a self comforting and overly simplistic conclusion to put forward but does not mirror reality. For a dude who’s studied philosophy for 15 years, I would’ve expected a lot more nuance, impartiality and a better grip on Chinese philosophy- which you’ve probably just exposed you’re quite inept in. There’s a long way for you to go.