It's not really on them to think of an example to disprove themselves? Do you have one in mind?

Ok let's try this another way:

if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will not have a big corporate presence in that country.

Now it's on you to think of an example to disprove me, certainly I'm not going to think an example to disprove myself.

Do you see the problem with this pattern? I could claim all sorts of things and then say, well sorry you have to go do all this work to refute my claims. Something claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I really was asking whether that's true or not, because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.

▲

darth_avocado 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.

Amazon has a market share of 30-35% of ALL e-commerce in India. You’re making claims yourself, so I’d like to see examples of companies that operate at that scale in a country without corporate presence.

Also, there is a logical fallacy here that doesn’t make sense. If I claim A is true (and for a second let’s assume is actually true), then I cannot actually have an example of A being not true. If someone else claims that A is not true, they provide evidence of A not being true, instead of demanding such evidence.

And my evidence for my claim about big retailers having big corporate presence is based on all the big online retailers like Amazon, Wlmart, Target, Best Buy, EBay and others (top 20) all having big corporate presence in the country.

▲

ericmay 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Here was the OP's claim:

> if you are a big online retailer in a country, you will have a big corporate presence in that country.

They made a general claim that a big retailer in a country will have a big corporate presence in that country. I don't know if that's true or not - hence my response.

They didn't claim that a big retailer in India will have a big corporate presence, nor did claim that a retailer approaching 35% of e-commerce must have a large corporate presence in the country. It was an ambiguous claim, which is why I asked a few follow up questions.

> You’re making claims yourself, so I’d like to see examples of companies that operate at that scale in a country without corporate presence.

I didn't make this claim so there's nothing for me to provide.

▲

darth_avocado 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Here’s the claim you made:

because in my mind there are a number of large online retailers that operate in the United States for example, without a large corporate presence here.

▲

ericmay 8 hours ago | parent [-]

That was commentary on the poor format of the arguments that were made by the OP and you. It's not a "claim".

But sure, if you insist, Temu is a large online retailer that operates in the United States without a large corporate presence here. QED.

	▲	oblio 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Places like Temu are the exception and they should be banned. Garbage dumpers.

▲

OJFord 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure, they've already done it, Amazon, in India.

	▲	ericmay 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks, let me make some other claims and then you can spend time disproving them. Does that sound like a good idea?