Talk:Debate on traditional and simplified Chinese characters

Ambiguity - Pro-Traditional characters
It is criticized that 设 and 没 look similar in handwriting. 設 and 沒 look similar in handwriting as well. Fast handwriting is less readable in any language. That's no argument. "u" and "n" look similar in handwriting too. So should we make Latin letters more complicated? --2.245.104.175 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * German Kurrentschrift and Sütterlin did exactly that: "u" is written with an extra stroke, to make it "ŭ", just so that it won't be confused with "n". Double sharp (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical "argument"
"Proponents say that the radical system is imperfect in the first place."

If the system of radicals is imperfect, then your obligation as a person creating a reform is to make it better. If your reform makes it worse instead, then your reform is trash. This is an argument against PRC simplifications, not in defence of them. 95.53.165.168 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Phonetics
"Uncoordinated simplification policies imposed on postwar Japan have led to instances of there being three forms of the same character in widespread use"

What does this have to do with phonetics? 95.53.165.168 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)