I don't know the history. That would be the source of my discontent. Every time things like this come up, the hyperfocus on Western experience erases whatever insight could have been gained by looking at the topic in its totality. My guess is that whatever dynamic the history of the printing press in the East might have lent to this conversation wasn't even considered until I brought it up. That was my contribution.
You should look in a mirror (and proofread). Everything you're accusing me of applies to you. It's an overwrought reaction which indicates that I hit a nerve. You'd better soothe that ego bruise with a bit of curiosity, than with the tantrum you've been throwing.
You've got it flipped. He was working from a false premise; his conclusions were a net negative to the conversation. I brought it back to zero by pointing out the flaw. And now you want to paint me as the bad guy, probably because I dashed the egotism at the core of his mistake, which you drew some amount of esteem from. The same deal as the people who persecuted Galileo for upending the geocentric model of the universe. Just because he couldn't extrapolate all of the ramifications of a heliocentric model doesn't mean he "wasn't contributing" by pointing out its significance.
But I suppose this analogy reveals that your tack is fundamentally European. So, at least you're consistent. What would be better is if you'd have some humility. Say it with me now: "We forgot to consider prior art because it originated from a part of the world that we tend to fail to acknowledge. This failure adulterated our analysis with an inferior premise. Thank you for pointing this out. We will now make a more appropriate analysis using research on the subject that was previously in our blindspot."
Summary of above: cool and useful!
Example based on the above: cool and insightful!
Slamming someone for using a european example because that's what they know: not cool, not insightful, not useful.