To pass judgement on the cultural practises of a different culture doesn't neccessarily imply that one should withhold judgement altogether but that one should learn a little, or more.
This, can be more or less difficult though; but there are certain routes.
For example, say one was interested in poetry - how then would pass judgement on how good or bad Chinese poetry actually is? For surely that requires fluency of the Chinese language, and this is difficult to acquire.
One could play a numbers game and say - a certain mass of people, over such and such a period of time and situated in geographical proximity, thus having a life in common cannot but help produce poetry - but this does not allow one to point to such and such a poet and say that she is a good poet, or such and such a work and say that this is a good poem.
If one is pressed for actual evidence rather than proof of existence what can one say?
One might suggest that they look at Chinese calligraphy - for a visual sense carries over more easily, is more easily translatable; and given that calligraphy is closer to words than most other visual work is or could be, this might get them to stop and think for a moment.
Elusive, allusive - like the play of light and shadow on water stilled for a moment - permenance out of impermenance; and the other, around.
Still, they might be hard-headed proofists; and their insistence might have consequences ...
So, one might finally point them to Cathay, by Ezra Pound; an American poet - a modernist but immodestly interested in archaic forms who translated Chinese poetry - and ask them to use their own sense of words there, or to judge that little books influence...
Whilst noting that Pound never learnt or knew Chinese, but worked from the work of another man - who knew some Chinese - Fennellosa - who having passed away, had passed on his work.
And so noting that the act of translation takes time, and that translation adds, subtracts and multiplies; that translation requires a translator - and not all translators are born or created alike - and thus again, to shone and polish a text takes time
And one ought to note that Western philosophy being centred on the Greek tradition, too took time to translate, explain and annotate; and that process is ongoing, for the senses of words were lost, for they were talking to each other, and had not an eye on posterity - though they might have.
And so the same will hold for Chinese philosophy, a great deal of work will need to be done before it's proper contours are understood.
One can see straight-away for example, the Dao is a significant philosophical text, in the way that Parmenides poem is or in the way that Pythagoras might have written
But we don't grasp the Parmenidian or Pythogorean influence merely by looking at their work - or lack, by being lost - and nor by hearsay; but by looking at their actual influence; and that influence is visible in Plato, whose influence begat Aristotle, and who ...
A chain of transmission, or isnad.
Then, one might note, that the canonical library of taoist works run to over a thousand volumes.
Then, one might ask, is the Tao that has been translated, the real and permanent Tao?
And this before writing, and after; or before questioning and after - or and again both - but not neither: and then address, the first words:
Can the Tao that can be written - the real and permenant Tao?
And/Or - Both
Can the Tao that can be judged, the real and permanent Tao?