981 karma · joined October 21, 2021
Further, I was not equivocating the US and China, hence my qualifier of "historically" in my other post; it was said that way to point out that China has in fact invaded other countries in the past. If your bar for "no, its ok" is "hasn't invaded a country in the past 12 months", then by that bar, the vast majority of countries on Earth are just dandy. I think that line of thinking is naive, though.
Regarding article 8; for a law to say what is essentially "we will invade you", and your response is "well... haven't happened yet! It's fine!", that again shows either a bad faith engagement or just naivity.
This you? Who's fault is it then? You said the tech doesn't exist (lets take that at face-value for the sake of your argument), so then if not tech, then what? You're just left with people. So are you saying it is their fault or not? Or is it just nobody's?
Response: "A woodchuck would chuck wood if it could chuck it. The woodchuck's chucking action is a form of "chucking" or "chucking in" which is a behavior that allows it to extract nutrients from wood. The woodchuck's chucking action is a form of "chucking" because it is a form of "chucking" that allows the woodchuck to extract nutrients from wood."
I chuckled.
> "I don’t know what this relationship will ultimately mean for us, and I don’t think anyone else does either. That uncertainty is precisely why our eagerness to normalize it bothers me."