If the United States’s Union split in half tomorrow, then the power of the United States would be diminished. This would simultaneously strengthen every other nation state in comparison. So by limiting the power of the CCP, we reduce their ability to cause harm. It’s not a zero sum game between the US and China or even NATO and China. There are plenty of other people involved. This isn’t a video game. We are talking about people’s lives.

And yes, I also oppose NATO.

Anyways, I’m done with you. I have tried to build consensus and establish equal ground but you just refuse to admit that you made assumptions about me that were wrong. I don’t want to spend any more time talking to someone who won’t respect what I write enough to actually read it.

Thanks for your sources which support my claims.

Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.

So, what we have here, is two opinion pieces from business-focused news websites, vs the scientific consensus of domain experts in the field of energy production, the IEC, IEEE and countless others. Very cool, very good proof of your claims.

Germany’s exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive

“Germany has committed to source 80% of its electricity from renewables by 2030”

This article contains no arguments whatsoever that nuclear is better than renewables.

Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched

“Nuclear power has a lot of drawbacks. Its large, slowly built plants are expensive both in absolute terms and in terms of the electricity they produce. Its very small but real risk of catastrophic failure requires a high level of regulation, and it has a disturbing history of regulatory capture, amply demonstrated in Japan. It produces extremely long-lived and toxic waste. And it is associated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most of the countries outside Europe that use nuclear power have some history of attempting to develop a bomb. All these factors contribute to an unease with the technology felt, to greater or lesser extent, by people all around the world.”

This isn’t even all of the drawbacks. The advantages of nuclear power, according to that article? It’s safe (but still not as safe as renewables”, and “hey, at least it’s better than fossil fuels”. That’s not the argument. The argument has to be how nuclear is better than renewables.

We’re done here.

If you think I’m a liar and you don’t care what I have to say then I have nothing more to say to you. But I have told the truth 100% of the time in all of my comments on this website. You can look into my history for all of the times where I have made errors or mistakes and apologised and admitted that I was wrong, and all of the times where people have asked me to prove my claims that they found unbelievable which I was able to prove.

I don’t have any proof of my relationship that I could share which isn’t extremely personal, so there’s no much I can do to prove my claim, but what I do have is a WeChat account. You cannot have a WeChat account in the west without getting a citizen of mainland China to vouch for you. I know it’s not much proof, but yeah, I’m not going to share photos of us together or our conversations or anything like that.

The article is called “German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against new nuclear power“, not “ German Chancellor Scholz speaks out against keeping old nuclear plants running”, so no, this is just shifting the goalposts.

And nope, you’re wrong, 100% renewable power across the entire planet is absolutely viable and would be much cheaper than involving nuclear. I have proven this again and again and again in this thread, but here’s a starting point for you:

The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

There are other sources all throughout this thread to back up this claim, and no one has posted any sources to dispute it.

We’re done here. Have a pleasant evening.

Way to just completely ignore my point and move the goal posts?

Are the 13 colonies a separate country because they declared independence from the United Kingdom?

Don’t bother replying. I don’t want waste my time talking to people who can’t answer a simple question

I agree, it seems that the political instability can’t last for too much longer, and I’m hoping for a peaceful resolution in whatever way that is. I have to admit that I would prefer a peaceful bipartisan result where each state relinquishes their claims on the other, but I have to admit that seems very unlikely and that your conclusion that they would most likely reunify is the most likely result.

My comment was a response to someone calling me stupid for saying that nuclear power spending was a waste of money. Because it is a waste of money.

What you’ve read over the years is almost right, if you take “nuclear” out of the sentence you’ve pretty much got it.

So, if Taiwan had a revolution, would an invasion would be justified?

My point is that despite the party using CPC officially, even Chinese people will use CCP or “the party” when communicating outside of China, and inside China they will call it zhonggong, or the full name, which I will not embarrass myself by attempting to reproduce. Like I said, I know more about this shit than you do, so give it a fucking rest. It doesn’t matter whether I call it CPC or CCP as long as my communication is clear, and everyone knew exactly what I was referringn to.

My Chinese ex would refer to it as CCP, so I’ll stick with that, since I trust him on this more than internet randoms. Actually, he’d usually just refer to it as “the party”, or occasionally “zhonggong”, but that would be a bit confusing, so CCP it is.

Yep, it is like that, and for all we know, it’s grandpa’s passport. Again, I can’t be sure on that, but I am sure that they identify as American, except for this one moment where it was convenient for them to identify as Iranian.

I don’t think you have proved that case at all. How is increasing the likelihood of an invasion of Taiwan the lesser evil, pray tell?

gonna cry?

I probably won’t cry, but it is harmful to my mental health, so I might have to block you if it continues.

Honestly, I don’t think we really disagree all that much in broad terms. We both hate US imperialism. I just don’t see the CCP as an omni-benevolent state which can do no wrong. Until the world is ready to fully transition away from capitalism, greed and totalitarianism, it is best to limit the power and influence of nation states. And that includes states which claim to be transitioning towards communism. Checks and balances against supremacy prevents anti-revolutionary elements from seizing control of the state and turning its power against the people. Let’s just agree to disagree, move on with our lives, and spend our energy arguing with people who still support capitalism instead.

And United States has historically been part of the United Kingdom. Does that mean if the UK redrew maps to show that the US was their territory it wouldn’t be imperialism? Imperialism is the expansion of the territory or influence of a state especially through the use of violence. The CCP wishes to extend its influence into Taiwan and they are willing to use military force to do so. That’s why they’re so mad about Taiwan being provided with the means to defend themselves. It would make a military invasion more difficult and costly.

How can you consider yourself anti-imperialist when you’re talking about unilaterally giving entire countries to other countries?

I have to say that you are wearing my patience very thin. I have addressed your arguments quite directly, respectfully and tried to encourage understanding, but you’re just continuing to hurl insults. Are you just trolling or are you so steeped in toxic internet culture that you can’t imagine a discussion without insulting your interlocutor?

We both know that Taiwan would stand no fucking chance if it was invaded. You’re basically saying, “if anything, you appease the Sudetenland by opposing Nazi Germany”.

Anyways, I’m done with this argument, I have proven you wrong countless times now and you just keep pushing me to defend a position that I do not hold and then you’re just getting mad about it. I wouldn’t be arguing with you if I didn’t stand for anything, would I? I support peaceful coexistence, reconciliation and the end of capitalism.

It’s okay, you don’t have to do it if you don’t want to - from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, after all.

My argument is that neither side should invade the other and that they should peacefully coexist. I support peace, balanced reconciliation, and the end of capitalism.

I agree with your comment completely, stability and peace in the region is definitely not what the United States wants, long term. But that doesn’t mean that every single thing they do is wrong, and it doesn’t mean that every thing the US’s opponents do is right. We should take the actions and outcomes of these actors at face value, continue to advocate for peace and reconciliation and encourage more nuanced, balanced takes rather than hugely polarising positions. Thank you for engaging and considering what I wrote, we can build a better world if we keep building consensus, treating those with whom we disagree respectfully (assuming that they’re not being intolerant assholes!) and talking things through! <3

A threat to CCP interests it may be, but that wouldn’t justify a military invasion that would kill a shitload of people, would it? It would have to be sinking food or medicine shipments with coastal guns or something equally abhorrent to justify such an act. And again, that would absolutely be valid justification for an invasion, so they wouldn’t do it. How can you claim to be one of the good guys when you justify a military invasion and the deaths of thousands of innocents as “just a fact of how things will turn out”.