The issue is that the vast majority of these ingredients are artificial substitutes for the actual content of a pizza-like-thing that an average consumer might expect. That they are artificial is not in itself inherently an issue (at least to me, although many many artificial additives have been proven to cause problems while manufacturers continue to use them), but the fact that so many substitutions are made all at once in a given product renders any "common" understanding of its health effects effectively irrelevant.
It basically means that you can't compare a pizza made from the basic ingredients that you and I might normally expect to the contents of a hot pocket. Even comparing apples-to-apples, the ingredient list of a DiGiorno's frozen pizza would be wildly different from the basics of a pizza you could make yourself.
Fearmongering over these subjects never helps, but it is fair to raise concern over the unknown effects of the things you consume.
What ingredients of a "real" pizza have been substituted for? That list includes flour, water, salt, yeast, tomato and cheese, which are roughly speaking the essential components of a pizza.
I think it would be a good thing to do so since then we have much more motivation to protect Taiwan at all costs. China trying to roll over Taiwan would be akin to attacking us.
Well we've built the tech but need a lot more work pushing it out. Also to make it easier for people to build their own custom versions. It mentioned in the piece about looking for help and we always are! :)
Invasion doesn't need to be with armies. China is not yet strong enough to do that outright with the west like it does within Asia and its maritime claims. With the west, it has taken on a different approach: infiltrate all levels of political, educational, and corporate institutions.
Well, I expect that China is building world domination for the benefit of the Chinese people, not the benefit of everyone who comes under their dominion, similar to the white men who built American world domination.
This is a false moral equivalence. The US was founded on the idea that "all men are created equal." The US has made terrible mistakes, such as not immediately banning slavery and not extending voting rights to women, and the US still has room to improve today. However, the founding ideas of the US provide a mandate and inspire people to work towards a more equal society. I would greatly prefer the US over China as the world hegemon.
I am Chinese-American, so if China were to displace the US as world hegemon and put Han people at the top of society, that would personally benefit me. However, I do not want that, as I support racial equality.
The revolutionary war started because we wanted to take more land from the natives and the king forbade that because he wanted good trade relations with the native peoples. That's it. Everything else is just propaganda.
> I am Chinese-American, so if China were to displace the US as world hegemon and put Han people at the top of society, that would personally benefit me.
China will never be world hegemon due to geographical, racial, historical, etc issues. China vs the US, Europe, Russia, Australia, Canada, etc isn't even a fair contest. Not to mention western aligned nations like india, japan, etc wouldn't allow china to be a hegemon. Also, how would it benefit you if the chinese government view you as a traitor?
> However, I do not want that, as I support racial equality.
If you equate hegemony with racial supremacy, why would you support US hegemony? How about "no hegemony"?
Don't you think the world would be better if the US didn't have to maintain a world empire? The world wouldn't have to worry about invasions and we can finally start investing in american infrastructure. When I see the amount of infrastructure china has built the last few decades ( heck just the last 10 years alone ), I have to say I'm a bit envious. Instead of sinking trillions in foreign wars, imagine all those trillions were invested in new railways, new airports, nuclear energy, green energy, reviving inner cities, etc.
and china is called "the people's republic", what US or China call themselves is irrelevant.
I am Chinese as well, I do not think Chinese has ambition for world domination, but I believe it deserves the right to develop and enjoy a living standard similar to the west.
I agree with you that people in China deserve a standard of living similar to the West. I also think that people in China deserve to have more freedoms and a representative government, as opposed to a closed one-party bureaucracy. Historically, the West opened up to China as China economically liberalized, in the hopes that China would also grant more freedoms to its people. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Now, China is also trying to expand its territory. I fear that Chinese hegemonic status will have negative consequences for other Asian peoples. I hope that one day, people in China may enjoy their right to a liberal democracy.
Well how do you define a representative government? is election the only method of creating a representative government?
Any Chinese can take up posts with in the government. Instead of worrying about what the color of the ties to wear because it polls better for a target group, chinese officials are given a KPI like deliverable to complete and that's how you rise through the ranks. Sorta like any modern private company.
I'm aware there are pros and cons to both models but so far i think the chinese government is doing the right things to develop economically.
Yes, as long as you're Han chinese, you have the opportunity. What he means by representative govt is other ethnic groups having the same say. If not, then be prepared to fight many wars.
That is simply not true. Ethnic minorities in china get preferential treatments when it comes to college admission, job placement, they are also exempted from the one child policy. Of course you wouldn't know that because that doesn't fit the western narrative of chinese oppression of minorities
Not the person you were replying to, but I am aware of the college affirmative action for minorities and the exemptions to the one-child policy. From what I understand, the current trend is that such policies are being rolled back as the Chinese government begins to force the assimilation of minorities more heavily.
(In case this is on your mind: As for college discrimination against Asians in America, although many people conflate this issue with affirmative action, it is actually separate. One must make the distinction between pro-minority affirmative action and Asian penalization relative to the white majority. Asian-American penalization relative to white Americans is morally comparable to the historical Jewish quota, and the justification that affirmative action corrects for historical injustices absolutely does not justify anti-Asian discrimination. Nevertheless, I am also against pro-minority affirmative action because it is illiberal, but it is orthogonal to Asian-American rights.)
A lot of the discussion of China revolves around treatment of minorities. I would also like to draw attention to oppression of the Han majority. One example is that the Chinese government blocks websites, even for trivial or oversensitive reasons. (China recently blocked https://scratch.mit.edu, the children's website where I was introduced to programming...) Another example is that the Chinese government performed forced abortions to enforce the one-child policy. Now in America, there is a complicated political debate over the morality of abortion that involves issues of fetus rights, personhood, and choice. However, it seems to me that whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, the one-child policy, which involves abortions that are not up to choice, is profoundly immoral.
I believe that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, including the right to freedom to voice opinions without government censorship and the right to partake in democracy (whether that be a direct democracy, a republic, or another form of democracy). Everyone in the world inherently possesses these rights, regardless of whether their government recognizes them. I wish for the government of China to recognize these rights, because human rights are Chinese rights.
I'm not a political theorist but the Chinese government is out-competing the US government by leaps and bounds. The current President is busy whining that he won while the Chinese are building probably 100 railroads at the same time.
I didn't realize this when I wrote my earlier comment, but something that I found disturbing was that you seemed okay with the prospect of your own children being discriminated against, since you merely "expect that China is building world domination for the benefit of the Chinese people." I certainly don't want my future children to be discriminated against. Why do you think that a future where your progeny are second-class citizens is a morally acceptable one?
Even if we suppose that America and China are morally equivalent (which I strongly disagree with), just out of the self-interest of yourself and your family, why would you prefer China over America?
I do not believe that it's "morally acceptable." I believe that it is where the world is going. America is fracturing itself while China just keeps executing. Our bridges and electrical grid and transit systems rot into oblivion while people riot in the streets against their political opponents. While China is building up its hard power, soft power, and economic force projection with the Belt and Road initiative.
Was a incalculably powerful US that toppled democratically elected regimes in Latin America/Iran/etc. a morally acceptable one? No but that's what it is and all you other fucks had to learn English to get some of our money. Now the shoe is on the other foot and we are the fucks who will need to learn Chinese. Serves us right but I still ain't happy about it.
> Historically, the West opened up to China as China economically liberalized
We "opened up" china by war. Opium wars? Boxer rebellion? I'm not chinese and I seem to know your history more than you. Why is that? And china opened up their economy as a result of threat of nuclear war by the soviets and the west.
> in the hopes that China would also grant more freedoms to its people.
This is just propaganda. Since when did we care about freedom for chinese people? Did we invade hong kong while the british ruled it to give freedom to them? Heck, for most of the 20th century, chinese people like you were banned from even coming to the US. The only nationality to specifically be banned for immigration to the US was your people.
> Now, China is also trying to expand its territory.
You mean take back its territory right? What non-chinese territory is china expanding to?
> I fear that Chinese hegemonic status will have negative consequences for other Asian peoples.
More propaganda.
> I hope that one day, people in China may enjoy their right to a liberal democracy.
More standard propaganda.
> people in China may enjoy their right to a liberal democracy.
The founders hated the idea of liberal democracy. It's why the US is not a liberal democracy but a constitutional republic. You seem to be very keen on what the US was founded for. It wasn't for equality and it certainly wasn't for liberal democracy.
It's hard to take you seriously when you claim to be chinese and you spout anti-chinese propaganda. Not just in this comment but your other comments - "false moral equivalence", "US was founded on the idea of all men are created equal", etc. It would be like an iraqi claiming that the US invaded iraq to bring freedom. You sound exactly like gordon chang except I don't think he's aspiring to be a hacker. And for an aspiring hacker you sure seem down on your state propaganda.
Xinjian, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan are all non-chinese territories. china is also claiming maritime rights into neighboring territories that don't belong to them.
So does every country, but not at whatever cost, i.e. it does NOT deserve the "right" to systematically commit racism or genocides against people who are not Han simply because they are in the way.
When they wrote "all men are created equal," they had black slaves. Why do you take their words at face value?
It's possible to have this conversation without framing it as some sort of binary choice between xi jinping's happy social currency reeducation camp club, and white america's causally racist military industrial imperialism. Imo you can't love your country without always seeking to improve it.
My comment doesn't contradict anything that you're saying. I pointed out that America has made many grave mistakes, such as slavery, and that we can still improve America today. The words of the Declaration of Independence are an inspiration and mandate to work towards the goal of equality.
Our founding fathers were certainly hypocrites and flawed men, but that doesn't invalidate the truth of their words.
Alcohol can be beneficial in terms of it being a "social glue" whether you personally believe it or not. Within reason is fine, and won't make you an alcoholic. So that doesn't fit the counter examples.
Of course there's happiness benefits to it in social settings, not disputing that. Just saying that, in a vacuum, any amount of alcohol is harmful to the human body. The "1 glass of red wine per day" is BS.
How about smoking?
Report 1: Smoking is good because it makes you more masculine. Report 2: Smoking is bad because it causes lung cancer. Report N: Smoking is still bad.
You overestimate police possibilities just take into your mind that there is something around 100 000 police people to take care of 38 000 000 population of whole country.
So yes your best option for not getting robbed/mugged is not to walk in the dark alleys unless you really need to. There is not going to be a policeman in every dark alley.
Parent poster omitted important part, so before jumping to conclusions, read article first: "They carried out a series of raids this past spring, which netted dozens of high-powered weapons and led to the arrests of 35 people who face almost 500 charges, including the attempted murder of Carr."
What do you want them to do? Give her 24/7 security? They are telling her that if there are people against her she should be cautious. It's hard for police anywhere to prevent something that hasn't happened yet.
In what world are we living that protecting an innocent citizen is portrayed as a crazy idea? I don't mind if they give her 24/7 security, if they watch 24/7 people who they suspect want to harm her, whatever. IMHO police #1 role should be protecting the people.
I would also argue that in the long term this should pay off. Protect the lawyer, stop crime organizations, save much money later because less security needed. Don't protect the layer == more crime == more future expenses.
The problem is more where do you draw the line with that protection. What kind of risk warrants you getting special round the clock police presence? What if a criminal leader is having problems with another gang who keeps putting hits out on him? Maybe he had multiple attempts made on his life already. Should he also get protection? Or would he not count because of his criminal history?
If anything what should be happening here is the insurance company who is paying her should be helping protect her. Otherwise why wouldn't she just drop the client? If it is unsafe for her she may as well just cave in and drop that high risk client. I don't see how her career had to end because she couldn't drop a single client.
The insurance companies also could have put pressure on the prosecutors to go after these criminals. What I find interesting is that in the story we heard nothing from the insurance companies despite them being the main one going head-to-head against these guys.
In my city in Ontario our police department is already underfunded and has less officers per 100 000 people than most other departments in Ontario. And because of the BLM movement one of their proposed budgets would end up forcing them to cut 216 officers. Unfortunately people want to ask for things like these 24/7 protections but then they are unwilling to properly fund the police and instead look to defund them. A lot of police services in Ontario are understaffed and can barely keep up with 911 calls for service, how do you expect them to protect someone 24/7 for who knows how long when they can barely keep up with normal 911 calls?
