The Chinese government has made five demands on the United States, including the cancellation of its chip exports ban and sanctions, during US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s four-day China…
So your argument is repeating and agreeing with what I just told you: that a malicious act is malicious regardless of how many people do it. Thank you for conceding that point, however odd it is to frame my argument as your own argument. Given you’re still taking my side, I’m fine with it…
And then right after that you vaguely argue against yourself that because one country commits corporate espionage, it’s okay that other countries commit corporate espionage.
You’re making a case in support of my argument that malicious acts are malicious regardless of how many people commit them, and then subsequently arguing against yourself, which I do appreciate, so thank you for your support!
Protip: try not to precisely paraphrase the argument the person you’re arguing against has put forward, including their example, and then agree with their point and example; this will usually lead to you losing the argument.
There’s no reason for country-level sanctions for private corporate espionage. It’s that simple.
It doesn’t matter if corporate espionage is malicious and it’s frankly hypocritical for America to be calling out other countries’ corporate espionage.
Except that’s exactly what you’re calling for? You gave evidence of (presumably a Chinese telecom) stealing T-Mobile testing equipment as a reason for the sanctions.
That robot was stolen by Huawei, which is heavily subsidized by the CCP.
But what I have said repeatedly, regardless of your presumptive tangents, is that state level actions make a state responsible, and in the examples I gave, a hostile state has ownership ties to companies stealing energy production data and military data.
But… you don’t consider T-Mobile, Apple, Intel, or Microsoft to be American state-sponsored companies despite their hundreds of billions in subsidies and tax incentives?
Odd.
The recent CHIPS act gave Intel what, like $20 billion in subsidies. Guess what? That’s what governments do to stimulate economic growth.
This statement is literally irrelevant because, guess what, every reasonable country subsidizes their domestic industries. I’ve proven that and you’re unwilling to accept that state-owned enterprises (which exist, by the way) are different from private companies.
I’ll help you out: Intel is a private company. Amtrak is not. Alibaba is a private company, CRRC is not. Huawei is a private company, CNPC is not.
Your incorrect argument is that a rapist gets to make that determination. They don’t. It’s like saying “my rape was ok, but yours isn’t!”
That’s not how things work. It’s either ok or it isn’t.
Maybe if it was a country that didn’t built it’s entire economy on the back of corporate espionage, you might have a bit of an argument.
So your argument is repeating and agreeing with what I just told you: that a malicious act is malicious regardless of how many people do it. Thank you for conceding that point, however odd it is to frame my argument as your own argument. Given you’re still taking my side, I’m fine with it…
And then right after that you vaguely argue against yourself that because one country commits corporate espionage, it’s okay that other countries commit corporate espionage.
You’re making a case in support of my argument that malicious acts are malicious regardless of how many people commit them, and then subsequently arguing against yourself, which I do appreciate, so thank you for your support!
Protip: try not to precisely paraphrase the argument the person you’re arguing against has put forward, including their example, and then agree with their point and example; this will usually lead to you losing the argument.
There’s no reason for country-level sanctions for private corporate espionage. It’s that simple.
It doesn’t matter if corporate espionage is malicious and it’s frankly hypocritical for America to be calling out other countries’ corporate espionage.
Glad you agree with my points, even if it took you four reiterations to understand them.
Nobody argued that there should be country level sanctions for private corporate espionage, weird that you keep focusing on arguments nobody has made.
Yes, of course it matters if the theft of military data by a hostile state is malicious. It is of the essence.
And no, victim blaming still won’t get you anywhere.
I appreciate your support
Except that’s exactly what you’re calling for? You gave evidence of (presumably a Chinese telecom) stealing T-Mobile testing equipment as a reason for the sanctions.
That robot was stolen by Huawei, which is heavily subsidized by the CCP.
But what I have said repeatedly, regardless of your presumptive tangents, is that state level actions make a state responsible, and in the examples I gave, a hostile state has ownership ties to companies stealing energy production data and military data.
But… you don’t consider T-Mobile, Apple, Intel, or Microsoft to be American state-sponsored companies despite their hundreds of billions in subsidies and tax incentives?
Odd.
The recent CHIPS act gave Intel what, like $20 billion in subsidies. Guess what? That’s what governments do to stimulate economic growth.
Odder that you keep making false arguments and pretending they are my arguments.
This statement is literally irrelevant because, guess what, every reasonable country subsidizes their domestic industries. I’ve proven that and you’re unwilling to accept that state-owned enterprises (which exist, by the way) are different from private companies.
I’ll help you out: Intel is a private company. Amtrak is not. Alibaba is a private company, CRRC is not. Huawei is a private company, CNPC is not.