Then I ask again, what was the point of this vote?

If you think your people didn't do the same to whoever was there before them, I don't know what to tell you. It's fun to be a victim though, right?

Lucky for you, I think I'm done now. No one's gonna make you use that paper weight you call your head.

1. Because saying that people need food doesn't magically put it in their mouths. It's nice that you believe a UN resolution would though.

2. How would you split it? Just fuck the natural disaster victims, right?

3. You've really proven your intellect with this one.

Right, but you can't have it both ways. Are countries better off of their agriculture is dictated, or not? Why is it the responsibility of the US?

Fair, I shouldn't have speculated like that. However, my argument is that the whole vote was a charade. If China knew the US was going to veto this, then their vote is meaningless.

You know full well that they had no idea what damage they were doing to the ecosystem. If you're going to argue, do it in good faith.

Then what's the point? Why even have this vote? Could it be that they're trying to signal how virtuous they are?

This is what children do, they look for a boogie man and demonize them without evidence.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm sure China would abide by this if it passed. This is definitely not a bad faith argument.

Take a look at what uralsolo had to say. The US is starving the world by forcing them to grow certain crops. And you say the US is starving the world by not trading with them. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

The solipsism is sounding here. The world was not always as it is now. Conquest was the way the world worked for a very long time. You think these people had any concept of the damage they were doing? All you have to do is take the one extra conceptual step. Don't be so lazy.