Better not let Aaron Mate see that -- he'll challenge every sentence. The thing about that is: I can do that, too. I can challenge just about any assertion -- quote stats to me, and I'll argue how they are flawed; quote witnesses, and I'll challenge them, and present counter-witnesses; I'll even throw in some counterfactuals, like, "If that theory were true, wouldn't you expect X instead of Y? Doesn't that make more sense?"

That's why there are examples of innocent people who were sent to prison -- one side was just better at arguing. Eventually, given enough time, the chatter settles down, and the luster for particular arguments fades; and their proponents die, no longer there to project them to an unsuspecting public. Finally, people take a more objective look at the arguments and evidence, and reach something coming closer to the truth.

The hair stylist I went to last month turned out to be a middle-aged woman from Hong Kong. (She was very skilled! Did a great job on my hair!) I asked her about the protests, and she seemed to be visibly angry about the CPC. She mentioned some U.S. laws about protecting Hong Kong from around the time of the handover from the U.K...

... that Beijing doesn't want to violate, as it would cost them billions. She also mentioned how Hong Kong is a major business conduit for many western countries, and that China would lose even *more* if Hong Kong turns into a bloodbath -- overall, it would be an economic disaster.

I asked her about why more people didn't leave, like her (she had left at least 20 years before the handover; and is now fully American, with an accent still). She said many countries won't take you unless you have at least $1 million. And she said probably at least HALF the population of Hong Kong would leave China, if they could escape. She might have been exaggerating on that -- but I can believe it's a pretty large percent.

this line of thinking is right, it is possible that elephants – and parrots, corvids, dolphins and orcas – currently have only the basic elements of personhood but could have full, human-style personhood in their futures. I am suggesting that what stands between elephants and us is not necessarily limited intelligence, limited ability to report facts to one another, or limited ability to signal preferences. Rather, it might be a lack of ability to store records of reasons in the environment....

I have posted a link to the article you cite in The Future of Animals thread in the Culture, Economics, and Politics of the Future forum.

So should I delete?

Roaring20s 2.0?

:)

More like the groaning 20s amirightfellas?