This argument is going in circles, mainly because you make up your own definitions.
This argument is going in circles because you don't even have an argument point and you are unable to understand definitions that aren't snowflaked.
It's basically impossible to argue in good faith when you make up your own definitions.
It's basically impossible to argue in good faith with someone who thinks that refusing to patronize someone's business and exercising one's basic right to spend one's money where one sees fit is economic bullying.
But for the record, what China did to South Korea is not bullying because it's self-defense against US-SK aggression.
For the record, you unloaded a dumpster full of nonsense only in the end to agree with me that an invasion of South Korea would be bullying and that witholding business is not bullying.
It has nothing to do with "China's rights"
It has everything to do with China acting within its own rights and not violating others' rights.
or whatever mental gymnastics you trying to justify with, and makes no sense whatsoever.
Like I said before, to those in a mental wheelchair, just seeing someone walk around feels like you're watching mental gymnastics. And this is the first time on this forum I've heard of a person accuse another of mental gymnastics only to admit that his conclusion is the same.
It's self-defense against aggression, so it's not bullying. It has nothing to do with "Rights" or
It's a reaction within one's own rights to another country that acted within its rights. Just because you can't wrap your head around the meaning or importance of rights doesn't mean that it's not center stage in determining if you are in the right or wrong.
"Bullying=Invasion" non-sense.
Which, you apparently had no choice but to begrudgingly concede.
Moral has no place in international trade,
So... that means you agree that every ban or tariff that the US imposed was completely ok and did not constitute any bullying.
your example is completely invalid.
No, you're confused with your Bruce Lee example.
Even if moral applies, your boycott example still using personal relationship for international trade, still invalid.
LOLOL No, your simple mind has once again entangled the legal aspect with the moral aspect when they can and should be separated. And your statement falls along the line of, "Even if A applies, your example is still B, and thus invalid." No. A and B are separate. Morally, you can compare international relations with personal relations.
Let me help you with an example. You asked whether I can refuse service to Jewish customers in the US. No, I cannot because that is illegal discrimination violating US domestic law. However, if we depart the legal realm and move into the moral realm, I can do it, because as a private business owner, I have the right to serve and not serve whomever I choose and as long as I nonviolently decline service to those Jewish would-be patrons, I have stayed within my rights and not violated theirs. So in a comparable case where no law was there to prevent one exercising this freedom to choose one's business partners, such as in international trade, an Arabic country can absolutely say that they will ban business with Israel.
If you are going to use stupid personal boycott example, don't cry to me about applying equivalent law to it.
I'm going to use that example from the moral aspect and your legal application is invalid because those are separate. The only feeling I have for crying is why you're so dense you still don't get this. And then I realize it's because it's coming from the same "mind" that ignored imperialism and brought up Bruce Lee's clip for inclusivity/exclusivity.
Which by the way, international law also exists, governing trade between states that signed it. Trade cannot be weaponized freely like you claimed. China's boycott was legal in the international law, US sanction is not.
Except the governing body is completely paralyzed with no ability to rule, effectively nullifying those laws. Even before that, China and the US routinely broke those laws and used their powers within the WTO to put the cases in legal limbo until they died. Effectively speaking, international trade is only governed by the will of countries to buy and sell from each other.
