>> You literally didn't contradict anything I said linguistically or culturally (i.e. that China is _not_ some singular linguistical/cultural area), which was m

>> You literally didn't contradict anything I said linguistically or culturally (i.e. that China is _not_ some singular linguistical/cultural area), which was my point. So no I _do_ have a point and you yourself agreed with it. > I am making the point that the linguistic differences between Romance language speakers are exaggerated and nonexistent in practice, not agreeing with you that the linguistic differences in China are significant. >> You made another point that the fact that China was unified more recently as an empire than Rome means they are somehow more legitimate. > You acted as if China was some newly formed entity, and used it to imply that it isn't natural for it to be unified. The amount of times China has been unified far outstrips the amount of times when a single city that's not even self sufficient infrastructurally has been independent. So you agree that there is no natural cultural-linguestic reason for China to be unified in its current form? You argue that the reason to support unification is because of China's past successes in militaristic imperialism support current unification? I mean if that's your point, then I hope more people read this so they understand the facts on the ground. You're basically saying that Hong Kong should be part of China because it can take it. Okay that's at least a consistent argument. I find it extremely immoral, but well I guess the only thing other countries can do is try to stand against China in that case.