3 ms·

So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it? The point is that Brita

So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it? The point is that Britain has those artifacts now and Greece/Egypt/other countries want them back now.

jshevek 6y ago
>So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it? Please do not pollute the conversation with strawmen. There are more options here than the two extremes. Take a look at the comment to which I was responding: >...the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving And take another look at my actual comment: >This conclusion assumes many things that are not a given, such as the assumptions that it would have been not have been lost, damaged, or stolen by a third party during all of that time. The comment to which I was responding presented an absurd and presumptive claim. Absurd claims should be called out for what they are, regardless of which 'side' you perceive to be strengthened or weakened by doing so.
- rbg246 6y ago
  It was only stolen 100-200 years ago. It had survived for 2000-4000 years... I'm not sure your argument holds weight.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    If you read the link to the article about the Elgin marbles I posted in response to the original Brit-bashing comment that launched this thread, you'll see it does; at least in the sense that speaking authoritatively of rights and wrongs - as though the case is proven - is unwise.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    I appreciate the form of your comment: A factual claim followed by a statement of uncertainty. My argument is that the comment to which I was responding was a non sequitur premised on a number of unstated assumptions. I threw in a few examples to invite the reader to think laterally, to investigate. You question my argument, so I wonder: Have you done so? Have you put the thought in to examine the claim made, and to see what other assumptions are being hidden? Regarding the facts you emphasize, I don't agree that "only" is a good modifier to place before "100-200 years" in this context. The 2000-4000 years you mention is entirely irrelevant, given survivorship bias.

jshevek 6y ago

>So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it? Please do not pollute the conversation with strawmen. There are more options here than the two extremes. Take a look at the comment to which I was responding: >...the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving And take another look at my actual comment: >This conclusion assumes many things that are not a given, such as the assumptions that it would have been not have been lost, damaged, or stolen by a third party during all of that time. The comment to which I was responding presented an absurd and presumptive claim. Absurd claims should be called out for what they are, regardless of which 'side' you perceive to be strengthened or weakened by doing so.

rbg246 6y ago
It was only stolen 100-200 years ago. It had survived for 2000-4000 years... I'm not sure your argument holds weight.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  If you read the link to the article about the Elgin marbles I posted in response to the original Brit-bashing comment that launched this thread, you'll see it does; at least in the sense that speaking authoritatively of rights and wrongs - as though the case is proven - is unwise.
- jshevek 6y ago
  I appreciate the form of your comment: A factual claim followed by a statement of uncertainty. My argument is that the comment to which I was responding was a non sequitur premised on a number of unstated assumptions. I threw in a few examples to invite the reader to think laterally, to investigate. You question my argument, so I wonder: Have you done so? Have you put the thought in to examine the claim made, and to see what other assumptions are being hidden? Regarding the facts you emphasize, I don't agree that "only" is a good modifier to place before "100-200 years" in this context. The 2000-4000 years you mention is entirely irrelevant, given survivorship bias.