3 ms·
Certainly—I’d say it comes down to the necessity of access to the market in question, for the company or country outside of it. It quickly becomes subjective, h
by 1123581321 5y ago
Certainly—I’d say it comes down to the necessity of access to the market in question, for the company or country outside of it. It quickly becomes subjective, hence the blindness to one’s own demands.
- lovich 5y agoIt’s literally not subjective. It’s their own land and country. The only way you can treat removing access to it as extortion or blackmail is if you feel you have a legitimate claim to it in which case you are by definition not recognizing their sovereignty. That’s a position you can(and many countries have) take, but it’s an oxymoron to recognize a countries sovereignty and also expect a claim to their sovereign lands
- 1123581321 5y agoRight, I started the thread by saying that. I tried to neutrally describe the double standard citizens of some countries have. If you mean we should expect everyone to forgo holding opinions that benefit them selfishly: perhaps, but any success wouldn’t last past the next perceived opportunity or threat.
- lovich 5y agoReading through my previous reply I think I came off as accusatory when I said “you”. I meant that as in a general royal you type sense, not you in particular. I do understand you are trying to describe their double standard. I guess my point is that we don’t have to mangle the language and redefine words just because they have a double standard. They can call it blackmail and extortion all they want but it’s not something we should go along with
- 1123581321 5y agoGotcha. I shouldn’t have responded defensively either. I share the desire for accurate language.