4 ms·

> but I dare them to try to take it away through war. Why don't you apply the same logic to the opposite side? > You can’t go back and retroactively show your

> but I dare them to try to take it away through war. Why don't you apply the same logic to the opposite side? > You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.

caconym_ 3y ago
> "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all. I mean, it's sort of true, but it's very weird to (as GP did) espouse might-makes-right as a determinant of moral ownership and then turn around and say "Russia owns Crimea" when there is literally a war happening in Ukraine right now and the Western war machine is straining at its leash to utterly annihilate the Russian presence in what it considers Ukrainian territory, held back only by Russia's semi-credible threat of nuclear escalation.
- remote_phone 3y ago
  No, not moral ownership. De facto ownership. I never talked anything about morality. The fact is Russia took Crimea by force and is physically occupying it. The only way to get it back is by force. Until they Russia unquestionably owns Crimea. Saying “it’s not fair!” will not change the fact that Russia is currently owning Crimea.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    > Saying “it’s not fair!” What the hell? I'm saying that Ukraine deserves Starlink access in Crimea. And you go off on tangents about irrelevant details. The only person who matters in this discussion is Elon Musk, who is refusing to enable Starlink access in Crimea. But as I said in other posts: even if Mr. Musk enabled Starlink in Crimea, I don't know if the Ukrainian Commandos could trust it. We need to simply choose an entirely different satellite system to provide them... because Mr. Musk is seemingly compromised here. (And if Mr. Musk turns it off at a bad time, it could be even worse than his current inaction)
  - caconym_ 3y ago
    You don't need to "talk anything about morality" to make a statement about it. In fact you flatly dismissed any concept of ownership except the one in which I am the strongest and I own a thing because I took it by force and hold on to it by the same means, so that is your concept of a moral basis for ownership, whatever you want to call it. If you would like to clarify your position, feel free to do so. But I'm afraid doing so may undermine the point you were trying to make.

caconym_ 3y ago

> "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all. I mean, it's sort of true, but it's very weird to (as GP did) espouse might-makes-right as a determinant of moral ownership and then turn around and say "Russia owns Crimea" when there is literally a war happening in Ukraine right now and the Western war machine is straining at its leash to utterly annihilate the Russian presence in what it considers Ukrainian territory, held back only by Russia's semi-credible threat of nuclear escalation.

remote_phone 3y ago
No, not moral ownership. De facto ownership. I never talked anything about morality. The fact is Russia took Crimea by force and is physically occupying it. The only way to get it back is by force. Until they Russia unquestionably owns Crimea. Saying “it’s not fair!” will not change the fact that Russia is currently owning Crimea.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > Saying “it’s not fair!” What the hell? I'm saying that Ukraine deserves Starlink access in Crimea. And you go off on tangents about irrelevant details. The only person who matters in this discussion is Elon Musk, who is refusing to enable Starlink access in Crimea. But as I said in other posts: even if Mr. Musk enabled Starlink in Crimea, I don't know if the Ukrainian Commandos could trust it. We need to simply choose an entirely different satellite system to provide them... because Mr. Musk is seemingly compromised here. (And if Mr. Musk turns it off at a bad time, it could be even worse than his current inaction)
- caconym_ 3y ago
  You don't need to "talk anything about morality" to make a statement about it. In fact you flatly dismissed any concept of ownership except the one in which I am the strongest and I own a thing because I took it by force and hold on to it by the same means, so that is your concept of a moral basis for ownership, whatever you want to call it. If you would like to clarify your position, feel free to do so. But I'm afraid doing so may undermine the point you were trying to make.