9 ms·
So when your country will be attacked you will give up your lands and your freedoms just for sake of "less people dying"?
by Xeamek 2y ago
So when your country will be attacked you will give up your lands and your freedoms just for sake of "less people dying"?
- faebi 2y agoAbsolutely yes
- Xeamek 2y agoReally? Even if that would result with your new living conditions to be literally North Korea style or the worst of islamic terrorist state?
- castlefreak 2y agoHave you spoken to any Moscovites about living standards recently? Like this is so stupid. I would not trade for Russia's brutal treatment of dissidents but we don't exactly have a great record on that front in Western countries…
- Xeamek 2y agoYou know what hypothetical question is?
- aparticulate 2y ago[flagged]
- Xeamek 2y agoWhat's the point of hypethotical then?
- wilg 2y agoskill issue
- castlefreak 2y agoMy country had a coup in 2014 in order to install a leader friendly to US intel agencies. "Freedoms" were already flimsy.
- Xeamek 2y agoWho led the coup in "your" country?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- johnisgood 2y agoDo boundaries matter more than people dying? Genuine question.
- Xeamek 2y agoDepends on specific boundaries, but literally all of human history is about fighting for people's rights to hold one boundary or another
- johnisgood 2y agoBy boundaries I am referring to the geographical ones, might not be the best term. Like, if Ukraine let Russia have specific regions and it meant millions of people not dying, would people go for it?
- nuancebydefault 2y agoProbably yes, but he premise is wrong. You know P being a villain and all that.
- Xeamek 2y agoSo just borders? In the end, it’s the people who fight that determine if the thing they are fighting for is worth their lives. Dying for some lines on the map sounds bad, but if it were only lines on the map, then the people probably wouldn't choose to die for them, would they? Nobody wants to die, but if someone is ready to give up their life for some cause, then who are you to tell them they can't? It's the fate of Ukrainians that is at stake and its the Ukrainians that determine if changing that fate is worth the costs of their lives.
- johnisgood 2y agoI am not going to tell them they can't, they can do as they see fit, of course. It is a very subjective topic, however. I might save my family even if it meant the death of hundreds of people, or not, it is a moral dilemma for sure. I do not have an answer. Some people may believe "less people dying" is always favorable.
- russocan 2y agoIn a heartbeat. If two criminal organizations want to fight over some land, that’s none of my business. Also worth noting that in a war, the greatest danger comes from your own government, not the enemy because the enemy will accept your surrender and your own government won’t.
- corimaith 2y agoYou've grown spoilt on an age of peace. But that kind of abject self-interest is probably the first to leave one in front of the chopping block, or worse, enslavement.
- russocan 2y agoThat’s exactly what the Ukrainian government is doing with their men, so you’re right in an ironic way. If I was Ukrainian I would be praying for my government to collapse.
- Xeamek 2y agoWhat if the enemy won't allow for your surrender and just want to kill you regardless?
- russocan 2y agoIn that case I'd fight of course, but luckily most wars are for land and resources (which don't belong to the people anyways), so it literally doesn't matter who wins, you'll be paying taxes regardless.