Message from @Koninos

Discord ID: 685528006009290808


2020-03-06 14:07:02 UTC  

Because it would remove a potential obstacle to my groups acquisition of a resource. If at some point my people desperately needed the resource for one reason or another, the opposing group could potentially exploit that desperate need and raise whatever price they ask for it in trade. Or perhaps they enter into an alliance of sorts with an enemy group and remove my group's access all together.

2020-03-06 14:29:12 UTC  

Hi

2020-03-06 14:55:53 UTC  

Henlo

2020-03-06 15:54:07 UTC  

And why kill them, when you can literally take many other prohibitive measures to stop that? You can't make absolute decisions on a mere hypothesis.

2020-03-06 16:10:38 UTC  

Because why wouldn't I kill them? Unless killing is inherently wrong the only reason I wouldn't is because it wouldn't work to my advantage but in this case, it would.

2020-03-06 16:11:10 UTC  

Control of resources ensures that my position is strong relative to other groups

2020-03-06 16:17:49 UTC  

Because killing them would be unnecessary. Your hypothesis can be reversed very easily, and their existence not only shouldn't inhibit you from claiming the resource, but they could actually work to your advantage if you take the right measures.

2020-03-06 16:19:53 UTC  

Ok but what if they don't want to cooperate?

2020-03-06 16:20:17 UTC  

What if, as I said, a third group is pushing them to oppose my group?

2020-03-06 16:20:44 UTC  

Your standard relies on the idea that there is *always* an alternative.

2020-03-06 16:23:56 UTC  

There is always an alternative indeed, but the thing is that this alternative might actually be hard to achieve. And that's the case here. It's pretty easy to kill them, but there is an alternative, no matter how hard it is. I believe that there are ways to both make them cooperate and cut them from the third group. And killing them in the modern world, but in the older one as well, would trigger the reaction of third groups, which could be fatal for the nation and its people.

2020-03-06 16:24:40 UTC  

Ok but you again assuming that the alternative would work and that the imperialistic killing couldn't ensure safety.

2020-03-06 16:25:08 UTC  

You surely can't believe that dominating an opposing group has never brought safety through out all of history.

2020-03-06 16:29:31 UTC  

I can believe that very well, but I can also believe even better the fact that there was always a better alternative, but it was invisible due to the old "trend" also known as Imperialism.

2020-03-06 16:29:58 UTC  

And Imperialistic killing could ensure temporary safety. It would trigger third party reactions, which could be fatal for the Imperialists.

2020-03-06 16:30:04 UTC  

And again, there could be a better alternative.

2020-03-06 16:37:10 UTC  

Well yeah, presently war is more costly than manipulation but that wasn't always the case and that could (however unlikely) change in the future. I would agree that imperialism isn't ideal today but that doesn't mean it is inherently immoral.

2020-03-06 16:38:18 UTC  

And manipulating other nations can cause a negative reaction as well whether that reaction is counter-manipulation or a conventional war, which one is ideal is a situational issue.

2020-03-06 16:41:25 UTC  

That's true. Manipulating other nations doesn't exactly equate to Imperialism though. Anyhow, today's QOTD will happen in a few hours, so we could end the conversation here, since I see that we have reached a conclusion, and since I have to go to class now. It was a very interesting conversation mate. Cya around (if you want to continue it, we could do it in <#587028275918929925>, but you'll have to wait a little bit for my response).

2020-03-06 16:42:25 UTC  

Alright, I don't think we'll get much further and I'm pretty satisfied, nice talk.

2020-03-06 16:43:33 UTC  

👍

2020-03-06 20:58:06 UTC  

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***Scarface#4323 has been warned., Rule 7.***

2020-03-06 21:59:33 UTC  

seems like you don't want that question to be asked interesting*

2020-03-06 22:02:23 UTC  

**Question of the Day.** 🔖
-*Authoritarianism or Libertarianism? Why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism?*

2020-03-06 22:02:25 UTC  

@everyone

2020-03-06 22:02:32 UTC  

Libertarianism all day

2020-03-06 22:02:40 UTC  

Government is gay

2020-03-06 22:02:43 UTC  

Hey hey hey

2020-03-06 22:03:12 UTC  

Seriously libertarianism is better

2020-03-06 22:03:14 UTC  

Bars.

2020-03-06 22:03:15 UTC  

Why must you ping everyone

2020-03-06 22:03:15 UTC  

No

2020-03-06 22:03:17 UTC  

Libertarianism has the tools to its own destruction in it.
There is no libertarian argument against people organizing to implement tyranny.
There is also no libertarian argument against say child transgenders.

2020-03-06 22:03:19 UTC  

Why is libertarianism better?

Government gay

2020-03-06 22:03:27 UTC  

Libertarianism >>>>>>>> Authoritarianism.

2020-03-06 22:03:33 UTC  

In short, libertarians are pansies.

2020-03-06 22:03:38 UTC  

Yes^

2020-03-06 22:03:46 UTC  

There moderate libertarianism

2020-03-06 22:03:50 UTC  

authoritarianism is for when you have daddy issues

2020-03-06 22:03:53 UTC  

Mixed