• michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      21 hours ago

      The problem is that your post consists only of specious arguments that indicate you haven’t really thought about this. EG it makes little sense to try to annex Greenland for defense when the act of trying to take it would blow up half of our alliances, start a war, and ultimately provide no more benefit than simply continuing to ally with Greenland/Denmark.

      • abbadon420@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        If I were the glorious leader of the USA, I could just fall back on the fact that I am the smartest person by presidential decreed. But I am not, so I can only make specious arguments.

        It is a great thought experiment though. How can the glorious leader justify the American claim to Greenland?

    • gressen@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Right, because attacking the person rather than the actual argument is a stellar example of mature discussion skills.

      • abbadon420@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 day ago

        I am explicitely not attacking your person, but your style of debate. You might very well be a great person to hang out with. I’m not making assumptions about that.

        You cannot change who you are, so it would be unfair to comment on your person. You can however change your debate style by not saying things like “next argument please”.