what i'm saying is you must be willing to do to them everything they are prepared to do to you.
otherwise, negociation is impossible.
🇳🇱
@icedquinn are we speaking in aggregate or as individuals?
In others words should i be willing to do to the group what 90% of the group is willing to do to me, even if that member of the group is not part of the 90%?
if they are willing to burn your house, kill your dog and steal your car, and you surrender immediately, you can never hold a meaningful protest. it just teaches them to send cops and you'll fold.
if they're willing to kill you, and you aren't willing to kill them, don't even bother. (or resort to subterfuge but that's a different conversation
)
That’s the basic principal of self-defense. A lot of people are going to learn how important that is way too late as this continues.
On an individual level I agree, if they are willing to kill you but you arent willing to kill them, you will be the one to suffer..
But applying this to groups in aggregate, or in general applying the logical fallacy that a part of the group has the same properties as the group, is dangerous at best.
It certainly didnt... but if your response to that is to nuke all of russia and being ok killing the people who are even against the war, and even the freedom fighters who are russian but opposing it... that would be wrong morally, and not something I would support.
Yes, but i would hope that we would hit strategic military targets and when possible avoid civilians... there may be collateral damage sure, but my point is we should treat every situation with nuance and not just reflect our enemies morality unless we have to to survive, and maybe not even then depending on your morality
It’s all moot anyway as it seems Russia is gearing up for a land strike with all the bridges they took out on the border recently. Likely a slow advance of artillery, but surprises are fun.
