|
|
|
|
|
|
by latch
2968 days ago
|
|
|
A war of aggression has nothing to do with whether or not it was declared (in fact, declaring such a war is, by itself, considered a war of aggression and is illegal and is a war crime). Are you sure you still feel that committing a war crime and doing what philosophers and statesmen and lawyers consider the "supreme" crime is really worse than "expecting major corporations to do police duty" ? I think part of your argument is reasonable to a point that two people could, in good conscious and respectfully, disagree. Maybe governments are better suited to handle this (via what is known as soft power). But as long as you take such an extreme position that cannot be defended (it's better to wage of war of aggression than to have amazon stand up for Signal), you're just commenting for yourself. No one is going to engage you in meaningful discussion, because even when it gets pointed out that you're advocating for a war crime, you can't even say "well ya, maybe that was a bit extreme." |
|
|
1) As noble as the cause may seem, it would be better for everyone if massive corporations just focused on business instead of politics. It's reasonable, predictable, and safer. Signal is not affected by this, it just means picking a better option than breaking terms of service.
2) The correct process for citizens of a country is through government diplomatic and military action, especially when concerning other foreign states. That's all I said, and another posted specifically asked about the military in which case the option is called war. This entire story is about oppressive powers, most of which are disabled through military action, so it's not a strange concept and nowhere is a war of aggression mentioned.
Perhaps take a step down from your moral high ground and try to comprehend the entire conversation before telling someone that they are advocating for war crimes, that would be much more helpful if you want a meaningful discussion.