It it morally wrong to conquer land?

[Incelforeever]

Dont just say it isnt because "muh ur stealing peoples home" actually provide a good and complex reason on why its inherently wrong.

imo there is nothing wrong with it from a objective standpoint. obv the side being conquered is gonna be upset and cry but that doesnt make it morally wrong so u guys can leave the lame argument of "how would u feel if that happens to u" were talking strickly from an objective perspective here.

Overall its something natural in a sense that humans have been doing since recored history, waging wars for land and resurces.

I wonder how u guys here feel cuz majority people in this world would immediately say its evil with their 2 braincels brain

 

[Incelforeever]

up

 

[ltnbrownacnecel]

OP is white.

 

[Bryce]

No, of course not. It's survival of the fittest. If you and your army are stronger than the other guys' army, it's fair game.

 

[Incelforeever]

OP is white.

if u dont wanna engage with ur brain dont please

 

[mohito]

Might triumphs over morality. Conquest is the peak human experience

 

[Incelforeever]

No, of course not. It's survival of the fittest. If you and your army are stronger than the other guys' army, it's fair game.

yup but its still important to have emphaty when u conquer someones current land

 

[EvilSatanArseRapist]

Right and wrong don't exist.
There are appropriate and inappropriate actions based on the principles and ovjectives one defines.
Are our principles peace and so on?
Do we value the sovereignty of nations, international law, blah blah blah?

Yes? In that case taking over another nation is inappropriate.

If we dgaf however, and we have the capacity to force ourself over others, we are mightier, we can mold reality in a way, then it might aswell be appropriate to take land if it serves our interests.

 

[Bryce]

yup but its still important to have emphaty when u conquer someones current land

What do you mean? I guess it's all circumstantial. When the colonialists eradicated the savage natives and turned the US from a plot of dirt into the best country on earth, there was no need for empathy considering the natives tortured women and children of other tribes for weeks on end.

 

[IronMike]

A government or you mean like me going next door and slaying my neighbor and taking his wife

 

[ltnbrownacnecel]

if u dont wanna engage with ur brain dont please

Yes it is wrong to to conquer people. Killing and stealing their wealth is wrong just because ur stronger or smarter.

 

[Galvatron]

Op is Indian

 

[Incelforeever]

Right and wrong don't exist.
There are appropriate and inappropriate actions based on the principles and ovjectives one defines.
Are our principles peace and so on?
Do we value the sovereignty of nations, international law, blah blah blah?

Yes? In that case taking over another nation is inappropriate.

If we dgaf however, and we have the capacity to force ourself over others, we are mightier, we can mold reality in a way, then it might aswell be appropriate to take land if it serves our interests.

those appropriate and inappropriate actions are essentially right and wrong but yes right and wrong dont exist from an objective stand point.

If u wanna do something and ur aware of the consequence nobody can tell u its wrong if its right for u

 

[alexias]

Dont just say it isnt because "muh ur stealing peoples home" actually provide a good and complex reason on why its inherently wrong.

imo there is nothing wrong with it from a objective standpoint. obv the side being conquered is gonna be upset and cry but that doesnt make it morally wrong so u guys can leave the lame argument of "how would u feel if that happens to u" were talking strickly from an objective perspective here.

Overall its something natural in a sense that humans have been doing since recored history, waging wars for land and resurces.

I wonder how u guys here feel cuz majority people in this world would immediately say its evil with their 2 braincels brain

It depends of what you think as conquest, textbook definition of conquering means to take land but this is an broad term. Considering you are saying stealing people's home, im asumming your talking something like Israel and Palestine, to me it's morally wrong and cowardice to fight unarmed civilians with the best army technology that is not conquest, that's called being an coward

 

[Bryce]

Yes it is wrong to to conquer people. Killing and stealing their wealth is wrong just because ur stronger or smarter.

If they were weak enough to be conquered, they had no wealth.

 

[Incelforeever]

A government or you mean like me going next door and slaying my neighbor and taking his wife

doesnt matter, a government, 1 person. Its ur decision, its not morally wrong

 

[Incelforeever]

It depends of what you think as conquest, textbook definition of conquering means to take land but this is an broad term. Considering you are saying stealing people's home, im asumming your talking something like Israel and Palestine, to me it's morally wrong and cowardice to fight unarmed civilians with the best army technology that is not conquest, that's called being an coward

This just reeks of low iq, nobody is gonna give up their tecnholgy in a war or what u wanna define it as to make it equal because the other side is weaker. Regardless im not talking about the israel and palestine. conquering is conquering, its easy to understand

 

[IronMike]

doesnt matter, a government, 1 person. Its ur decision, its not morally wrong

So its just natural if someone knocked you out and stole your wallet?

No big deal either way, becasue it wouldn't happen to me

 

[ltnbrownacnecel]

If they were weak enough to be conquered, they had no wealth.

Why would someone conquer someone who has no wealth?

 

[Bryce]

Why would someone conquer someone who has no wealth?

For the land. If you have wealth, a kingdom, a people, and there's a part of the world or a neighboring country which is full of peasants and dirt merchants, then you wipe them out and expand your territory. It's easy to understand.

 

[Incelforeever]

So its just natural if someone knocked you out and stole your wallet?

No big deal either way, becasue it wouldn't happen to me

Its just not morally wrong. It might be wrong for u and right for him but its neither right or wrong objectivliy

 

[alexias]

This just reeks of low iq, nobody is gonna make give up their tecnholgy in a war or what u wanna define it as to make it equal because the other side is weaker. Regardless im not talking about the israel and palestine. conquering is conquering, its easy to understand

You said stealing other people's home, im assuming you are fighting unarmed civilians

 

[ltnbrownacnecel]

For the land. If you have wealth, a kingdom, a people, and there's a part of the world or a neighboring country which is full of peasants and dirt merchants, then you wipe them out and expand your territory. It's easy to understand.

U do realize that land is a form of wealth right?

 

[Incelforeever]

You said stealing other people's home, im assuming you are fighting unarmed civilians

U might aswell be, when u wanna take over land u have to do get ur hands "dirty".

 

[Incelforeever]

U do realize that land is a form of wealth right?

the native americans were wealthy?

 

[Bryce]

U do realize that land is a form of wealth right?

Not when you can't do anything with it. Most of the time the "people" who got conquered were just drifters from a different part of the world and didn't utilize their resources because they didn't care.

 

[ltnbrownacnecel]

the native americans were wealthy?

That's a complex question but some were wealthy not in today's sense where they had money but they had a bunch of resources

Not when you can't do anything with it. Most of the time the "people" who got conquered were just drifters from a different part of the world and didn't utilize their resources because they didn't care.

What do u mean by "not doing anything with it" also they weren't just drifters im pretty sure.

 

[Bryce]

What do u mean by "not doing anything with it" also they weren't just drifters im pretty sure.

By not doing anything with it, I mean reproducing, building huts out of twigs, moving your tribal location every few months, and repeating that cycle. No industrializing, no innovating, no discovering, no currency, no laws, no kinship, just eating, sleeping, making babies, shitting, and that's it.

 

[Incelforeever]

That's a complex question but some were wealthy not in today's sense where they had money but they had a bunch of resources

well they got replaced because people wanted that land they were on and the world moved on.