That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I’d have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you’ve expanded them.
Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn’t altruistic. So it isn’t fully objectively good as someone above objected.
Now you’re changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn’t objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.
At what point do you cool off? You’ve been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you’ve engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you’re right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?
And no. The person you’re referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn’t objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There’s a distinction.
Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this?
Good question. I had hoped I would give an argument that the US is not incalculably worse than authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. But y’all seem to really like them despite reality, and there are way too many of you to talk to.
And this isn’t good for my sleep schedule, so I’ll manually defederate by blocking all your subs. Bye, thanks for being reasonable
But was it bad they joined? Even if it was self interested, it’s still a good thing.
deleted by creator
That makes the definition very broad indeed. In that case I’d have a hard time seeing any country satisfy it. Since everything impacts everything else in some way, and since an entire nation never have completely spotless intentions, no country ever would fit these criteria as you’ve expanded them.
deleted by creator
Having a government in power that you backed is beneficial to you, therefore it isn’t altruistic. So it isn’t fully objectively good as someone above objected.
Now you’re changing the definition of good to exclude anything that benefits you. Hugging your mother isn’t objectively good. And for no other reason than in this narrow context in an argument it helps you save face.
My mom is a nice lady, and I love and respect her, so hugging her is good.
No, someone above was arguing that the US joining WWII wasn’t good because it wasn’t altruistic. I was applying the same logic.
Edit: see here
At what point do you cool off? You’ve been shown to be shamefully ignorant on pretty much every topic you’ve engaged with in this thread. When do you stop acting like you’re right about literally fucking everything and just give up on some arguments? Why do you have to go 12 rounds on pedantic bullshit like this? When if ever do you just chill the fuck out and start acting like you have things to learn about the world?
And no. The person you’re referring to did not say that the US joining WW2 wasn’t objectively good because it lacked altruism. They said it was because their intentions were entirely selfish. There’s a distinction.
Good question. I had hoped I would give an argument that the US is not incalculably worse than authoritarian regimes like Russia and China. But y’all seem to really like them despite reality, and there are way too many of you to talk to.
And this isn’t good for my sleep schedule, so I’ll manually defederate by blocking all your subs. Bye, thanks for being reasonable