Unless he’s fleeing DC a couple steps ahead of a mob with torches and pitchforks, he ain’t worried enough.

Yup. You definitely have no idea how treaties or international relations work.

I get that it’s scary that the US is doing it, but this is far from the first time world leaders have blustered about wanting territory that wasn’t theirs.

The international community didn’t support preemptive action even when 50,000 troops were massed on Ukrainian borders, they’re not going to do it when a single US combat asset hasn’t moved towards Greenland yet, and not a single policy decision has been enacted.

Edit- don’t get me wrong, if we start blockading Greenland, massing naval and amphibious forces, or building up ground units on the base in Greenland, then absolutely bomb the shit out of them, but the international community will never support action before that. It’s ludicrous to think they would.

…because the last window of opportunity for anticipatory self-defense has been repeatedly ruled by the international community to not extend that far?

Troops massing at borders is precisely the situation that the last window of opportunity is referring to.

I’m starting to think you don’t actually know the statutes involved or their previous legal cases, because if you did you’d know your “argument” is completely worthless.

But it isn’t the same argument.

When DJs sample, they choose the samples, choose the pitch and playback speed, and choose where and when to put the sample in their songs.

There is no human intentionality in AI-created music. No one decided what the song should sound like, it’s a mash of what an algorithm calculates is the most predictable next sound based on its prompt, and it calculates what’s next by illegally using the intellectual properties of real humans.

Whoever used this argument with you isn’t arguing in good faith.

Edit - I didn’t even answer the overarching question. You’ll find, in almost all cases, that it isn’t the same argument because one or more things that factor into the decision will have changed. Very rarely is a situation entirely static, and if some variables have changed, then the entire argument must be reconsidered.

They’re shooting them in the face with birdshot. It’s very small and is much less likely to penetrate into body cavities or break bone, but causes extensive soft tissue damage. This is intended to maim people.

Then it wouldn’t be inadvertent anymore, right?

He admitted the emergency exit was locked. When they unlocked it after the fire, there were patrons bodies piled up in front of it.

His negligence absolutely contributed to those people’s deaths.

Where did the question say the person was negligent?

Now you’re adding details not in the question.

Inadvertently means accidentally. Accidents, by their definition, are not purposeful or intentional.

Do you normally make a practice of blaming accidents on people more than you blame your enemies?

Inadvertent is an accident. People don’t deserve blame or anger for accidents.

If an enemy hurts you, it’s malicious.

Anyone who can so readily throw out the principle of anticipatory self defense knows that isn’t a “last window of opportunity” scenario.

Why do you want Denmark to break the law so badly?

I have nerve damage in my hands so typos are a huge part of typing on a phone for me. I’ve gotten in the habit of going back and rereading a time or two before hitting post because there will always be a few words that are unrecognizable.

(For instance, before I went back just now, “hitting” was “hjrrjbd”)

Assimilation by the Corpsefather is the only option to give you 1000 years of unfettered freedom first.

Go big or go home. I pick the Corpsefather so that I can spend 1000 years free of resource wars, VR hellscapes, and alternate dimension experiments.

Hell, after 1000 years of accumulated experience, I’ll probably already be insane by the time Dad shows up anyway.

Did it the moment he posted. He’s been escalating his hateful bile on instances across lemmy for days. This is not a surprise.

Way to go giving the hateful incel who posts about having awful mental health and how “the bitches will pay” access to more firearms resources.

Very responsible of you. Really giving gun owners a good name.

Please explain how this meets the “last window of opportunity” restriction on anticipatory self-defense.

OP has a history of mass shooter posts, incel shit, abusive language toward women, and numerous threats to hurt people.

Please do not give him any information that could lead to his obtaining a firearm.

That article doesn’t give a single reason why it would be advantageous for Denmark to preemptively break the treaty.

You realize that treaties have legal repercussions built into them if they’re broken, right? And that Denmark is waiting for us to incur those repercussions (like sanctions), rather than them?

If they’re potentially fighting an invasion, why would they want to trigger additional hardships for themselves by breaking the treaty?

You really haven’t thought about any of this, holy shit.

His tag says “Batshit Fucking Psycho” for me.

…so you don’t understand treaties, or international relations, or anything like that?

You don’t see why Denmark preemptively violating the NATO charter weakens their position on the international stage considerably?

Also, I’m in the US. Like I indicated in the previous comment.

You absolute idiot.

Was banned permanently from Reddit for correctly identifying a certain South African billionaire’s political leanings.