Italian immigrants rounded up and placed in internment camps

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 39
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
"So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?"
Clearly with all the international agreements the USA has previously broken, there has been a national issue with them. Do you disagree?

As far as the "should" goes, I agree that national interests should supercede international agreements.

Do you disagree? Why?
Question number one: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a personal promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?

Question number two: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a professional business promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,568
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Answer mine and I will answer yours.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Answer mine and I will answer yours.
No you won't. It's patently obvious that you can't.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,568
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@disgusted
Hi mr. troll. Feel better?
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Your answers writ large. bahahahahaha
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Answer mine and I will answer yours.
If anyone expects other countries to abide by their agreements, then they should also abide by their own agreements.

In exactly the same way that a business or an individual that expects other businesses or individuals to abide by their agreements should also abide by their own agreements.

It's a simple matter of credibility.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,568
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
That's a fair sentiment.

Question number one: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a personal promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?

Question 2 is much more relevant to international agreements although my answer for #2 still applies to #1.

Question number two: Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a professional business promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?

Let's say for example, that the USA makes an agreement to not burn any additional coal for the next 100 years. At the time of the agreement it was predicted to have a cost of 1 trillion dollars. Five years later the USA discovers that to keep the agreement will cost 50 trillion dollars, which would turn the USA into a 3rd world nation economically. Changing circumstances dictate that the National interests come before the international agreement. Realistically, the USA expects other nations when they form non-binding agreements to pull out as well if their national interests change due to circumstance. The only real international agreements that seem to matter these days are financial obligations, where trust can actually be measured with a dollar sign and a Moody's credit rating. In the end, with nations, most of these agreements are about money, not morals.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's say for example, that the USA makes an agreement to not burn any additional coal for the next 100 years. At the time of the agreement it was predicted to have a cost of 1 trillion dollars. Five years later the USA discovers that to keep the agreement will cost 50 trillion dollars, which would turn the USA into a 3rd world nation economically. Changing circumstances dictate that the National interests come before the international agreement. Realistically, the USA expects other nations when they form non-binding agreements to pull out as well if their national interests change due to circumstance. The only real international agreements that seem to matter these days are financial obligations, where trust can actually be measured with a dollar sign and a Moody's credit rating. In the end, with nations, most of these agreements are about money, not morals.
It would seem then that any future agreement should be made on the dollar amount itself.

For example, we commit to spending (losing) 1 trillion dollars to reduce coal emissions.

Agreements should be quantifiable.