• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Greenland could become China's Arctic base

Lord Tammerlain said:
Not from a legal definition. Greenland has the rights regarding "or policing, judicial system, company law, accounting, and auditing; mineral resource activities; aviation; law of legal capacity, family law and succession law; aliens and border controls; the working environment; and financial regulation and supervision

So it would have the ability to trade with China, Canada, the US etc, accept air traffic, naval traffic without interference from Denmark. Only in the case of actual military activities and potential dual use activities would Denmark get authority. So China could build but not operate Air traffic radar systems in Greenland. It could build and operate a port, but no Chinese naval vessels could use it without Denmark's approval. China could build and operate an airport, but no Chinese military aircraft could use it, without approval from Denmark
Click to expand...

I have heard stories of Little Green Men marching into Ukraine while Ukraine claimed sovereignty.
China is going to do what China is going to do, and Denmark may have to figure out ways to deal with China that don't backfire on it later.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I have heard stories of Little Green Men marching into Ukraine while Ukraine claimed sovereignty.
China is going to do what China is going to do, and Denmark may have to figure out ways to deal with China that don't backfire on it later.
Click to expand...

Ukraine was and is a strange case due to the long interconnected history it has with Russia. From having a large ethnic Russian population, the strategic port in Crimea from USSR days, interconnected supply chains for the military.

Anyone with half a brain should have been able to predict Russian actions if it thought Ukraine was going to pull away permanently from Russia (like the coup indicated).
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Ukraine was and is a strange case due to the long interconnected history it has with Russia. From having a large ethnic Russian population, the strategic port in Crimea from USSR days, interconnected supply chains for the military.

Anyone with half a brain should have been able to predict Russian actions if it thought Ukraine was going to pull away permanently from Russia (like the coup indicated).
Click to expand...

All that is understood and agreed, just saying that an official piece of paper from Denmark might not stop China if push comes to shove.
 
humbolt said:
Yeah, and the scientific consensus at one time was that the earth was the center of the solar system. If the models used to predict such things were accurate, we should've all cooked by now. In reality, an infinite number of events could occur, including a shift in the magnetic poles or whatever. Our ability to predict such things as climate or any of the other, related possibilities isn't very good at all. If that ability was fine tuned toward something accurate, vague words like "soon", etc. would not be employed. Of course it'll be warmer in the Arctic at some point in the future - or perhaps it'll be colder. One outcome is as likely as the other.
Click to expand...

So you believe that because a scientific consensus reached more than 2000 years ago was wrong, we can safely assume that any scientific consensus reached in modern times regardless of evidence has only a 50% chance of accuracy? Isn't that irrational?
 
lwf said:
So you believe that because a scientific consensus reached more than 2000 years ago was wrong, we can safely assume that any scientific consensus reached in modern times regardless of evidence has only a 50% chance of accuracy? Isn't that irrational?
Click to expand...

No. I believe an appeal to authority is a fallacious argument, and I demonstrated a notorious instance of exactly that.
 
humbolt said:
No. I believe an appeal to authority is a fallacious argument, and I demonstrated a notorious instance of exactly that.
Click to expand...

It's only fallacious when both sides don't agree that the authority in question is an authority. When they do, it's not fallacious. I can't imagine a better authority on the Earth's climate than a consensus of climate scientists, but if you don't agree with virtually everyone else on the planet with a post secondary education that a scientific consensus on a subject that trained scientists have spent their lives studying is an authority, then you are correct that no one can make you accept their conclusion.
 
lwf said:
It's only fallacious when both sides don't agree that the authority in question is an authority. When they do, it's not fallacious. I can't imagine a better authority on the Earth's climate than a consensus of climate scientists, but if you don't agree with virtually everyone else on the planet with a post secondary education that a scientific consensus on a subject that trained scientists have spent their lives studying is an authority, then you are correct that no one can make you accept their conclusion.
Click to expand...

Your imaginings aside, apparently many don't agree with the claimed authority. I am one. I do have a post secondary education, and then some, so you probably have a pretty good idea about exactly where you can put your educational snark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom