This is a rather poor argument against the U.S. takeover of Greenland. If neither Denmark nor the U.S. is better, then it makes no difference if the U.S. takes over.
Edit: not sure why I’m being downvoted. I would appreciate someone explaining the headline to me because I honestly don’t get it.
Suppose, for something to “better” or “worse”, it would have to surpass some absolute threshold of “goodness”. This would mean “betterness” is no longer transitive with “worseness”.
If this were the case, then it’s possible for American colonization to still be worse than Danish colonization without Danish colonization being better than American colonization. Neither would meet the requirement for being “better” and as such are incomparable, but both would be meet the requirement of being “worse” and can be compared in that respect.
This is a rather poor argument against the U.S. takeover of Greenland. If neither Denmark nor the U.S. is better, then it makes no difference if the U.S. takes over.
Edit: not sure why I’m being downvoted. I would appreciate someone explaining the headline to me because I honestly don’t get it.
A thought experiment:
Suppose, for something to “better” or “worse”, it would have to surpass some absolute threshold of “goodness”. This would mean “betterness” is no longer transitive with “worseness”.
If this were the case, then it’s possible for American colonization to still be worse than Danish colonization without Danish colonization being better than American colonization. Neither would meet the requirement for being “better” and as such are incomparable, but both would be meet the requirement of being “worse” and can be compared in that respect.
That’s just silly. Would it be better to have someone break one of your arms or two?
Eh… One.
Or… two, if you have an Oedipus complex.
Nice