• arrow74@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Did you forget we were directly talking about the actions of a nation state?

    This also isn’t a new concept the UN invented. It’s how it’s been since the “golden age of piracy”.

    But yeah a legal definition is always going to be more specific than a general definition provided by a dictionary. Diogenese had some opinions on using these simplistic definitions to view the world

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        You are making absolutely no sense at this point.

        Me being a person has very little to do with whether or not the United States is committing piracy. International law however does matter.

        • Deceptichum@quokk.auM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          My point is that the legal definition is irrelevant to us, we should be using the common meaning of the word that has existed for hundreds of years.

          The meaning as defined by dictionaries capturing the intent of the common person, not legal texts with hyper-specific requirements. Nation States have legally defined the word in a way that absolves them of any culpability, their meaning is inherently biased and flawed.

          • arrow74@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            Once again they are not absolved of all culpability. They are not guilty of piracy, yes. Instead they have committed a recognizable act of war against another nation. That’s way worse than piracy