Is might right?

Is might right?

>Is might right?

No, it's practical.

Canuck is based.

Legally, yes. Laws only have meaning if you can enforce them. And to enforce them, you must be stronger than everyone else.

Philosophically, I would say no. Others may say yes. For example, I don't agree with communism. So when they were in power in Russia, I wouldn't call them a right or just government.

Might is useless without right.

Define "might". It might be.

can you prove otherwise in the face of unstoppable might?

this is backwards

Only betas without might believe this.

Nope just the last one standing usually.

>native americans being genocided
"fucking white people might doesn't make right!"
>still gets genocided

Wouldn't that be going against their own interests then?

Is there anything that can beat might? If no than you are right

holy crap, that bird is going to go cut ben up.

A canuck shitposter runs into a krauts logic while the Spaniard gets it as snack wardsAnd the American gets it right

your hot pockets are ready. Only 2 more pounds of sugar to go for the day.

I think your opinion might be a bit biased towards American posters, since you're one of them yourself.

USA is number one. We are the mightiest and the rightest. Stay mad

Hate for hate — And ruth for ruth,
eye for eye — And tooth for tooth,
scorn for scorn — And smile for smile,
love for love — And guile for guile,
war for war, — And woe for woe,
blood for blood — And blow for blow.
The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error.

Might is might, right is right, one is used to justify the other, the other is used to enforce the one one.

Conflating suggests corruption of these ideas.

In terms of human interaction and perception it is.

In terms of science and math it's not.

Yes. It's the rule of nature.

it's the only thing tha tis