So because it is possible someone else may have come along and stolen it, that is a justification for the Brits to steal (and keep) it?
The point is that Britain has those artifacts now and Greece/Egypt/other countries want them back now.
The point is that Britain has those artifacts now and Greece/Egypt/other countries want them back now.
Please do not pollute the conversation with strawmen. There are more options here than the two extremes. Take a look at the comment to which I was responding:
>...the Egyptian citizens would be the ones who would have those artworks today had the brits not come round to express their ancient tradition of thieving
And take another look at my actual comment:
>This conclusion assumes many things that are not a given, such as the assumptions that it would have been not have been lost, damaged, or stolen by a third party during all of that time.
The comment to which I was responding presented an absurd and presumptive claim. Absurd claims should be called out for what they are, regardless of which 'side' you perceive to be strengthened or weakened by doing so.
My argument is that the comment to which I was responding was a non sequitur premised on a number of unstated assumptions. I threw in a few examples to invite the reader to think laterally, to investigate. You question my argument, so I wonder: Have you done so? Have you put the thought in to examine the claim made, and to see what other assumptions are being hidden?
Regarding the facts you emphasize, I don't agree that "only" is a good modifier to place before "100-200 years" in this context. The 2000-4000 years you mention is entirely irrelevant, given survivorship bias.