| ▲ | qsera a day ago |
| >refuse to let their systems be used for war.. I don't want wars. But tell me, what would you like your country to do when conflicts arise due to want of natural resources? Would you want your country to just give up that resource your people depend on, like may be 50/50? Do you believe it will always be possible to settle on a solution in a peaceful way that works for everyone? |
|
| ▲ | paulhebert 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Most of America's recent wars have been unjustified. I think it's very reasonable to not want your products or work going towards making it easier for the US military wage unjustified wars. I also think it would be reasonable to change your stance on that if America entered a war that you felt was justified. (For example, I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it.) Saying the military can't use your tool _today_ doesn't prevent you from changing your mind _tomorrow._ |
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it.
Enlisting after your country had already been invaded is too late. An ancient proverb reminds us that if you want peace, prepare for war. |
|
|
| ▲ | martinwright a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Your logic here is sound, sure. But don't tell me you can be so naive as to believe that the U.S. military is a defensive mechanism |
| |
| ▲ | qsera 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | >But don't tell me you can be so naive as to believe that the U.S. military is a defensive I am not. Every country is corrupt, and war makes a lot of money for powerful people, but does it justify sabotaging your own existence? | | |
| ▲ | mrs6969 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Literally yes. If you justify harming others out of nowhere by ‘sabotaging your own existence’ then yes. ‘Sabotaging your own existence’ is a magic sentence that can justify everything. Israel can kill children more than any other nation in the world, and justify it by ‘not sabotaging their own existence’ Anyone can do anything with this perspective. This is the exact point gere. Pull yourself back, if you are about to ‘not sabotage your own existence’ by simply killing innocent civilians because you believe a computer algorithm told you in about 15 years they or their children might do something harmful. | | |
| ▲ | qsera 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sure, any one can say anything. But I am not referring to that. I am talking about a case where it is objectively true. But I think that is a question that anyone would rather not consider. The issue is that if you don't consider that question, and jump into discussion or actions, in general just have an "outrage", then it would be very hard to take you seriously. | | |
| ▲ | mrs6969 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | What is objective; does iraq having chemical weapons objective for example? Or childrens died because of invasion is more objective? Which one? | |
| ▲ | laserlight 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't know of any instance where modern warmongers fight wars based on subjective grounds. They all have “objectively true” reasons. | | |
| ▲ | qsera 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is only x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to proceed? " What would your response be? What is the value of `x` at which you will approve of the pre-emptive attack? Just curious. | | |
| ▲ | mrs6969 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 100 is my answer. Exactly my question to you: What is your percentage to say no lets do not take actions. Because again; with this perspective every single action is legitimate. There is a chance for everything. If there is a weapon that can kill every human on the planet, every country will race to invent it because every country will try to invent it. Every action is valid. Every weapon development is okey, because if you dont, others will. You can kill everyone, because everyone might eventually try to kill you, there is always a chance. | |
| ▲ | laserlight 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't get the point. What does objectivity have to do with the value of x? Your example seems to validate my point of view: warmongers disguise their subjectivity by basing their actions on “objective” models. | | |
| ▲ | qsera 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | >What does objectivity have to do with the value of x? It does not have anything to do with objectivity. I thought it to be futile to discuss that since, as you implied, predicting future can't be 100% objective, and thus decisions to avert a bad future outcome always need to be based on subjective decisions. So this is another question where I want to ask you how you would make a subjective call. | | |
| ▲ | laserlight 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Got it. Looks like we're on the same page. Everyone makes a subjective call. | | |
| ▲ | qsera 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, we are on the same page, and you have got one question to answer. Make your call. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Anyone can do anything with this perspective Not really. Not unless one is thinking in absolutes, at which point one is by definition an extremist. The rational dialogue that emerges is the proper size of a military for defensive—but not continuous offensive—purposes. I’d guess, for America, that is half its current size at most. (The wrong answers are zero and $1.4tn.) |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | yellow_postit 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I am sympathetic to the argument that I’d rather elected officials that have a path to be removed have the control of use more so than unelected executives. |
|
| ▲ | gonzalohm 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Isn't the point of technology and engineering to find alternatives with the resources that one has? |
| |
| ▲ | qsera 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but it takes time. Like we have solar now. People talk about how it saves environment. But I think another similar win would be reduction in dependency on oil, and countries won't have to go to war over oil. But it takes time... But it seems what technology gives, technology takes away. Because new technologies comes with its own resource requirements. And the cycle looks like it will go on... | | |
| ▲ | the_af 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Yes, but it takes time. So be it. This doesn't excuse going to war with neighbors because you want to steal their stuff. Learn to live with yours. | | |
| ▲ | qsera 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Learn? Can you learn to live without eating?
Do you know what happens when an economy collapse? | | |
| ▲ | the_af 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Can you learn to live without eating? Would you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Especially if you weren't really starving, just preemptively stealing their supplies? All this talk of hoarding and taking resources by force used to be the stuff of villains. When did it become normalized? | | |
| ▲ | qsera 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Have you ever gone through a whole a week without eating anything? Have you seen your kids go through that? If don't, then I will have to say you got no idea about what you are talking about.. | | |
| ▲ | the_af 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Have you ever gone through a whole a week without eating anything? Have you seen your kids go through that Have you? And did you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Did you believe the best course of action was to fight your neighbors? Your ridiculous analogy doesn't even apply to the US, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. In your imagined scenario, are they the poor starving family who must kill and steal to survive? Dude. Think hard before getting backed into absurd metaphors. | | |
| ▲ | qsera 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Have you? I haven't, and that is why I am not making higher-than-you, virtuous claims about how I would act in that situation. Maybe you should do the same. >Your ridiculous analogy doesn't even apply to the US, one of the wealthiest countries in the world And where did that wealth come from? Sure, you have smart people, but it also require a functioning economy to mobilize and convert all those talent into wealth. If a external entity can choke your economy and if your government just stand-by, virtue-signaling to people such as yourselves, your wealth will disappear in no time. BOOM! Back to zero... | | |
| ▲ | the_af 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I haven't, and that is why I am not making higher-than-you [...] Then maybe stop making up hypotheticals that don't apply to me, you, or any of the nations involved? What are you hoping to achieve here? "Let's assume we live in a Mad Max world, would you steal all the women and water"? > And where did that wealth come from? Sure, you have smart people, but it also require a functioning economy to mobilize and convert all those talent into wealth So you think the US doesn't have a functioning economy or smart people, and therefore must resort to war to get their resources? > BOOM! Back to zero... So, in your bizarre logic, it's best to resort to theft and murder? | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | fwip a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Personally, I'd rather that my country (USA) be taken over by China than bomb innocents in the Middle East. |
| |
| ▲ | frogcoder 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, there are many plus sides if USA were taken over by China. 1. You will see no protest on the street. 2. You will see no homeless on the street. 3. You will hear no more school shootings or any shooting. 4. No more tech companies conflicting with the government. 5. No one will sue the government because it's perfect. 6. All bad people will disappear. 7. Everyone sings praise of the government. This is better than Utopia, you should pursue it. | |
| ▲ | queenkjuul 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hear, hear |
|
|
| ▲ | senadir a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | qsera a day ago | parent [-] | | If the country wage wars for bad reasons, that is another problem that probably should be fixed elsewhere, or you should leave that country and be somewhere who government you can fully get behind. > defending your country I am afraid that this does not always have to be an incoming attack. What if some country has a resource that your country badly needs, without which your people will suffer badly and imagine the same is true with the other country. How much of an hit on economic and QoL are you willing to sustain before you ask your government to go out there and get the required resource by force. I totally get that war is profitable, and most of the wars cannot be justified. But ideas like this sounds like sabotaging your own country and thus your own existence. | | |
| ▲ | bad_haircut72 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | What if your family didnt like bread, what of they liked - cigarettes? And instead of giving it away, you just sold it at a price that was practically giving it away? |
|
|
