| |
| ▲ | 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 an hour 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 18 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 16 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 an hour 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 13 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 13 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 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, we are on the same page, and you have got one question to answer. Make your call. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 20 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.) |
|
