> you can't possibly be saying XYZ...rant about XYZ, among other things

No, obviously that's not what they're saying. There must be some reasonable interpretation then, right? Let's look at the chat thread and see what we can find.

> be very cautious about evil uses of seemingly safe technology when developing initial capabilities

>> that's super hard since most things can be repurposed

>>> (your other comment) it's actually easy though, just look at how we could repurpose these death machines

>>>> (their comment) but...that's wildly inefficient

The subtext to their answer is going an entire opposite direction to your rant. People are saying that turning anything into a killing machine is easy, and their comment is saying that doing so is sometimes Pareto-suboptimal, and so wildly so that no semi-rational-at-least-a-little-bit-sometimes military is going to bother trying to weaponize your silicone basting brush or what have you.

They're not saying that you should mass-murder people, as you, yourself speculated.

▲

MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-]

>No, obviously that's not what they're saying.

It is what they are saying, because they have misunderstood the point:

You talk about 'efficiency' while there are children dying, limbs severed, bombs still falling.

The F35 is there, it has one purpose: murder.

Turn that immediately into another, singular purpose: life.

Nobody is saying "manufacture new F35's that only drop pansies".

The point is, de-weaponize. That can be done with far greater ease than anything else.

And that is the only point that matters, while limbless children are dying by the minute.

▲

15155 a day ago | parent [-]

All of this random F-35 shit is completely missing the point. The F-35 isn't "there" - no aircraft is "there" because the costs to operate them far eclipse their acquisition costs, always.

If you said "scrap the F-35s, spend money on humanitarian purposes" - you'd have a cogent (albeit naive) point. "Use one of the most expensive per-flight-hour aircraft in the world to do a mission it can't do and wasn't built for" is not intelligent.

Roughly, just considering fuel: the F-35 burns ~10,000 lbs/hr of JP-8 and can haul just 18,000 lbs of relatively small/multiple payloads. A 747 burns ~20,000 lbs/hr and can haul over 300,000 lbs of palletized loads. See the issue?

▲

MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-]

We paint the F35's pink to make amends for the murder they have caused.

You know, amends. One of those spiritual concepts you can't eat, since you don't know what salad is and you're too busy serving yourself lines off The Mirror™ you made from some billet somewhere ...

	▲	15155 a day ago \| parent [-]
		"Spiritual" concepts don't feed people, and the dumb idea you've suggested actually harms people more than whatever abstract/intangible spiritual victory you're achieving. With this incorrect vehicle, you cannot move as much food, desalination equipment, or whatever other nonsense you think will help. You are suggesting something that will objectively result in fewer resources being given to those in need - why would anyone donate to your cause? Is the propaganda victory of "making amends" somehow worth the lives of the people you want to "help?"