7 ms·
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
by martinwright 7mo ago
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 7mo ago>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 7mo agoLiterally 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.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> 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.)
- qsera 7mo agoSure, 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.
- laserlight 7mo agoI don't know of any instance where modern warmongers fight wars based on subjective grounds. They all have “objectively true” reasons.
- qsera 7mo agoImagine 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.
- laserlight 7mo agoI 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 7mo ago>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 7mo agoGot it. Looks like we're on the same page. Everyone makes a subjective call.