Science Memes

parent

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

I have literally no idea what kind of point you think you're making.

Yes, reducing spending would not completely eliminate the harm. It would only, you know, reduce it. Since you said you don't like the idea of cutting it too much, I suggested a reasonable compromise of merely reducing it by 2/3, to be "only" the most well funded military on the planet.

To actually eliminate all the harm altogether would require either a complete shutdown of US military production or a fundamental shift in US foreign policy away from terrorism and domination, which would hopefully involve prosecuting the politicians responsible for current foreign policy for war crimes. Probably in some sort of revolutionary tribunal, because that's about the only conceivable way for them to be brought to justice.

I'm not sure what part of that you're confused about.

parent

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

I have literally no idea what kind of point you think you’re making.

I can see that. Let me explain that in even simpler way.

You say:

Me: Making guns.

You: "Engineers making guns bad! Make less guns!"

Me: Make 1 gun instead of 3.

US Army: Take 1 gun and kill brown children.

You: "Engineers making guns bad!"

I say:

Me: Making guns.

US Army: Takes guns and kills brown people.

Me: Army bad!

P.S. I don't work for arms company. I was just making a point.

parent

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

The fewer guns they have the fewer brown people they're able to kill. Obviously.

parent

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

Obviously.

parent

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

The fewer weapons that people make for them, the fewer weapons they will have that they can use to kill brown people with. Therefore there is a clear line of cause and effect between making weapons for them and brown people dying. Therefore, the people making those weapons have caused harm, and would deserve to go to Hell if it existed.

This is all very straightforward, I still have no idea what you're confused about.

parent

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

It's really not that complicated. We have two "issues".

Engineers making weapons
Weapons being used to kill innocent people.

There is an easy solution to both: don't make weapons. That's a stupid solution because if your country doesn't have any weapons it will be invaded by other country and innocent people will die.

You know this easy solution is stupid so you say we should only "reduce" the number of weapons. But this doesn't solve any issues. Engineers still make weapons and those weapons can still be used to kill innocent people. You just saved some money which is completely different topic entirely.

So now you're stuck in a loop claiming that your stupid solution will solve issue 2 (which it won't) while ignoring issue 1 entirely.

The real "solution" is to not use weapons to kill innocent people. "Issue" 1 is not an issue at all. Engineers making weapons are necessary. "Issue" 2 has to be solved by the entire country by electing better politicians. Engineers don't have more power here than farmers or doctors.

parent

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

That's complete nonsense.

You're saying, "a just society would need engineers to build weapons, to be used for defense, therefore, it is right for engineers to build weapons in an unjust society where they will be used for offense." That does not follow at all. That's like seeing a car stalled out in the middle of an intersection and saying, "A functional intersection would need me to go when the light is green, therefore, I should keep driving forward. The problem is the car in the intersection, someone needs to fix that, and I don't need to change my behavior even if it's going to lead to people dying, because I'm acting in a way that would be appropriate in a functioning intersection."

That's not how morality, reason, or anything else works. You have to look at the world as it actually exists and look at the predictable consequences of your actions in the actually existing world.

Again, I will return to the unanswered point from before, about how far you're willing to extend this line of logic, whether you think it was morally neutral to manfacture Panzers and Zyklon B for the Nazis.

Your position is completely indefensible and untenable. You called me childish, when you're refusing to acknowledge and adapt to the real world.

parent

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

Oh, I see what's going on here.

I live in Europe so I'm looking at this from European perspective. While I think I don't live in a completely just society I think it's pretty good, it can be improved and I would like for it to survive. So I think Europe should have weapons and we should have best engineers possible working on them. While their weapons are sometimes used for immoral things I don't blame the engineers for it.

You're looking at this from American perspective. You think your society is evil and it should be destroyed. You don't think it should be able to defend itself at all and all engineers helping to preserve it are morally corrupt.

You're looking at this from a perspective or a Nazi engineer in 1938 while I'm looking at it from a perspective or a Polish engineer in 1938.

So you're taking the most extreme case and applying it to all arms companies while I treat as... well... extreme case.

I have a friend in Poland that works for a company providing components for weapon manufacturers. Some components they make were found in Gaza. Do I think he's immoral and should quit? No, I think those components are necessary to protect Poland from Russia and I don't think Poland should be destroyed. He can't decide were those components will end up. Would I say the same about Israeli engineer? No.

parent

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 point 8 months ago*

Yes, that is more or less correct. My problem is primarily with US weapons manufacturing and military spending. If it could not be shut down entirely, then, all else being equal, it would be preferable for it to be offshored to Europe, or anywhere else, to keep as much as possible out of the hands of the increasingly fascist and beligerant US (not that Europe can be relied on to resist the US, but any barrier is preferable).

In most cases, the main enemy of a poor person of a given country is a rich person of the same country. I believe in following my class interest, not some "national interest" that's typically completely divorced from my own, if not actively detrimental to it. I have no interest in upholding or protecting that "national interest," that "national interest" is really bourgeois interest and the bourgeoisie are more than capable of looking after it themselves.

There are some exceptions, however. Franz Fanon, for example, argued that in developing countries, the gap between the domestic rich and poor is outweighed by the international gap, such that a class truce may be acceptable to resist foreign colonizers. Likewise, the CCP was willing to form a temporary alliance with the KMT in order to repel the fascist Japanese. The USSR opposed strikes in the US during WWII because those strikes would have impaired the war effort against the Nazis.

These exceptions to the general rule of class war only apply when there is a significant, genuine threat to the average person, when the foreign threat is intent on outright extermination. If it's merely trading one set of capitalists for another, then it is not my fight and none of my concern.

Typically, anything that benefits the bourgeoisie, that benefits the so-called "national interest," is bad for me, even if it doesn't harm me directly. Because the more money and resources the bourgeoisie possess, the more power they will be able to wield against me, lowering my wages, making me work longer hours, taking away my healthcare and security. All of these things they are more capable of when they have money, weapons, and resources acquired through imperialist conquest.