5 ms·
> but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right? More specifically, a warmongering fool who can't discern a false dichotomy - because y
by smokeyj 9y ago
> but maybe that just means I’m just a no-good warmongering fool, right?
More specifically, a warmongering fool who can't discern a false dichotomy - because your options in life are rarely ever drones vs more lethal drones.
These regions we're using drones in. They could probably use more tools to enable true democratic representation. Isn't that what Google should be doing, given that they "don't do evil"? Building tools to blow people up seems slightly counter intuitive.
- plandis 9y agoId argue it's not a false dichotomy because drone strikes will go on regardless of what Google does. It's very clear that whatever collateral damage drones currently cause is an acceptable cost to the militaries using them.
- kachurovskiy 9y ago"go on regardless" argument can be used to justify absolutely anything so I don't think it helps advancing the meaningful debate.
- olleromam91 9y agoSure it can. We can ask "what are you going to do now that we agree it happens regardless?". If you can accept existence contains horror in all forms, then you can go on your way to make the best impact you can for those you care about. If you can't accept that, you just sit around arguing if life could be perfect.
- smokeyj 9y ago"If you don't help make drones more accurate, you're the reason for collateralized murder". Or, you could like, just stop droning innocent people to death. Not saying we all have to agree, but just that factually speaking - it's within the realm of possibilities. And for that reason it's a false dichotomy.
- airstrike 9y agoYou’re saying that as if droning was specifically meant to target innocent people, when that’s exactly what they’re trying to avoid.
- staplers 9y agothat’s exactly what they’re trying to avoid. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Circular argumentation
- Nimitz14 9y agoNo. It's not. Learn logic.
- jstanley 9y agoBut how many of the "non-innocent" people who have been killed in drone strikes had actually been found guilty in a fair trial? And of those who had been, how many were sentenced to death?
- airstrike 9y agoIt’s war, not a court. Society hasn’t legislated that those who attack this country should be presumed innocent and convicted only after due process. This is true in any country.
- plandis 9y ago> "If you don't help make drones more accurate, you're the reason for collateralized murder". I never stated anything about blame, nor do I think that choosing to not participate makes someone culpable. > Or, you could like, just stop droning innocent people to death. I have not "droned" anyone. > Not saying we all have to agree, but just that factually speaking - it's within the realm of possibilities. It's possible, sure, but certainly not probable. Drone strikes are increasing, not decreasing. I don't think you're thinking about this very pragmatically.
- kiliantics 9y ago> regardless of what Google does If Google employees wanted to, they could probably put a lot of pressure on the military directly. Imagine Google no longer served ip addresses that belonged to the military unless they ended their drone strikes. Or say they turned off google maps for anyone that is known to work for the military.
- chatmasta 9y agoDidn’t they eliminate that don’t be evil slogan a few years ago?
- minkzilla 9y agoNow they can be evil guilt free!
- cwkoss 9y agoHell, our own country could probably use more tools to enable true democratic representation.