3 ms·

> Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're tak

> Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're taking volunteers.

lhnz 5y ago
Of course not; I don't want to die! But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If that were the case, it would be soldiers themselves that voted to take us to war.
- ianleeclark 5y ago
  > But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If someone is pro war, they should see their convictions through. But don't worry: you don't need convictions here on the internet. You can just impotently post, make all the insinuations you want, and then go back to Netflix. The internet is great because you don't have to actually do the hard work of following a belief through, and can instead adopt styles of posting while they're relevant.
  - lhnz 5y ago
    I'm trying to respond seriously and you're being quite irritating. Decisions to go to war aren't only taken by people that directly put their lives at risk. This has never been the case and it wouldn't be a good idea if it were the case. Also, I don't agree that your decision to impotently post on the internet is somehow more dignified than my own because it better aligns with your default behaviour (in-action, passivity towards violence, etc). Neither of us are doing hard work to follow our beliefs. I simply disagree that "appeasement" or "detente" policies are necessarily better in the long-run. We don't know this and should seriously consider the possibility that they aren't, even if in this case, not going to war is still the best option (which should be our assumption by default).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

3 ms·

> Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're tak

by ianleeclark 5y ago

> Right now, we're showing him that we won't attack him militarily no matter his actions Out of curiosity have you volunteered to fight in Ukraine? They're taking volunteers.

lhnz 5y ago
Of course not; I don't want to die! But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If that were the case, it would be soldiers themselves that voted to take us to war.
- ianleeclark 5y ago
  > But I don't agree that it should only be people that go to war that should discuss or decide whether we should go to war. If someone is pro war, they should see their convictions through. But don't worry: you don't need convictions here on the internet. You can just impotently post, make all the insinuations you want, and then go back to Netflix. The internet is great because you don't have to actually do the hard work of following a belief through, and can instead adopt styles of posting while they're relevant.
  - lhnz 5y ago
    I'm trying to respond seriously and you're being quite irritating. Decisions to go to war aren't only taken by people that directly put their lives at risk. This has never been the case and it wouldn't be a good idea if it were the case. Also, I don't agree that your decision to impotently post on the internet is somehow more dignified than my own because it better aligns with your default behaviour (in-action, passivity towards violence, etc). Neither of us are doing hard work to follow our beliefs. I simply disagree that "appeasement" or "detente" policies are necessarily better in the long-run. We don't know this and should seriously consider the possibility that they aren't, even if in this case, not going to war is still the best option (which should be our assumption by default).
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]