4 ms·

> if the pacifists got their way we likely wouldn't have had any of the above This is a huge logical fallacy. The US keeps playing a trick where socially usef

> if the pacifists got their way we likely wouldn't have had any of the above This is a huge logical fallacy. The US keeps playing a trick where socially useful R&D is budgeted under "military expenditure" because it's easier to justify and to privatize the benefits. Do you think in a more peaceful world people would be forced to dump research money into the ocean? If anything, the less money are spent for military projects the more can be spent on research.

airstrike 5y ago
> Do you think in a more peaceful world people would be forced to dump research money into the ocean? Why do you assume that decreasing military spend (US or non-US, even) would result in a "more peaceful world"?
- goodpoint 5y ago
  Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts but this is not the place to list them all. This is proof enough: https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ You can browse a bookshop for more.
  - airstrike 5y ago
    > Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts Appeal to authority > This is proof enough: https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ From the link: > The map shows the results of a 2013 (pre-Trump) WIN/Gallup International survey asking people which country they felt was the greatest threat to world peace. The wisdom of the masses is hardly "proof enough". > You can browse a bookshop for more. That's a cheap answer and also a fallacy -- you're not providing any arguments, just saying "I know this to be true". And for what it's worth, I happen to have a degree in International Relations so don't need to really go to a bookshop for references...
    - goodpoint 5y ago
      >> Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts > Appeal to authority We are discussing a subjective topic based on expert opinion. Authoritative opinion is exactly what we need. What did you expect, a theorem with proof? >> The map shows the results of a 2013 (pre-Trump) WIN/Gallup International survey asking people which country they felt was the greatest threat to world peace. > The wisdom of the masses is hardly "proof enough". On the contrary, we are measuring public opinion on a topic. A poll measures exactly that. > I happen to have a degree in International Relations so don't need to really go to a bookshop for references... Perhaps you should see the irony in talking about "Appeal to authority" fallacy" when you just brought up you degree. Anyhow, go ahead and prove me wrong with a method that is entirely objective and not based on any expert opinion.

airstrike 5y ago

> Do you think in a more peaceful world people would be forced to dump research money into the ocean? Why do you assume that decreasing military spend (US or non-US, even) would result in a "more peaceful world"?

goodpoint 5y ago
Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts but this is not the place to list them all. This is proof enough: https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ You can browse a bookshop for more.
- airstrike 5y ago
  > Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts Appeal to authority > This is proof enough: https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/ From the link: > The map shows the results of a 2013 (pre-Trump) WIN/Gallup International survey asking people which country they felt was the greatest threat to world peace. The wisdom of the masses is hardly "proof enough". > You can browse a bookshop for more. That's a cheap answer and also a fallacy -- you're not providing any arguments, just saying "I know this to be true". And for what it's worth, I happen to have a degree in International Relations so don't need to really go to a bookshop for references...
  - goodpoint 5y ago
    >> Many books have been written on the topic by world-class geopolitical analysts > Appeal to authority We are discussing a subjective topic based on expert opinion. Authoritative opinion is exactly what we need. What did you expect, a theorem with proof? >> The map shows the results of a 2013 (pre-Trump) WIN/Gallup International survey asking people which country they felt was the greatest threat to world peace. > The wisdom of the masses is hardly "proof enough". On the contrary, we are measuring public opinion on a topic. A poll measures exactly that. > I happen to have a degree in International Relations so don't need to really go to a bookshop for references... Perhaps you should see the irony in talking about "Appeal to authority" fallacy" when you just brought up you degree. Anyhow, go ahead and prove me wrong with a method that is entirely objective and not based on any expert opinion.