3 ms·

This is abhorrent behavior from a moral stance. I figure the US has never had a moral upper hand. A morally superior stance would be to shed all hostilities and

This is abhorrent behavior from a moral stance. I figure the US has never had a moral upper hand. A morally superior stance would be to shed all hostilities and work toward common goals that enrich everyone's lives - there are many such attainable goals. The mental reptilians among us on both sides, hiding as mammals, can't however let go of hate.

Etheryte 2y ago
This is absolute nonsense. You can't have peace and prosperity if the other side doesn't want it, see Ukraine. How anyone can still look at it this way in the current geopolitical environment is beyond me.
- ailef 2y ago
  Yes, because with all the history of coups, invasion and illegal wars the US is definitely the side that wants "peace and prosperity"...
  - plasmatix 2y ago
    So what you’re saying is you can’t have peace and prosperity if the other side doesn’t want it?
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jjtheblunt 2y ago
    What? You're claiming the US should support manufacture of drugs in Mexico, for the sake of Mexico? It wouldn't change cartels in Mexico, just volume sold.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      why would that change the volume sold? are millions of Americans suddenly going to start doing fentanyl just for fun because it's now cheap and regulated? I must be misunderstanding something.
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      > the US should support manufacture of drugs in Mexico I never said such nonsense. Cartels rely on the absence of regulated affordable legal products. Once these are grown and provided by pharma companies and agricultural companies as they best see fit, the cartels will go out of business. People can be allowed to grow the associated plants at home or at their property too for personal use. Peace will then be restored to both countries.
      - mrguyorama 2y ago
        The cartels grow Avocados. Mexico's problem is the breakdown of the state, and the people's complete (and justified) loss of trust in that state.
        OutOfHere 2y ago
        They traffic narcotics.
colonCapitalDee 2y ago
Conflict requires only one hostile party
jjtheblunt 2y ago
You're assuming cooperating mindsets.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  The absence of cooperation is not hostility. No one is born with a hostile mindset. I am assuming a mostly neutral apathetic mindset as a baseline. It gives a foundation on which to build positively and cooperatively upon.
  - jjtheblunt 2y ago
    I hope you're right, but i think some people are born hostile, just hormonal variations causing such.
Yawrehto 2y ago
Except it has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with the real world. Like a lot of problems, it's the Prisoner's Dilemma, just in a different disguise. Sure, you could be morally superior. But the table is pretty easy: They're moral, you're moral: Puppies for everyone! No one 'wins' the Cold War. They're moral, you're not moral: You get more advanced technology and 'win' the Cold War. They're not moral, you are: They get more advanced technology and 'win' the Cold War. They're not moral, you're not moral: You both get more advanced technology, neither side 'wins'. Stealing is always a better decision. It has nothing to do with 'hate' necessarily; a purely rational robot, programmed with goals of 'win the Cold War, and, if you can, get puppies for everyone' would also be immoral.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  And what is it that we got after all, that both sides were immoral, and no one won the cold war. The advanced technology you speak of in option 4 pales in comparison to what we could have achieved together, which goes to show that your entire argument is bogus. It's not just puppies for everyone in option 1; it's a much higher level of advanced technology than in 4.
  - Yawrehto 2y ago
    And it's not just no one spending jail time in the prisoner's dilemma; everyone walks away with half of the prize. Doesn't change that it's more rational to defect. I think everyone in the prisoner's dilemma would think that, say, $500,000 each is way better than, say, 5 years in jail for both of them, but that doesn't change the fact that if both sides are rational, that's what everyone ends up with.
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      Your premise itself is defective where you're setting up the individuals as prisoners (or enemies) meant for failure. Here is an example of a better win-win premise and result: Sweden and the United States seal a major nuclear energy agreement (6 August 2024) https://energynews.pro/en/sweden-and-the-united-states-seal-a-major-nuclear-energy-agreement/ https://energynews.pro/en/sweden-and-the-united-states-seal-... > Sweden and the USA sign a memorandum of understanding to intensify collaboration in advanced nuclear technologies, including modular reactors and waste management. > The main objectives of the agreement include the joint development of advanced nuclear reactors, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), and improved nuclear waste management. If this can be done with Sweden, then with some extra effort from both sides, it also can be done with Russia. If you then repeat it in a hundred sectors, the equation changes completely.

Etheryte 2y ago

This is absolute nonsense. You can't have peace and prosperity if the other side doesn't want it, see Ukraine. How anyone can still look at it this way in the current geopolitical environment is beyond me.

ailef 2y ago
Yes, because with all the history of coups, invasion and illegal wars the US is definitely the side that wants "peace and prosperity"...
- plasmatix 2y ago
  So what you’re saying is you can’t have peace and prosperity if the other side doesn’t want it?
OutOfHere 2y ago
[flagged]
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  What? You're claiming the US should support manufacture of drugs in Mexico, for the sake of Mexico? It wouldn't change cartels in Mexico, just volume sold.
  - fragmede 2y ago
    why would that change the volume sold? are millions of Americans suddenly going to start doing fentanyl just for fun because it's now cheap and regulated? I must be misunderstanding something.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    > the US should support manufacture of drugs in Mexico I never said such nonsense. Cartels rely on the absence of regulated affordable legal products. Once these are grown and provided by pharma companies and agricultural companies as they best see fit, the cartels will go out of business. People can be allowed to grow the associated plants at home or at their property too for personal use. Peace will then be restored to both countries.
    - mrguyorama 2y ago
      The cartels grow Avocados. Mexico's problem is the breakdown of the state, and the people's complete (and justified) loss of trust in that state.
      - OutOfHere 2y ago
        They traffic narcotics.

colonCapitalDee 2y ago

Conflict requires only one hostile party

jjtheblunt 2y ago

You're assuming cooperating mindsets.

OutOfHere 2y ago
The absence of cooperation is not hostility. No one is born with a hostile mindset. I am assuming a mostly neutral apathetic mindset as a baseline. It gives a foundation on which to build positively and cooperatively upon.
- jjtheblunt 2y ago
  I hope you're right, but i think some people are born hostile, just hormonal variations causing such.

Yawrehto 2y ago

Except it has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with the real world. Like a lot of problems, it's the Prisoner's Dilemma, just in a different disguise. Sure, you could be morally superior. But the table is pretty easy: They're moral, you're moral: Puppies for everyone! No one 'wins' the Cold War. They're moral, you're not moral: You get more advanced technology and 'win' the Cold War. They're not moral, you are: They get more advanced technology and 'win' the Cold War. They're not moral, you're not moral: You both get more advanced technology, neither side 'wins'. Stealing is always a better decision. It has nothing to do with 'hate' necessarily; a purely rational robot, programmed with goals of 'win the Cold War, and, if you can, get puppies for everyone' would also be immoral.

OutOfHere 2y ago
And what is it that we got after all, that both sides were immoral, and no one won the cold war. The advanced technology you speak of in option 4 pales in comparison to what we could have achieved together, which goes to show that your entire argument is bogus. It's not just puppies for everyone in option 1; it's a much higher level of advanced technology than in 4.
- Yawrehto 2y ago
  And it's not just no one spending jail time in the prisoner's dilemma; everyone walks away with half of the prize. Doesn't change that it's more rational to defect. I think everyone in the prisoner's dilemma would think that, say, $500,000 each is way better than, say, 5 years in jail for both of them, but that doesn't change the fact that if both sides are rational, that's what everyone ends up with.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Your premise itself is defective where you're setting up the individuals as prisoners (or enemies) meant for failure. Here is an example of a better win-win premise and result: Sweden and the United States seal a major nuclear energy agreement (6 August 2024) https://energynews.pro/en/sweden-and-the-united-states-seal-a-major-nuclear-energy-agreement/ https://energynews.pro/en/sweden-and-the-united-states-seal-... > Sweden and the USA sign a memorandum of understanding to intensify collaboration in advanced nuclear technologies, including modular reactors and waste management. > The main objectives of the agreement include the joint development of advanced nuclear reactors, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), and improved nuclear waste management. If this can be done with Sweden, then with some extra effort from both sides, it also can be done with Russia. If you then repeat it in a hundred sectors, the equation changes completely.