4 ms·

Some children being killed is an inevitable part of war. Do you agree with the statement "No war has ever been worth the results."? If yes, then okay end of c

Some children being killed is an inevitable part of war. Do you agree with the statement "No war has ever been worth the results."? If yes, then okay end of conversation. But if not then we need to talk about acceptable mistake rates and where this falls, because zero mistakes is not possible. Note that I am not defending the strike here, I'm saying that the criticism needs more depth.

Forgeties79 7mo ago
I don’t need to hear deep arguments to be convinced that it’s not ok to kill my children/bomb their school.
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  Can you answer the question though? It's not a trick question, I want to see where you're coming from. And it's not about whether it's "okay".
  - Forgeties79 7mo ago
    I didn’t answer it because you’re framing it as the end-all be-all of this discussion when it’s bordering on a strawman argument.
    - Dylan16807 7mo ago
      Which part do you think is a strawman? Because one of the people that replied to me does appear to think that no war has ever been worth the results. It's a legitimate point of view, and that's why I asked if it was your point of view. For the rest of this post I'm assuming it's not your point of view. I'm very much not trying to strawman you, I'm trying to improve your argument. If any wars are considered "worth it, morally speaking", then single mistakes can't be enough to invalidate the war. We need to talk about how many mistakes happen and how they happen. We need to say how much is too much, and "zero mistakes" is not compatible with "some wars are worth it". The idea that we could have both in the real world is self-deception.
sebastiennight 7mo ago
Would you mind sharing a handful of examples where, from your perspective, a war was worth its results?
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  I guess I'd start with most colonial freedom wars.
  - sebastiennight 7mo ago
    I might not know your personal background, but I have a hard time imagining you come from a lineage that has experience the cost of one of those. The list of today's remaining colonies is short enough[0] that it is worth considering whether decolonization was "an idea that reached its time" in the late 20th century ; and given that there are examples of peaceful revolutions (eg India and West Africa) it is worth asking whether more places could have undergone peaceful transitions, and whether the cost in human lives and atrocities born within a decade of war doesn't outweigh the cost of the colonial system dying by itself within the same order of magnitude of time. But then again, I think you're veering us somewhat off-topic as I'd consider a "colonial freedom war" to be a revolution (the people overthrowing their overlord) which is quite different from the topic at hand here, war between nation-states. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-self-governing_territories#Current_entries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-sel...
cramsession 7mo ago
> Some children being killed is an inevitable part of war. Killing children is a war crime, and not an inevitable part of war.
- Dylan16807 7mo ago
  On purpose or with significant negligence, it's a war crime. But collateral damage is not something you can just choose to avoid.
- ashdksnndck 7mo ago
  Same commenter, 3 hours later, defending bombing of children: > Parents are solely responsible for bringing their children on stolen land. There were indigenous children living there that were murdered.

Forgeties79 7mo ago

I don’t need to hear deep arguments to be convinced that it’s not ok to kill my children/bomb their school.

Dylan16807 7mo ago
Can you answer the question though? It's not a trick question, I want to see where you're coming from. And it's not about whether it's "okay".
- Forgeties79 7mo ago
  I didn’t answer it because you’re framing it as the end-all be-all of this discussion when it’s bordering on a strawman argument.
  - Dylan16807 7mo ago
    Which part do you think is a strawman? Because one of the people that replied to me does appear to think that no war has ever been worth the results. It's a legitimate point of view, and that's why I asked if it was your point of view. For the rest of this post I'm assuming it's not your point of view. I'm very much not trying to strawman you, I'm trying to improve your argument. If any wars are considered "worth it, morally speaking", then single mistakes can't be enough to invalidate the war. We need to talk about how many mistakes happen and how they happen. We need to say how much is too much, and "zero mistakes" is not compatible with "some wars are worth it". The idea that we could have both in the real world is self-deception.

sebastiennight 7mo ago

Would you mind sharing a handful of examples where, from your perspective, a war was worth its results?

Dylan16807 7mo ago
I guess I'd start with most colonial freedom wars.
- sebastiennight 7mo ago
  I might not know your personal background, but I have a hard time imagining you come from a lineage that has experience the cost of one of those. The list of today's remaining colonies is short enough[0] that it is worth considering whether decolonization was "an idea that reached its time" in the late 20th century ; and given that there are examples of peaceful revolutions (eg India and West Africa) it is worth asking whether more places could have undergone peaceful transitions, and whether the cost in human lives and atrocities born within a decade of war doesn't outweigh the cost of the colonial system dying by itself within the same order of magnitude of time. But then again, I think you're veering us somewhat off-topic as I'd consider a "colonial freedom war" to be a revolution (the people overthrowing their overlord) which is quite different from the topic at hand here, war between nation-states. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-self-governing_territories#Current_entries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_non-sel...

cramsession 7mo ago

> Some children being killed is an inevitable part of war. Killing children is a war crime, and not an inevitable part of war.

Dylan16807 7mo ago
On purpose or with significant negligence, it's a war crime. But collateral damage is not something you can just choose to avoid.
ashdksnndck 7mo ago
Same commenter, 3 hours later, defending bombing of children: > Parents are solely responsible for bringing their children on stolen land. There were indigenous children living there that were murdered.