Hacker News

points by Computer0 1 day ago | 0 comments

So we should ignore the atrocities of people who sold their soul for cash because they sold their soul?

In that same light, all of us programmers sold our souls for cash to make the Facebooks and Flocks and OpenAI's of the world. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

[–] Computer0 4 hours ago

Yeah I think those people are morally objectionable. I can defend every second of my history.

[–] croon 19 hours ago

While I'm some degree of a pacifist, it's tough to argue against the concept of a defense army, in the face of human nature. Defense in the larger sense also has to mean (preventative) intervention, for example world war 2 might have ended very differently unless the US joined.

I also recognize that the US has perverted this concept countless times since with blatant imperialistic motives, it does however still not break the concept of a just responsive military force.

TL;DR: They're not selling their souls if they (mistakenly) trust elected officials to work for the will of the people and only deploy for just causes.

[–] couchand 16 hours ago

How can anyone look at hundreds of years of US imperialism with rose-colored glasses anymore? Who is really misguided into thinking the US army is defensive in nature? You have constructed a beautiful straw man.

Fortunately the Nuremberg principles rescue us here. Following orders is no excuse for abdicating a moral responsibility.

[–] croon 14 hours ago

> How can anyone look at hundreds of years of US imperialism with rose-colored glasses anymore?

I quite explicitly did the opposite of that.

> Who is really misguided into thinking the US army is defensive in nature?

Let me put it this way:

* Had Ukraine not had an army, it would not exist right now.

* Had Ukraine had a bigger army, it might not have been invaded at all.

* Had Ukraine had the biggest army in the world, it might or might not have abused it for nefarious reasons.

The argument I made is that the US (and any country) needs it for case 1 and 2 (can also be solved through defensive alliances, though Ukraine had assurances that were broken), but the US has gone the wrong way for case 3.

This however does not invalidate case 1 and 2.

> You have constructed a beautiful straw man.

I'm unsure how to respond to this other than state that it's ironic.

[–] xphos 11 hours ago

Honestly I couldn't say this better. I would just go one step further participating in the Miltary does not equal your doing atrocities as a natural conclusion. We want people of sound morals to be in the Miltary because they will make I hope moral decisions when it comes to the conduct of war.

I highly recommend reading On War by carl von clausewitz. He gives a pragmetic opinion on War and being read for it. Along with being ready for general conflict both non-violent and violent

[–] infamouscow 13 hours ago

The answer is you can't. They did not reason themselves into their position, and you can't reason them out of it. It's irrational to have rational discussion with the irrational.

This is why derision is a valid philosophical debate strategy if a person refuses to engage in rational discussion. To label GP as an R-word is a social signal and warning to others not to behave similarly. Derision also promotes healthy skepticism of new arguments you hear, lest risk falling into the same trap and have oneself become a laughingstock.

[–] ImPostingOnHN 13 hours ago

Please consider posting comments more in line with the YC posting guidelines, with fewer shallow dismissals and insults.

You're not going to have a good conversation like this, and you aren't going to be "winning" anything for your troubles, either.