Would it be okay, then, for me to rob, torture, and kill your family if it was the only way for me to get higher education (i.e. something that is not necessary to live)?
What about the families these monsters kill that won’t be able to receive higher education on account of being dead or kidnapped?
And what about roles outside of the military? When was the last time you contributed to slavery or child exploitation with your purchases? How about your employer?
Just wanted to make sure since people in this thread seem to be taking a holier-than-thou stance. As above:
Would it be okay, then, for me to rob, torture, and kill your family if it was the only way for me to get higher education (i.e. something that is not necessary to live)? What about the families these monsters kill that won’t be able to receive higher education on account of being dead or kidnapped?
If we’re talking about more than just service members who directly engage in combat and are including non-combat roles (cook, mail clerk), then the answer has to be yes.
my industry - firefighting and software engineering for healthcare is, particularly quite different than being a part of an organization that has a monopoly on violence. additionally, that same org has me living under capitalism, from birth. so try again with your reductio.
the adults who volunteer to join that violent organization are certainly much more guilty than others who choose not to join.
your attempt at this false equivalency is just trollish and serves to show exactly how much you enjoy the taste of uncle sam’s boot.
There is a massive difference between cooking meals for schoolchildren and making sure that military personnel can function to achieve their objectives of subjugating non-white people.
Consumption of products is the furthest one can be from participation in such things in many cases, or not far off.
Completely disagree. There’s an important caveat: Necessary consumption of products is the furthest one can be from participation. Most of the consumption done in the western world is not necessary.
Honestly ridiculous how you try to equate these things.
That’s okay. I don’t necessarily expect someone to condemn themselves.
Completely disagree. There’s an important caveat: Necessary consumption of products is the furthest one can be from participation.
We already know that you pretend that buying a product made by NATO is just as bad as being a torturer in Abu Ghraib.
Simply consuming things is, indeed, either the furthest one can be from relevant participation, or not far off. The fact that you keep equivocating that with going overseas to murder children simply betrays that you do not see people outside of NATO as people.
Also, you even think that consumers of meat are more at fault for producing meat than the people involved in producing meat, which is extremely silly.
That’s okay. I don’t necessarily expect someone to condemn themselves.
Cute, especially considering that I do not live in “the western world” (i.e. the Imperial Core), and neither does most of the world whom you claim it’s okay to invade. “It’s just as bad to buy meat as it is to orchestrate Highways of Death”, lol.
Why “strawman”? They are literally saying that that is perfectly okay to do for USians against people elsewhere. Why can’t you also say how it would be so good if you were on the receiving end of this poverty-alleviating programme?
Also, again, what about the poverty and education of the families these soldiers kidnap, torture, and kill?
Would it be okay, then, for me to rob, torture, and kill your family if it was the only way for me to get higher education (i.e. something that is not necessary to live)?
What about the families these monsters kill that won’t be able to receive higher education on account of being dead or kidnapped?
Strawman but good
not a strawman. literally every role in the military is involved in the murder of children. every. single. role.
And what about roles outside of the military? When was the last time you contributed to slavery or child exploitation with your purchases? How about your employer?
two things can be true at once.
Just wanted to make sure since people in this thread seem to be taking a holier-than-thou stance. As above:
If we’re talking about more than just service members who directly engage in combat and are including non-combat roles (cook, mail clerk), then the answer has to be yes.
the cook is just as guilty as the sniper, yes. i agree.
Which makes you also as guilty as the cook. Unless, of course, you live off the grid, homestead, and are entirely self-sufficient.
my industry - firefighting and software engineering for healthcare is, particularly quite different than being a part of an organization that has a monopoly on violence. additionally, that same org has me living under capitalism, from birth. so try again with your reductio.
the adults who volunteer to join that violent organization are certainly much more guilty than others who choose not to join.
your attempt at this false equivalency is just trollish and serves to show exactly how much you enjoy the taste of uncle sam’s boot.
There is a massive difference between cooking meals for schoolchildren and making sure that military personnel can function to achieve their objectives of subjugating non-white people.
You are equating purchasing things with directly participating in the most vile military on the planet.
I hate to break it to you, but your consumption of unethical products is also direct participation in the unethical production of said products.
Consumption of products is the furthest one can be from participation in such things in many cases, or not far off.
Unlike working in a NATO military.
Honestly ridiculous how you try to equate these things.
Completely disagree. There’s an important caveat: Necessary consumption of products is the furthest one can be from participation. Most of the consumption done in the western world is not necessary.
That’s okay. I don’t necessarily expect someone to condemn themselves.
We already know that you pretend that buying a product made by NATO is just as bad as being a torturer in Abu Ghraib.
Simply consuming things is, indeed, either the furthest one can be from relevant participation, or not far off. The fact that you keep equivocating that with going overseas to murder children simply betrays that you do not see people outside of NATO as people.
Also, you even think that consumers of meat are more at fault for producing meat than the people involved in producing meat, which is extremely silly.
Cute, especially considering that I do not live in “the western world” (i.e. the Imperial Core), and neither does most of the world whom you claim it’s okay to invade. “It’s just as bad to buy meat as it is to orchestrate Highways of Death”, lol.
Why “strawman”? They are literally saying that that is perfectly okay to do for USians against people elsewhere. Why can’t you also say how it would be so good if you were on the receiving end of this poverty-alleviating programme?
Also, again, what about the poverty and education of the families these soldiers kidnap, torture, and kill?