471–480 of 1001 posts
Maybe if they were more accurate they would kill less people?
It's also possible that when a weapon is deemed technically capable, people will be more comfortable with broad use of weapons and with expanding lists of individuals targeted for extrajudicial killing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reality of Defense/Intelligence is that you do have to just trust some of us.
The same defense/intelligence that has lied its pants off for how long... Gosh, I don't know when to begin. You are working on a morally bankrupt program for a morally deficient organization, large parts of which have zero concern for human life. And you tell us to blindly trust you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not able to understand because I'm stuck at "the government uses autonomous robots to kill people extra-judiciously with missiles from the sky and nobody seems to care." And you want to make the program "more efficient." This is the gulf which I cannot seem to bridge. Extra-judicial killings of "terrorists" in "bad places" using flying killer robots is just batshit insane to me. I cannot for the life of me under…
Why do you refer to them as extra-judicial killings?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not able to understand because I'm stuck at "the government uses autonomous robots to kill people extra-judiciously with missiles from the sky and nobody seems to care." And you want to make the program "more efficient." This is the gulf which I cannot seem to bridge. Extra-judicial killings of "terrorists" in "bad places" using flying killer robots is just batshit insane to me. I cannot for the life of me under…
Why do you refer to them as extra-judicial killings?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that fundamental human rights means rights that exist inherently regardless of whether the UN or any given country recognizes them. My feeling is that people have a right to self defense, which would require them to have access to some effective weapon. In theory that could be a club or blade rather than a firearm; however, currently firearms are the only (somewhat) socially acceptable weapon to carry in th…
I can't think of a single right that exists inherently. Where does such a right originate? For every right that most people hold evident, you'll find people who disagree. This is why rights are codified in laws and agreements.
Codified rights are effectively statements of belief of a government, to which they are binding themselves. As a statement of belief, there's no legal structures or arguments upholding them. They are simply installed by declaration (either dictatorially or by some measure of consensus) as an official part of the government's world view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you refer to them as extra-judicial killings?
Because there was no involvement of the judiciary system. See the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, and more to the point, his son. Oh, and also his daughter now, I guess.
I'm not saying I support it from a moral standpoint but I don't think it's fair to call them extra-judicial except in a few cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, the entire Bill of Rights in fact pertains to our inalienable, universal rights. There is no difference from what one may term "fundamental" or "human" rights. It doesn't matter what the UN or anyone in other countries say or talk about -- just as the laws of physics are facts regardless of what some people may say or feel. If we have the right to life, we have the right to self-defense. If we have the right to…
> our inalienable, universal rights That school of thought dates from the 18th century when thinkers appealed to a Creator who endowed those rights (even if it was a rather aloof Deist conception of God). However, in the following century it faced strong competition from the utilitarian school that suggests that rights are only a convenient fiction that society recognizes for the common good. Plus, these days ever mo…
And I guess you can argue that some do not recognize universal rights, but it's not a compelling argument to just point out what some people think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Only in the USA is it normal to think that people should have the right to kill in self defense. If that's the case, I don't want to live anywhere else. If someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night, they pose a deadly threat to my family. In what country would you not feel the same way? > Even more, many think they should be able to defend themselves from the state. Not all states are benevolent, nor a…
Why must an intruder, who may be there just to steal something and not harm others, immediately have to pay for their actions with their life? Do gun owners truly believe that they can band together and stop the entirety of the United States military anymore? The same people who are large proponents of the 2nd Amendment also seem to encourage a massive defense budget which seems backwards to me.