61–70 of 134 posts
War happens when leaders choose to go to war. Technology does not directly lead to new wars.
This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…
> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada? I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than…
This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…
> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada? I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than…
So I'll guess you're from the EU? If you think the US military is "grossly overpowered," and you have the same size military yet ask the US to supplement it, makes you a bit of a hypocrite.
>, after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not what I wanted my life's work to support. But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes? The government could find a…
Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile, belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) your sovereignty may well succumb to violence.
Rather, I suspect, what he really means here is that the goal of the American military is to settle other countries' international conflicts through violence, participating in conflicts in which the USA is not even remotely under attack.
If you believe such a thing, then you have a rationally founded reason to refuse military funding of USA origin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""
I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can refuse customer. You can not breach already written contract.
If nobody's buying what you're selling, then you have no business.
This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…
I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""
If I choose to behave in a certain manner but don't care how you behave, why would I tell you how I choose to behave?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""
I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""
I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.
That seems entirely too tyrannical, imperialistic, and egotistical to be practical.
Where does having freedom, humility, and an open mind fit into that maxim? I.e. being willing to accept that all humans (including ourselves) can be misguided, or that someone else could know what is better for them than me?