Any tl;dr?
Sorry I lost you at 'Any'. tl;dr please?
I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
231–240 of 491 posts
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#232We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…
How is this story anything but a plea to the people to reign in their heinous military masters? You state 'we must be sure we're not being manipulated' - towards what end, exactly? The logical conclusion of this opinion piece (it is marked thus) is that we should not allow our elected representatives to get away with murder. How is that in any way a negative result?
In general, the distinction between manipulation and argumentation, is that argumentation attempts to get the reader to see your point of view. That is, if I believe X for reason Y, then I will say that in my article. Manipulation would be arguing X for whatever reason you think the reader will find convincing.
In this case, the criticism was that the Guardian argues against drone strikes (and perhaps this particular war), by using some poor arguments e.g. that drone strikes are especially likely to kill civilians.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the innocent victims that we make today will get us on track to developing better drones with more resolution and less errors and doubt. I imagine a perfect drone without any human controller, doing it's business by AI, actually making the world a better place. [edit] lots of hate and naive comments. Fact remains that human progress has always come through sacrificing some of us for the greater good. Innocent…
No one ever wants to portray death as a technical aberration because it is an icky feeling. Also, people love to be self righteous and condescending because it adds millimetres to their imaginary pedestal. Just to rile them up more, which guy campaigning for president in 2008 had killed more Americans by hand, McCain or Obama? The answer is shocking, but not unbelievable. My grandfather was a naval aviator. He told m…
Surely you're intelligent enough to see the distinction between Barber surgeons, grave robbers, and killing machines.
There's a whole world of applications for AI and machinery that we could be pooling our resources into, but instead we're funding a continuing war on "terror" abroad. There's no reason why the war is necessary, no reason why technological progress would be made faster in the art of killing vs anything else.
Perhaps you believe that perpetual war is unavoidable and necessary. We could argue that.
But the way I see it, war isn't necessary, and the technological progress we make by funding war is a slim silver lining at best on a double edged sword with no handle. So you see, I find this thread ridiculous. I think you guys are psychopaths. And you're outnumbered by the rest of us.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#234We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…
Thank you so much for reminding me that I should care about not being manipulated. Your comment is so full of really good unbiased views that I just wanted to tell you how much non-manipulated I felt by your comment. I especially enjoyed your notion that the Guardian is "serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion." You are so right. I always fell that the White House and the American…
Hey Avenger123. "I especially enjoyed your notion that the Guardian is "serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion." You are so right. I always fell that the White House and the American military are always providing really insightful information that is really backed up substantiated by information." Two thoughts there. It feels like you're arguing "two wrongs make a right" And secondly I spent time pointing out that there are pro war (Fox News) equivalents that I/we find equally objectionable. I don't like either. It's just unlikely that a pro war/drone piece would ever make it to the top of HN so I'm here objecting to a Guardian piece.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would fewer people have died if USA hadn't interfered in Syria to the extent that we have? I.e., no constant media and political coverage, no arming the rebels, no diplomatic ante-upping games? It's impossible to be certain, but it certainly makes sense. What is indisputable is that further action on the part of USA will increase the death toll dramatically, as it has done everywhere else.
Further action on the part of the USA will always increase the death toll, like it did in Kosovo? And staying out of things will always reduce deaths, like in Rwanda? I don't pretend to have the answer in the case of Syria, and I'm not advocating anything one way or another. I'm just pointing out that your model of the world doesn't appear to predict the past, let alone the future.
How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's? Start killing Hutus? It is probable that intervention would have caused more casualties (including to US forces).
Kosovo is also disputed even in terms of actual casualties, let alone projected casualties, and is probably not a good case for intervention.
I fully agree there is not a good answer either way (syria included)... Just pointing out that your examples don't really predict the past or future either. Prediction in any case seems like a waste of time. (Unless you're The Doctor that is.)
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#236We need to make sure we're not being manipulated. Here the Guardian is just serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion. I'm not sure how this is different to much of the chest beating I'd see on Fox News. I'm not here to argue for or against the drones. Just that if we pride ourselves on being educated and critical thinkers that we apply that to all sources of data we read. We all kno…
Why must we make sure we're not being deceived? Why isn't the burden of proof on the people taking money out of my paycheck and using it to brutalize people on the other side of the globe?
And this "war is hell" stuff is just so tiring and intellectually barren. If someone told me "x is hell," and I know that x is entirely optional, I would say "okay then, don't do x." I will never understand how the mantra "war is hell" is used to justify or excuse war.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you so much for reminding me that I should care about not being manipulated. Your comment is so full of really good unbiased views that I just wanted to tell you how much non-manipulated I felt by your comment. I especially enjoyed your notion that the Guardian is "serving up an emotional, unsubstantiated, one sided view of this discussion." You are so right. I always fell that the White House and the American…
This sort of attitude is not really constructive discussion, and I personally feel it's out of place here on HN. So, personally: please don't do that.
He disagreed with the grandparent's skewed analysis, and explained why.
Why don't you do the same rather than conflating "things I don't agree with" and "not really constructive discussion"?
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
And these were? It read much more as a practice in "no one is unbiased so this is misleading." It also tries to equate drones use against individual targets (a couple individuals generally) with large scale bombing, which is highly disputable, given that it is used more in an assassination sense. The "manipulation" in the comment is pretty blatant.
Two substantive counterpoints I spot in the comment are 1) that telling us about the effects of drone weapons is emotional manipulation, not informative, because the "drone" part doesn't affect it at all and 2) the idea that decisions are hard because the view is "pixelated" applies just as much to the regular kind of warfare.
1) It is clearly labeled as an opinion piece (First person abounds: I saw, I wish, I knew)... If you are looking for informative, unbiased, hard hitting journalism in an opinion piece you may be looking in the wrong place.
2) Decisions are always hard, even with perfect resolution/clarity, but adding additional handicaps (pixelation) seems like relevant information... I don't see how that is 'counterpoint' in any way?
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost of one drone would provide ample resources for a village in Afghanistan to educate itself and defend itself from other killers. Drop books not bombs!
You do realise the Taliban are specifically opposed to Western education, especially the education of women. You have groups like Boko Haram (literally "Western education is sinful"). Dropping books on villages when the security situation hasn't been established is akin to dropping landmines - anyone who picks one up and takes it home risks being killed. There is a very good reason the Afghan campaign was about provi…
Do you realis that the US presence in the Midle East is fundamental for the empowering of the Taliban, don't you?
Of course, if not for the US, some other bully would be there, I perfectly understand that. Thus, no need of answering anything along those lines.
Re: I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two substantive counterpoints I spot in the comment are 1) that telling us about the effects of drone weapons is emotional manipulation, not informative, because the "drone" part doesn't affect it at all and 2) the idea that decisions are hard because the view is "pixelated" applies just as much to the regular kind of warfare.
1) It is clearly labeled as an opinion piece (First person abounds: I saw, I wish, I knew)... If you are looking for informative, unbiased, hard hitting journalism in an opinion piece you may be looking in the wrong place. 2) Decisions are always hard, even with perfect resolution/clarity, but adding additional handicaps (pixelation) seems like relevant information... I don't see how that is 'counterpoint' in any way…
1) seems like the pertinent disagreement, here. OK, fine, it's an opinion piece, and we shouldn't expect any sort of actual information from such a thing. Why, then, are we posting and upvoting such crap? Why is anybody defending it?