26 Aug 2008, 5:16 pm
DentArthurDent wrote:
Folks is it possible to debate the morals of something without bringing religion into it. Surely we can form opinions without guidance from the bible.
My morals are faith-based. They come from Christianity.
Anubis
Veteran
Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 136
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England
26 Aug 2008, 5:26 pm
Dox47 wrote:
chever wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Based on what? The fact that you agree with him? Generally speaking, when it comes to warfare I'll take my advice from people who have experienced it, not "enlightened" intellectuals with "theories" about it.
Why? His views might be valid. You have to evaluate them as they come, regardless who said them.
Based on my own strictly civilian knowledge, I suspect a new arms race will start to unfold within the next ten years. It's not going to be good.
Ahh, see I do evaluate things regardless of who said them. I also take their life experience into account as far as how much weight I give their opinion on a given matter. I still think that quoting Albert Einstein on warfare is like quoting Adam Smith as a literary critic, he may be an expert, but not on the subject at hand. To me, the quotes would have simply been pithy drivel and not taken seriously without the famous name attached to them, hence my opposition.
As to there being a global arms race, whether or not it's a "good" thing is purely a matter of perspective. My preferred field is in arms design, and most of my schooling is in that arena, so a global arms build up would be quite a good thing for those in my position. Sucks for the pacifists, but eggs and omelets, you know.
Entirely agreed. Some people are just being far too sentimental on this issue. There need to be weapons. Are people "bad" for wanting to design them? Someone has to do it.
That, and Albert Einstein wasn't exactly an expert on the matter. He had some good ideas, but it is outside his field of expertise.
26 Aug 2008, 5:44 pm
26 Aug 2008, 6:17 pm
A drug-dealer could make that same argument. Is it the drugs or the people? 
26 Aug 2008, 7:18 pm
26 Aug 2008, 7:19 pm
26 Aug 2008, 8:41 pm
26 Aug 2008, 9:10 pm
26 Aug 2008, 9:28 pm
Sand wrote:
If you make it more convenient for people to kill each other they will do so. Same for drugs, reproduction, religion, communication and keeping guppies.
You really have a singular hatred for religion, don't you?
It goes beyond reason.
26 Aug 2008, 10:30 pm
26 Aug 2008, 10:38 pm
26 Aug 2008, 10:41 pm
26 Aug 2008, 10:43 pm
26 Aug 2008, 10:45 pm
26 Aug 2008, 10:47 pm
26 Aug 2008, 11:07 pm
chever wrote:
A robust, general computer network obviously has more uses than an automatic weapon.
Hey I don't have a conscience either but I'm sure everyone would appreciate a little more honesty with yourself.
Hey I don't have a conscience either but I'm sure everyone would appreciate a little more honesty with yourself.
Be that is it may, my point was that a very useful piece of everyday technology came out of weapons research, something that I'm being condemned for embracing. Plus, the relative utility of a computer network versus automatic weapons in situational. The internet is far more useful for me if my goal is to irritate Australian pacifists, but not so useful in fending off muggers.
I have no illusions about myself or what I do, I just object to this perception that I'm some sort of Lex Luthor because I want to go into the small arms industry. Since you've been following the debate, you have to have witnessed the personal attacks on me because of my aspirations and interests, it is this vilification that I find hypocritical. Many companies directly or indirectly profit from military contracts, by the logic of the people attacking me all of their employees are working for "blood money". One of the largest employers in liberal Seattle is Boeing, classified as an arms company. Are all the machinists, electricians and engineers working there whores to the war machine? I have my eyes open.
