Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by philwelch on Saturday April 06, 2013 @03:09PM
(#5504653)
The problem with pacifism is that it gives you no defense against those who aren't pacifists.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by thwest on Sunday April 07, 2013 @02:45PM
(#5508146)
No one is invading France.
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by philwelch on Sunday April 07, 2013 @02:57PM
(#5508208)
Nor is France especially pacifistic. I suspect these two facts are somehow related.
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by thwest on Sunday April 07, 2013 @03:41PM
(#5508396)
Therefore, we should preemptively invade Mali/Iraq/etc? Do we have to strike first, and violently manage other countries just to maintain our defenses?
I am not arguing for pacifism. I put the 'need to wage war' into the original moral calculus as a valid consideration, not to dismiss it.
Re:French homeland intelligence threatens a sysop into delet...
by philwelch on Sunday April 07, 2013 @06:44PM
(#5509064)
Deliberately making yourself ineffective at waging war because you don't want to wage war is equivalent to pacifism. There's no value to going out of your way to start wars, but you need the ability to end them decisively.