= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (275)
It's not really silly. Focusing on cutting funding sources might be better than focusing on killing ISIS operatives, As long as a NATO country buys their oil for money, weapons and hospital care killing individual ISIS operatives won't go very far.
The two are not mutually exclusive, agreed?
If you want to use certain NATO bases to do your bombing, then you will be less likely to criticize the policy of the countries that host the bases.
Umm, does that mean "yes" or "no"?
Truth is more complex than binary values. It means that in practice doing one thing means that you can do the other less well.
Let's assume that's true. So what? The argument under discussion was not whether the West should avoid focusing on killing people because it will undermine the West's ability to focus on cutting funding for ISIS. The issue under discussion is whether the West should avoid killing people because it will make other people angry.
Please don't try to change the subject without openly acknowledging that's what you are doing.
You don't do things like bombing or not bombing for a single reason. At the same time it's okay for an article in a mainstream venue to focus on a single reason because the medium doesn't allow for a deep analysis of all factors that matter.
Again, assuming that is true, so what? If one of those reasons doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and you want to change the subject and discuss a different reason, then please be open and honest about what you are doing.
With charity the topic is whether resentment produced through bombing is a significant factor. Conclusions based on the argument that we shouldn't bomb can be true if you look at additional arguments and therefore they certainly aren't "ridiculous".
I think the factor of bombings producing resentments from the local population should factor into the calculation. You need further arguments to actually decide against bombing and a single argument isn't enough.
Charity as to whose statements? Mine or Sipursky's?
Can you please quote or summarize the statement you are interpreting charitably.
TIA.