ExLisper

joined 9 months ago
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What about doing business with Russia? Any dangers here? Or it's fine to buy their gas and oil?

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 34 points 1 week ago (4 children)

We all are.

Far from it. A lot of people in Europe are brainwashed by Russian propaganda, even more people are not doing that great and will not sacrifice anything to help Ukraine. In many countries the right is either in power or very close to getting it. Each government is very carefully calculating how to keep the war going without losing the next elections. I think European troops should have been providing air defense to western Ukraine from the very beginning of the war but half or most of the people (depending on the country) don't support sending any troops there.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Oh my god, so many possibilities!

A slapstick comedy about accidentally killing a journalist in an embassy and desperately trying to get rid of the body by dismembering it and taking it out in suitcases.

Alien invasion movie, it turns out the only thing that kills the aliens is crude oil.

Historical drama about prophet Mohammad: first ever movie where the main character is always just out of frame.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is just pathetic on the organizers side. There's a very big chance Israel will win (they ended up 2nd this year) and organize the next final. I can't even imagine how disgusting a party organized by genocidal state next to the rubbles of Gaza will be.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Washington is unhappy that some European arms programs limit U.S. participation.

Ok, we can make it all arms programs.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh, I see what's going on here.

I live in Europe so I'm looking at this from European perspective. While I think I don't live in a completely just society I think it's pretty good, it can be improved and I would like for it to survive. So I think Europe should have weapons and we should have best engineers possible working on them. While their weapons are sometimes used for immoral things I don't blame the engineers for it.

You're looking at this from American perspective. You think your society is evil and it should be destroyed. You don't think it should be able to defend itself at all and all engineers helping to preserve it are morally corrupt.

You're looking at this from a perspective or a Nazi engineer in 1938 while I'm looking at it from a perspective or a Polish engineer in 1938.

So you're taking the most extreme case and applying it to all arms companies while I treat as... well... extreme case.

I have a friend in Poland that works for a company providing components for weapon manufacturers. Some components they make were found in Gaza. Do I think he's immoral and should quit? No, I think those components are necessary to protect Poland from Russia and I don't think Poland should be destroyed. He can't decide were those components will end up. Would I say the same about Israeli engineer? No.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

It's really not that complicated. We have two "issues".

  1. Engineers making weapons
  2. Weapons being used to kill innocent people.

There is an easy solution to both: don't make weapons. That's a stupid solution because if your country doesn't have any weapons it will be invaded by other country and innocent people will die.

You know this easy solution is stupid so you say we should only "reduce" the number of weapons. But this doesn't solve any issues. Engineers still make weapons and those weapons can still be used to kill innocent people. You just saved some money which is completely different topic entirely.

So now you're stuck in a loop claiming that your stupid solution will solve issue 2 (which it won't) while ignoring issue 1 entirely.

The real "solution" is to not use weapons to kill innocent people. "Issue" 1 is not an issue at all. Engineers making weapons are necessary. "Issue" 2 has to be solved by the entire country by electing better politicians. Engineers don't have more power here than farmers or doctors.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

I have literally no idea what kind of point you think you’re making.

I can see that. Let me explain that in even simpler way.

You say:

Me: Making guns.

You: "Engineers making guns bad! Make less guns!"

Me: Make 1 gun instead of 3.

US Army: Take 1 gun and kill brown children.

You: "Engineers making guns bad!"

I say:

Me: Making guns.

US Army: Takes guns and kills brown people.

Me: Army bad!

P.S. I don't work for arms company. I was just making a point.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

You do realize that if you "reduce" spending you will still have arms companies making weapons and engineers will work for them? I don't think it's that complicated...

You spend a lot on weapons. If you reduce it you will spend less on weapons but you will buy some weapons.

Like imagine you're spending $100 a week on alcohol. You decide it's bad for you and you reduce it. Now you're only spending $30 on alcohol. You're still buying alcohol. You spend less but you still buy it so someone will still make it.

Hope that helps.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -2 points 2 weeks ago (11 children)

Great, so let's disarm unilaterally. I'm sure Russia and China will do the same.

Such a childish take...

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Where did you get my desire for blood from? All I'm saying is that the same arms companies make weapons that fall in Gaza and that protect Europe. You can't have one but not the other. It's up to politicians to decide how to use those weapons, not engineers.

view more: ‹ prev next ›