Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jasonlotito | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jasonlotito

> Governments. Not people.

I've never known a government to start a war. I've known people that make up a government to start one, however.

> We've become overly permissive with those who govern us.

We are not qualified to decide how we are governed, but we are qualified to start a war?

> I don't want a vote-grabbing whore to be able to make those decisions.

So who should make the decision? Only those that vote?

> Not sure what will stop it or change the course.

Definitely not with flame-induced rants like this. You choose words precisely to evoke emotion. Rather than approach this rationally, you hide behind passion, and hope that anyone reading this will be to emotional one way or another to understand what you are trying to say.

In every way, you are acting the part of the vote-grabbing whore you so disdain.

View on HN

That's seriously splitting hairs. By extension you are saying "I don't know anyone in government who started a war they simply signed a piece of paper giving authority to other humans to start killing another group of humans and the money to do so."

Wars only destroy so when no one is threatening you in any serious way engaging in them is crazy.

> That's seriously splitting hairs.

No, it's not. And by extension, I'm saying anything of the sort.

OP keeps using the word government and then people, as if the two are distinct and different. It's a technique to make you ignore the fact that the government isn't some other being. It's made up of people.

Treating the government as some alien entity is a political tactic used to frighten people.

> Wars only destroy so when no one is threatening you in any serious way engaging in them is crazy.

That's a rather naive look, and ignores the own premise set forth by the OP I was responding to (in his case, the people should decide).

He's under the belief that the people wouldn't have supported war with Iraq (despite overwhelming support in 2003 for the war).

So, I'm not sure what you are really trying to say? On one hand, the OP says we should attack regardless of a direct threat. On the other hand, you say we should only attack unless we are seriously threatened (and the will of the people be damned). Maybe you think we should be seriously threatened and require that people support the war? This would of course require that people be told how the threat is seriously threatening them.

And that's how we got into the war with Iraq.

Ok well it seems like you are confusing the concept of society and government. They aren't the same thing.

By serious threat I really mean someone is attacking you actively. No sure how you would ever seriously think Iraq could injure the United States. They had to tell quite a few lies to convince people of that.

> They had to tell quite a few lies to convince people of that.

If the government started the war, why would they have to tell lies to convince the people?

>"By extension you are saying "I don't know anyone in government who started a war they simply signed a piece of paper giving authority to other humans to start killing another group of humans and the money to do so."

That seems to be his point; at any time one of those people (read: politicians) could have said, "I ain't signing this".

It was down to the individual decisions of people, not some mysterious enigma labelled government.

Right but we haven't really learned anything by saying that. It's like saying that Germany didn't invade Poland in 1939 but rather a collection of humans carrying guns and some driving tanks wandered into what was called in some parts "Poland". We have not really advanced the argument or our understanding by breaking it down like that.

> We have not really advanced the argument or our understanding by breaking it down like that.

Breaking it down by saying:

"It's like saying that Germany didn't invade Poland in 1939 but rather a collection of humans carrying guns and some driving tanks wandered into what was called in some parts "Poland"."

Because I've never heard anyone seriously break it down like that. Rather, I hear it like so: Germany invaded Poland.

So, to contend: "We have not really advanced the argument or our understanding by breaking it down like that." ignores the very relevant fact that it's never really been broken down like that.

Regardless, that ruins the argument of breaking it down by US government and the citizens of the US (which is what you are suggesting we do).

If anything, history shows that generalizing or stereotyping people into groups (e.g. "the government" or "blacks" or "the jews" continuing from your example) has done more harm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com