What an utter piece of shit.

  • archomrade [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    imagine being so brainwashed that you think owning the life support machine morally entitles you to decide who is kept alive with it.

    • dimath@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good argument, but where do you draw the line? You can save someone right now by an act of a good will, but do you do it?

    • spitfire@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine being so brainwashed that you think since someone else owns a life support machine, you have the right to use it to kill people you don’t like.

      • archomrade [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Weird how the thrust of your statement doesn’t change regardless of the status of ownership

        • spitfire@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nope. In this case the doctors machine isn’t a life support system, it’s more like an xray machine. The ownership remains the doctors the entire time. The doctor chooses to stop a patient who wants to use the machine to kill another patient.its his machine to begin with. The ONLY morally correct decision is to not allow it. Get mad at the doctor all you want, at the end of the day you’re advocating for murder.

          • archomrade [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            You honestly think who owns the tool being used changes the morality of murder?

            Nevermind that we’re actually talking about war between nation states, not a doctor stopping a hospital patient from, erm, repeatedly shooting someone else with X-ray radiation?

            What a silly allegory you’ve come up with

            • spitfire@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol the ownership of the tool is not at what the point is. The point is that you and many others think Elon is somehow obligated to assist Ukraine in killing Russians with his tools. Not only is he not obligated, he is morally obligated to NOT help them. The morality of murder doesn’t change, the only thing changing is the vast majority of brain washed peons who think Elon is somehow responsible for Ukrainian deaths. I changed the tool to x-ray because in this case, Starlink is not a tool that is designed to kill or keep alive, only aide in communication. In this situation, Ukraine wanted to use this tool to kill. Fuck anyone that thinks this is okay. Fuck anyone knocking elon for denying it. Unlike the vast majority of users here, I am an actual combat vet who has experienced these things first hand. It’s easy for anyone to sit behind a computer desk and dehumanize people because of their country. No different than the piece of shit politicians making money off the backs of these murders.

              If you can’t see this point or comprehend these allegories then perhaps you’re part of the problem.

              • archomrade [he/him]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Imagine being so brainwashed that you think since someone else owns a life support machine, you have the right to use it to kill people you don’t like.

                Don’t get pissy at me just because you gave a bad hypothetical.

                The point is that you and many others think Elon is somehow obligated to assist Ukraine in killing Russians with his tools.

                Actually this kinda drives at my point: private individuals shouldn’t own major infrastructure necessary for state action. Had Elon been agnostic with his management of it, people may have forgotten that he owns major critical global infrastructure, critical especially for nations under hostile invasion. But he’s now taken a stance and intervened on what is fundamentally a question for government; “what is appropriate force for defending Ukrainian independence?”. You and I can have an opinion on the matter, but in the end we have no direct influence ourselves. That Elon can tip the scales on a whim, simply because he owns critical infrastructure, as an absolute aberration on global governance.

                Starlink is not a tool that is designed to kill or keep alive, only aide in communication. In this situation, Ukraine wanted to use this tool to kill.

                It is no more a tool for killing than roads or bridges are. Elon should not have any power over what it is used for (he’s free to have an opinion though).

                I am an actual combat vet who has experienced these things first hand

                Doubtful, but if you were, you should know the significance of being on an active critical military operation and having your key mission assets abruptly disabled because --checks notes-- a foreign billionare decided the operation was too violent(?). Especially when that mission was in service of destroying the enemy infrastructure being used to indiscriminately shell your own country. Elon somehow being a critical party in what should be a sensitive military defense operation is indefensible from my view.

                No different than the piece of shit politicians making money off the backs of these murders.

                Isn’t that precisely Elon’s relationship in this situation?