By that same logic, however, pretty much everyone in capitalist societies are also contributing to the “subjugation of non-white people.”
Nowhere near to the same degree, however. Your attempts to equate these things is extention silly.
I’m failing to see how the military is somehow directly responsible for the person I was originally responding to living under a capitalist system whereas they are not.
Do you also fail to see how the USian soldiers are responsible for, for example, the tortures at Abu Ghraib? I guess you don’t see that as any different from being a cashier in the US in terms of awfulness.
Mind you, non-capitalist communities have firefighting and even militaries. Neither occupation is inherently capitalistic.
However, non-capitalist societies of today are not responsible for the colonial subjugation of the Global South. Not sure why you are ripping them into this.
Regarding the healthcare industry in the US, it’s a profit-seeking venture. Anyone who participates in it voluntarily (e.g., doing software engineering for healthcare companies) is directly involved in one of America’s most backwards sectors of the economy.
Ok? Do they do anything comparable to bombing schoolchildren in Iran? What would be the good outcome of none of those people participating in the USian healthcare system?
Why would I have to attack the meat producers first?
The fact that you blame consumers of meat and the like - and not the producers, i.e. the people actually doing the bad thing - for the production of meat and similar things is also very silly.
Also, do you agree that the rest of the world has a moral right to kill NATO’s ss troopers, or do you think it would be great if I kidnapped, tortured and killed your family for money?
So we agree that this is a matter of degree rather than kind. As for the degree of difference, I fail to see much of one between the non-combatant service member and, say, the average US citizen who pays no mind to how their lifestyle and choices impact the world.
When you speak of the US military, you are speaking of an institution. It is an institution that you and I likely share similar grievances about. The difference is that I don’t attribute moral condemnation on every person who just so happens to be in the military. Likewise with every person who just so happens to work for Amazon, Google, Walmart, etc. The cook serving on a military base is about as responsible for an atrocity that occurs in the middle east as you are responsible for whatever negative outcomes are associated with the way you earn and spend your money.
Are you trying to ask what would be the good outcome of a massive labor strike in the US healthcare industry? Quite a lot of good could come from that. But, yes, profiting off the illness of children and sending their families into financial ruin is, once the scale is put into play, in my opinion, about as morally problematic as dropping bombs on children.
I get the impression you’re once again trying to excuse yourself of moral blame by saying the producers of animal products are significantly worse than the consumers. Much of the labor in animal “processing” facilities in the US comes from undocumented immigrants. Much of foreign meat comes from impoverished laborers or even slaves. Consumers of such products are directly funding those atrocities. And, yes, that also makes voters responsible for the atrocities that are perpetuated by their democratically elected governments.
And no, I don’t believe you have a moral right to be a terrorist.
So we agree that this is a matter of degree rather than kind.
This whole time you have been arguing, at best, that the degree doesn’t matter (though, you did say once that consuming meat is worse than production, despite the fact that it’s the production that is the problem), and that being a nurse in the private healthcare system in the US is exactly as bad as sniping children in Iraq.
I fail to see much of one between the non-combatant service member and, say, the average US citizen who pays no mind to how their lifestyle and choices impact the world.
One directly contributes to the goals of the most vile military in the world and can’t be substituted by civilians, the other is usually as far removed from contributing to those goals as possible (with the consideration that people in NATO are generally forced to take part in NATO’s economy, but are not forced to be in the military taken into account).
The difference is that I don’t attribute moral condemnation on every person who just so happens to be in the military.
Sure. Some actually do sabotage of the military, like Chelsea Manning.
The vast majority don’t.
The cook serving on a military base is about as responsible for an atrocity that occurs in the middle east as you are responsible for whatever negative outcomes are associated with the way you earn and spend your money.
Lol no. A military cook directly makes sure that the murderers and torturers do not go hungry and are in a perfect condition to murder and torture.
Are you trying to ask what would be the good outcome of a massive labor strike in the US healthcare industry?
No. I asked what would be the good outcome of there being no healthcare workers in the US. The soldiers striking was never in the picture.
The benefits of there being no military in the US are clear and lack cons. The benefits of there being no healthcare workers in the US are dubious.
I get the impression you’re once again trying to excuse yourself of moral blame by saying the producers of animal products are significantly worse than the consumers.
The actual harm in this situation is done to the animals from whom the meat is made. This is done by the producers, rather than by the consumers. Not sure why you think that it’s the other way around.
And no, I don’t believe you have a moral right to be a terrorist.
So, you agree, then, that becoming a USian terrorist for money is inexcusable, and that the rest of the world is in the right to defend itself from them however it sees fit?
Nowhere near to the same degree, however. Your attempts to equate these things is extention silly.
Do you also fail to see how the USian soldiers are responsible for, for example, the tortures at Abu Ghraib? I guess you don’t see that as any different from being a cashier in the US in terms of awfulness.
However, non-capitalist societies of today are not responsible for the colonial subjugation of the Global South. Not sure why you are ripping them into this.
Ok? Do they do anything comparable to bombing schoolchildren in Iran? What would be the good outcome of none of those people participating in the USian healthcare system?
The fact that you blame consumers of meat and the like - and not the producers, i.e. the people actually doing the bad thing - for the production of meat and similar things is also very silly.
Also, do you agree that the rest of the world has a moral right to kill NATO’s ss troopers, or do you think it would be great if I kidnapped, tortured and killed your family for money?
So we agree that this is a matter of degree rather than kind. As for the degree of difference, I fail to see much of one between the non-combatant service member and, say, the average US citizen who pays no mind to how their lifestyle and choices impact the world.
When you speak of the US military, you are speaking of an institution. It is an institution that you and I likely share similar grievances about. The difference is that I don’t attribute moral condemnation on every person who just so happens to be in the military. Likewise with every person who just so happens to work for Amazon, Google, Walmart, etc. The cook serving on a military base is about as responsible for an atrocity that occurs in the middle east as you are responsible for whatever negative outcomes are associated with the way you earn and spend your money.
Are you trying to ask what would be the good outcome of a massive labor strike in the US healthcare industry? Quite a lot of good could come from that. But, yes, profiting off the illness of children and sending their families into financial ruin is, once the scale is put into play, in my opinion, about as morally problematic as dropping bombs on children.
I get the impression you’re once again trying to excuse yourself of moral blame by saying the producers of animal products are significantly worse than the consumers. Much of the labor in animal “processing” facilities in the US comes from undocumented immigrants. Much of foreign meat comes from impoverished laborers or even slaves. Consumers of such products are directly funding those atrocities. And, yes, that also makes voters responsible for the atrocities that are perpetuated by their democratically elected governments.
And no, I don’t believe you have a moral right to be a terrorist.
This whole time you have been arguing, at best, that the degree doesn’t matter (though, you did say once that consuming meat is worse than production, despite the fact that it’s the production that is the problem), and that being a nurse in the private healthcare system in the US is exactly as bad as sniping children in Iraq.
One directly contributes to the goals of the most vile military in the world and can’t be substituted by civilians, the other is usually as far removed from contributing to those goals as possible (with the consideration that people in NATO are generally forced to take part in NATO’s economy, but are not forced to be in the military taken into account).
Sure. Some actually do sabotage of the military, like Chelsea Manning.
The vast majority don’t.
Lol no. A military cook directly makes sure that the murderers and torturers do not go hungry and are in a perfect condition to murder and torture.
No. I asked what would be the good outcome of there being no healthcare workers in the US. The soldiers striking was never in the picture.
The benefits of there being no military in the US are clear and lack cons. The benefits of there being no healthcare workers in the US are dubious.
The actual harm in this situation is done to the animals from whom the meat is made. This is done by the producers, rather than by the consumers. Not sure why you think that it’s the other way around.
So, you agree, then, that becoming a USian terrorist for money is inexcusable, and that the rest of the world is in the right to defend itself from them however it sees fit?