[qsera]

Sure, any one can say anything. But I am not referring to that. I am talking about a case where it is objectively true.

But I think that is a question that anyone would rather not consider.

The issue is that if you don't consider that question, and jump into discussion or actions, in general just have an "outrage", then it would be very hard to take you seriously.

[laserlight]

I don't know of any instance where modern warmongers fight wars based on subjective grounds. They all have “objectively true” reasons.

[qsera]

Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is only x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to proceed? "

What would your response be? What is the value of `x` at which you will approve of the pre-emptive attack?

Just curious.

[mrs6969]

100 is my answer. Exactly my question to you:

What is your percentage to say no lets do not take actions. Because again; with this perspective every single action is legitimate. There is a chance for everything. If there is a weapon that can kill every human on the planet, every country will race to invent it because every country will try to invent it. Every action is valid. Every weapon development is okey, because if you dont, others will. You can kill everyone, because everyone might eventually try to kill you, there is always a chance.

[qsera]

>100 is my answer

We both know that it is not true. Because by this logic, you wouldn't fire a weapon at someone who is about to stab your wife or child. Because there is a small chance that they will die of a heart attack before they can do it. So it is some value that is < 100%, but apparently that is not good enough for you.

[mrs6969]

You did not accept my answer and did not answer to mine as well.

On top of that, while you are pulling some hypothetical scenarios, the reality is exactly as I described. Governments, especially us gov, kept invading, bombing and killing people based on some subjective percentages and this is still ongoing.

Although you did not like my ‘prefer to die instead of kill’ idea, you still did not solve ‘you can kill everyone since there is a chance anyone can kill you’ problem. And reality is closer to latter, unfortunately.

[laserlight]

I don't get the point. What does objectivity have to do with the value of x?

Your example seems to validate my point of view: warmongers disguise their subjectivity by basing their actions on “objective” models.

[qsera]

>What does objectivity have to do with the value of x?

It does not have anything to do with objectivity. I thought it to be futile to discuss that since, as you implied, predicting future can't be 100% objective, and thus decisions to avert a bad future outcome always need to be based on subjective decisions.

So this is another question where I want to ask you how you would make a subjective call.

[laserlight]

Got it. Looks like we're on the same page. Everyone makes a subjective call.

[qsera]

Yes, we are on the same page, and you have got one question to answer.

Make your call.

[mrs6969]

What is objective; does iraq having chemical weapons objective for example?

Or childrens died because of invasion is more objective?

Which one?