Here is an ethical question about the use of our computer technology. Every day, I see it being used to destroy lives in wars. The highest level of technology always seems to serve to kill the most possible people at a time. Do we have some responsibility in the way we create and distribute our computer products to others? Sales is an issue, but what about innocent lives getting trashed at the blink of an eye because some companies developped computer tools to develop the most advanced killing machine? Should the computer industry be more responsible as to how its technology get used?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Should computer technology be used to kill people? 15
- Thread starter arlems
- Start date
![[lol]](/data/assets/smilies/lol.gif "[lol] [lol]")
- Thread starter
- #65
You guys are terrific! What about passing a law, such as giving the software programmers a right as to how their software get used, making it an offense for "the boss" or a governement to use it for destructive purposes or ways that are not described in the signed agreement? Would this be ethical for the computer industry?
arlem,
Do you really think that would ever have a chance of even getting to the table? If you code for a company, your code is theirs, and they can do with it what they wish, and if they break the law with it, it has nothing to do with the programmer and the programmer can't even sue or take any action, it's a totally separate matter.
--jsteph
Do you really think that would ever have a chance of even getting to the table? If you code for a company, your code is theirs, and they can do with it what they wish, and if they break the law with it, it has nothing to do with the programmer and the programmer can't even sue or take any action, it's a totally separate matter.
--jsteph
CajunCenturion
Programmer
This has been a good discussion, and I am thankful for it. I am thankful that the discussion has stayed relatively on-topic and not degraded into ad-hominid attacks.
Isn’t it wonderful that we can have such a conversation? That we can openly express and discuss differing opinions. Is it surprising that someone can openly admit to what religion they practice? Sadly, for most of this planet’s population, such an admission would lead to being ostracized, and in many place, death. Openly disagreeing with the government’s policies can, and does in many places, lead to imprisonment. In some places, that you can is expected and simply taken for granted.
Whether or not you consider such notions to be basic human rights, having the freedom the exercise those rights is a privilege afforded to far to few of this world’s population. It is a privilege that can be taken away by those in power who use their power to retain their power, or to extend their power.
It has been stated that we must accept responsibility for our actions as well as our in-action. I agree, and I am very thankful for those who before me, did accept the responsibility to do what was necessary to secure those privileges for us, and I am very thankful for those today, who are bearing the responsibility, by continuing the development and use of those pertinent technologies, that allow us to continue to exercise these freedoms which many of us, because we’ve known nothing less, take for granted. It is comforting to know that those who have accepted the responsibility, and understand because they’ve seen the other side, just what that entails, are at least tolerated. But we must remember that tolerance – be it for gender, race, age, religion, how you balance work and family, and/or other agendas – is one of those precepts that require protection to remain and integral part of our lives.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Isn’t it wonderful that we can have such a conversation? That we can openly express and discuss differing opinions. Is it surprising that someone can openly admit to what religion they practice? Sadly, for most of this planet’s population, such an admission would lead to being ostracized, and in many place, death. Openly disagreeing with the government’s policies can, and does in many places, lead to imprisonment. In some places, that you can is expected and simply taken for granted.
Whether or not you consider such notions to be basic human rights, having the freedom the exercise those rights is a privilege afforded to far to few of this world’s population. It is a privilege that can be taken away by those in power who use their power to retain their power, or to extend their power.
It has been stated that we must accept responsibility for our actions as well as our in-action. I agree, and I am very thankful for those who before me, did accept the responsibility to do what was necessary to secure those privileges for us, and I am very thankful for those today, who are bearing the responsibility, by continuing the development and use of those pertinent technologies, that allow us to continue to exercise these freedoms which many of us, because we’ve known nothing less, take for granted. It is comforting to know that those who have accepted the responsibility, and understand because they’ve seen the other side, just what that entails, are at least tolerated. But we must remember that tolerance – be it for gender, race, age, religion, how you balance work and family, and/or other agendas – is one of those precepts that require protection to remain and integral part of our lives.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
![[thumbsup2]](/data/assets/smilies/thumbsup2.gif "[thumbsup2] [thumbsup2]")
- Thread starter
- #69
jsteph
I think so. If gays can get a law passed that allow them to get married, against all religious text that exist on earth, I think we can push through a law that protects the programmers' work and its use of. I don't know how real it is, but it would good to check into this because I think programmers' work is important in making this planet a better place to live in.
It is true that your code belongs to the company your work for, but this can change. There has to be some rights of use for programmers because the code they produced is really their creation, and therefore should have their say.
I think so. If gays can get a law passed that allow them to get married, against all religious text that exist on earth, I think we can push through a law that protects the programmers' work and its use of. I don't know how real it is, but it would good to check into this because I think programmers' work is important in making this planet a better place to live in.
It is true that your code belongs to the company your work for, but this can change. There has to be some rights of use for programmers because the code they produced is really their creation, and therefore should have their say.
- Thread starter
- #70
Cajun,
Thank you for your note. You are very welcome. Yes, your are right about the existing freedom in the US but don't forget that it was created by the people, sane individuals and groups who worked at it for many years by passing things into laws. It is not wars that stopped slavery; it is not wars that brought freedom of speech and freedom of religions in the US. So really it is not the wars that created what you are enjoying today, and it will never be. So it is not wars that will protect that freedom. One has to study history to really seen how things came about.
Have you been in other countries lately. I have, and I have never seen in my life such hate for the US. There has been more violence, bombing and murders in the past 2 years than for the past 10 years combined. I deal with a lot of people around the world, and I can see that our freedom is getting thinner and thinner every single day. We have more enemies than we ever had in our history. That's concerning me, and that is why I think programmers and developpers should have their say as to how their technology get used, because I do agree about defending ourselves, or our country but completely disagree with violence and wars. It is a false solution. The more your get into a war, the farther you get from the real solution to the original problem. It is harder to fix it after than it was before the war.
Thank you for your note. You are very welcome. Yes, your are right about the existing freedom in the US but don't forget that it was created by the people, sane individuals and groups who worked at it for many years by passing things into laws. It is not wars that stopped slavery; it is not wars that brought freedom of speech and freedom of religions in the US. So really it is not the wars that created what you are enjoying today, and it will never be. So it is not wars that will protect that freedom. One has to study history to really seen how things came about.
Have you been in other countries lately. I have, and I have never seen in my life such hate for the US. There has been more violence, bombing and murders in the past 2 years than for the past 10 years combined. I deal with a lot of people around the world, and I can see that our freedom is getting thinner and thinner every single day. We have more enemies than we ever had in our history. That's concerning me, and that is why I think programmers and developpers should have their say as to how their technology get used, because I do agree about defending ourselves, or our country but completely disagree with violence and wars. It is a false solution. The more your get into a war, the farther you get from the real solution to the original problem. It is harder to fix it after than it was before the war.
arlem,
But I don't think that could get passed as a federal or even State-level law. Certainly, some companies might adopt such a policy if they were under pressure from a group of programmers (if such a union ever got created), and even now a contract programmer can write such things into the contract. But if such a law got passed at the federal level, then think of the domino effect it would have on any position.
Everyone would be scrambling to get included into this, because it wouldn't be fair to include just programmers in such a law. Auto designers, for example. In this case they wouldn't so much be looking to prevent their designs from some imagined nefarious use--but they'd want a bigger share of the profits for 'their' designs.
And--back to an earlier post of mine--where would it end? The lowest level of the supply chain--the ore miners, for example--would they fall into this scope?
I can definitely see the natural desire to have this control, but the scope would be expanded and abused--ie, instead of striking, a group of coders could 'claim' that they disagree with a proposed use of their code and halt the company from selling a certain program--until their salary demands are met at which time their 'morals' would relax and they'd approve of the sale of said program. I just see too many things that would make this not feasible.
--jsteph
But I don't think that could get passed as a federal or even State-level law. Certainly, some companies might adopt such a policy if they were under pressure from a group of programmers (if such a union ever got created), and even now a contract programmer can write such things into the contract. But if such a law got passed at the federal level, then think of the domino effect it would have on any position.
Everyone would be scrambling to get included into this, because it wouldn't be fair to include just programmers in such a law. Auto designers, for example. In this case they wouldn't so much be looking to prevent their designs from some imagined nefarious use--but they'd want a bigger share of the profits for 'their' designs.
And--back to an earlier post of mine--where would it end? The lowest level of the supply chain--the ore miners, for example--would they fall into this scope?
I can definitely see the natural desire to have this control, but the scope would be expanded and abused--ie, instead of striking, a group of coders could 'claim' that they disagree with a proposed use of their code and halt the company from selling a certain program--until their salary demands are met at which time their 'morals' would relax and they'd approve of the sale of said program. I just see too many things that would make this not feasible.
--jsteph
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Among, what I believe to be several misconceptions about cause and effect in our history, your idea about having laws passed to protect the programmer's code and how it's used has one major flaw -- defining just what is acceptable use. Am I correct in thinking that you believe the programmer should be an integral part of that definition? It is the current interpretation of law (unless specific otherwise), that the party who paid for the code development has bought the privilege of determining how, what they bought and now own, is to be used. What makes you think your definition, as opposed to anyone else's definition, should be adopted by law so as to determine acceptable use?
If you don't want your code to be used in such applications, then don't work for them. If you feel that code you're asked to write may have applications that you find undesirable, or used that you find for whatever reason to be intolerable, then don't write it. You have that freedom of choice. You may have to find a new job, but that choice is yours, and yours alone to make.
So why do you want to pass a law to take that freedom away? Just because your system of beliefs finds certain applications of technology to unacceptable and/or intolerable, does not mean that every programmer shares that view. There are many programmers who are proud to have their code being used to upgrade weapons systems. That too, is their choice, and neither your choice, nor their choice should be taken away.
Yes, I have been in many countries, and I agree that hatred and violence are quite high. Don't know for sure if the last two years have been more violent in the last 10 years combined, but in any event, there is no shortage of anger in the world today. But I don't agree with you that technology is the cause. Whereas I completely understand that our experiences have been different, and as such, may lead us to different conclusions, my experience has been that the anger is founded in the arrogance and attitude seen in many Americans. Many Americans, in my humble opinion are spoiled, believing that they are better, or that they know better, or can't see beyond their own agenda to recognize that the world, or even their own community, is incredibly diverse and haven't figured out that the diversity, and differences of opinion, are what give humanity and individuals their uniqueness. Rather than recognize and respect that diversity, many only wish to see their own agenda prevail.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
If you don't want your code to be used in such applications, then don't work for them. If you feel that code you're asked to write may have applications that you find undesirable, or used that you find for whatever reason to be intolerable, then don't write it. You have that freedom of choice. You may have to find a new job, but that choice is yours, and yours alone to make.
So why do you want to pass a law to take that freedom away? Just because your system of beliefs finds certain applications of technology to unacceptable and/or intolerable, does not mean that every programmer shares that view. There are many programmers who are proud to have their code being used to upgrade weapons systems. That too, is their choice, and neither your choice, nor their choice should be taken away.
Yes, I have been in many countries, and I agree that hatred and violence are quite high. Don't know for sure if the last two years have been more violent in the last 10 years combined, but in any event, there is no shortage of anger in the world today. But I don't agree with you that technology is the cause. Whereas I completely understand that our experiences have been different, and as such, may lead us to different conclusions, my experience has been that the anger is founded in the arrogance and attitude seen in many Americans. Many Americans, in my humble opinion are spoiled, believing that they are better, or that they know better, or can't see beyond their own agenda to recognize that the world, or even their own community, is incredibly diverse and haven't figured out that the diversity, and differences of opinion, are what give humanity and individuals their uniqueness. Rather than recognize and respect that diversity, many only wish to see their own agenda prevail.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
![[rofl2]](/data/assets/smilies/rofl2.gif "[rofl2] [rofl2]")
Yeah! I guess we've all encountered this ruthlessly System-killing species called "The unexperienced user".![[pc1]](/data/assets/smilies/pc1.gif "[pc1] [pc1]")
[sarcasm]Perhaps we should invent some superprecise code identifying unexperienced users and sending electric shocks through each key they are trying to strike... [/sarcasm]
B-)
-
1
- #75
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
Being a Marine for 6 years and being through what I have I'll, like most sane people would, say that war is not nice. It is sad. But at times it is needed. Most people say they will fight to protect their family. Most military are willing to fight to protect others families. Technology by in large makes that fight safer for those doing the fighting. In the last decade we've seen that Technology has greatly reduced casualties on both sides. If you deny this then tell me how many people do you think would have died in Iraq in the last year if we fought like we did in WWII or Vietnam to achieve the same objectives.
Limiting casualties was/is essential in the occupation of Iraq. If the casualties where higher we would probably seen more resistance. Technology might not always work just as we intend it but overall it reduces risks. Its better to drop a 5 ton guided bomb then to drop a 5 ton unguided bomb on a targets in densely populated areas. The US and other forces have opted to spend a lot of money to use the more expensive weapons to reduce risk. No one beats around the bush here. The military will say that there is risk of killing civilians in combat. The point is we use technology to reduce that risk. If you think G.W. Bush would pick a method that cost more lives over one that used technology to reduce th amount of casualties for the same relative outcome then you are crazy as Sadam. Bush and Blare are in power by the mandate of the people. Part of their descision are made for political reason part is for doing what they believe to be right. They've use technology very well I believe.
I will not debate the subject of "If everyone refused to fight there would be no war" because it is never going to happen. There will always be those that wish to further their own cause/position by the use of force. No debating with these people is pausible if they know there is no real way they can be made to. There is a time to negotiate with someone and there is a time to take action with force. When that action needs to be taken technology should be used to the fullest. I'd rather have a police sniper 200m away shoot a criminal that has killed a hostage with a high powered rifle then a policeman with only a night stick try to go in and get the criminal before he kills agian.
If you don't like what a company does don't work for them. But understand that in most cases someone else will. Like SQLSister says I would not work for a tabacco company because I don't believe in what they do. I don't think its my right to tell someone they can't smoke.
I'm going to go back to the "friendly fire" term. Most "friendly fire" incidents are not due to a failure in technology but a failure in procedures and communications. The only way you can blame technology in many of these cases is the fact that they are deadly accurate even agianst friendly targets.
"I don't care if I get killed by a precise or by a lumpy bomb - gone is gone! I don't want anyone to decide whether I shall live and have a future or not"
No you might not. But you would care that the house beside you was taken out by a precision missle leaving your house relatively unharmed and more importantly you and your family alive instead of a bomb 5 times more powerful being used because it didn't have the guidance system the other did.
When we look historically things like this show up all over the place. Russia produced nuclear weapons up to 100megatons (6500 times the Hiroshima). The largest US bomb was 9 Megatons. Any idea WHY the US bombs where smaller? The reason is the technology the US used to deliver its bombs was better. This means that, even back then, they could use a smaller bomb to hit a hardened target and still get the needed result where Russia had to build a bomb larger because it was less accurate. Sure people at ground zero didn't care if either bomb was off target by 100yards off but the fact that the smaller bomb was used will means the difference between many more people living or dieing.
Do some reading. Find out how much is being spent on personal IFF systems and non-leathal weapons. In any case I'd be as proud to work on a weapon that made combat more effective form my government as I am proud that I served in the USMC for 6 years.
Limiting casualties was/is essential in the occupation of Iraq. If the casualties where higher we would probably seen more resistance. Technology might not always work just as we intend it but overall it reduces risks. Its better to drop a 5 ton guided bomb then to drop a 5 ton unguided bomb on a targets in densely populated areas. The US and other forces have opted to spend a lot of money to use the more expensive weapons to reduce risk. No one beats around the bush here. The military will say that there is risk of killing civilians in combat. The point is we use technology to reduce that risk. If you think G.W. Bush would pick a method that cost more lives over one that used technology to reduce th amount of casualties for the same relative outcome then you are crazy as Sadam. Bush and Blare are in power by the mandate of the people. Part of their descision are made for political reason part is for doing what they believe to be right. They've use technology very well I believe.
I will not debate the subject of "If everyone refused to fight there would be no war" because it is never going to happen. There will always be those that wish to further their own cause/position by the use of force. No debating with these people is pausible if they know there is no real way they can be made to. There is a time to negotiate with someone and there is a time to take action with force. When that action needs to be taken technology should be used to the fullest. I'd rather have a police sniper 200m away shoot a criminal that has killed a hostage with a high powered rifle then a policeman with only a night stick try to go in and get the criminal before he kills agian.
If you don't like what a company does don't work for them. But understand that in most cases someone else will. Like SQLSister says I would not work for a tabacco company because I don't believe in what they do. I don't think its my right to tell someone they can't smoke.
I'm going to go back to the "friendly fire" term. Most "friendly fire" incidents are not due to a failure in technology but a failure in procedures and communications. The only way you can blame technology in many of these cases is the fact that they are deadly accurate even agianst friendly targets.
"I don't care if I get killed by a precise or by a lumpy bomb - gone is gone! I don't want anyone to decide whether I shall live and have a future or not"
No you might not. But you would care that the house beside you was taken out by a precision missle leaving your house relatively unharmed and more importantly you and your family alive instead of a bomb 5 times more powerful being used because it didn't have the guidance system the other did.
When we look historically things like this show up all over the place. Russia produced nuclear weapons up to 100megatons (6500 times the Hiroshima). The largest US bomb was 9 Megatons. Any idea WHY the US bombs where smaller? The reason is the technology the US used to deliver its bombs was better. This means that, even back then, they could use a smaller bomb to hit a hardened target and still get the needed result where Russia had to build a bomb larger because it was less accurate. Sure people at ground zero didn't care if either bomb was off target by 100yards off but the fact that the smaller bomb was used will means the difference between many more people living or dieing.
Do some reading. Find out how much is being spent on personal IFF systems and non-leathal weapons. In any case I'd be as proud to work on a weapon that made combat more effective form my government as I am proud that I served in the USMC for 6 years.
Semper,
<<I will not debate the subject of "If everyone refused to fight there would be no war" because it is never going to happen.
Very true. And those who make that statement probably have the patently ridiculous (and self-contradictory) bumper sticker from the '60s that says: "What if they gave a war and nobody came". The obvious answer to that is that if "they" "gave" a war and nobody "came" (fought back), then "they" would just rape more women and imprison and torture more men with impunity, and then move on to the next country to plunder. I wonder how that sits with the candlelight vigil crowd.
But to swerve 'on topic', I can say that the technology used today is far more desirable than the indiscriminate carpet bombing used so heavily in Viet Nam in and WWII--which was used in or near civilian areas (the carpet bombing employed in the gulf war was used only in the desert where the enemy was known to be, far from civilians).
Though it's interesting to note that Sunday's big news of Sadaam's capture was due in large part to the good ol' low tech use of snitches--which also has improved due to the use of higher-tech lie-detectors and other more humane interrogation methods.
--jsteph
<<I will not debate the subject of "If everyone refused to fight there would be no war" because it is never going to happen.
Very true. And those who make that statement probably have the patently ridiculous (and self-contradictory) bumper sticker from the '60s that says: "What if they gave a war and nobody came". The obvious answer to that is that if "they" "gave" a war and nobody "came" (fought back), then "they" would just rape more women and imprison and torture more men with impunity, and then move on to the next country to plunder. I wonder how that sits with the candlelight vigil crowd.
But to swerve 'on topic', I can say that the technology used today is far more desirable than the indiscriminate carpet bombing used so heavily in Viet Nam in and WWII--which was used in or near civilian areas (the carpet bombing employed in the gulf war was used only in the desert where the enemy was known to be, far from civilians).
Though it's interesting to note that Sunday's big news of Sadaam's capture was due in large part to the good ol' low tech use of snitches--which also has improved due to the use of higher-tech lie-detectors and other more humane interrogation methods.
--jsteph
Georgi1chuikov
IS-IT--Management
Computer technology saves lives in war. The Interceptor Vest that stopped the AK47 round from killing my cousin who is stationed in Bahgdad was computer designed and manufactured. He was hit in the center of his chest and his heart briefly stopped, he was returned to duty the same day. This life saver was chemically and physically designed by a computer. Every time you see one of our "Best and Bravest" (yes, this is a sincere statement) that was "wounded and returned to duty the same day" had their lives saved by this wonderfull vest. summary: Computers NEVER kill people. Computers NEVER save people. What saves/kills is the concious human decision to use this TOOL for its end purpose. Also, all of you "we stopped all the killing in Vietnam by leaving" MORONS have no clue of history. Its called a book, read one once in a while.
Semper
Regarding...
If you deny this then tell me how many people do you think would have died in Iraq in the last year if we fought like we did in WWII or Vietnam to achieve the same objectives.
I think the pertinent response to this given my views on the topic is... if the current administration knew it would have had to fight like we did in WWII or Vietnam (two drastically differente examples btw), would they still have gone to war. Especially considering the lack of urgency with which the war started.
-Rob
Regarding...
If you deny this then tell me how many people do you think would have died in Iraq in the last year if we fought like we did in WWII or Vietnam to achieve the same objectives.
I think the pertinent response to this given my views on the topic is... if the current administration knew it would have had to fight like we did in WWII or Vietnam (two drastically differente examples btw), would they still have gone to war. Especially considering the lack of urgency with which the war started.
-Rob
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
I will not debate if the war in Iraq was overall a good thing. I have my personal beliefs and 99.9% sure I will not change other peoples and it does not have to do with technology. Would the US have gone in if we had to use 30 year old technology. It is a tough call and no one really knows. But know this the amount of lives on both sides would have been raised but I bet you would still have seen us go in. The big difference is that a lot more Iraq civilians would have died. Basically you would have seen a slightly different less effective more deadly, in terms of number of lives lost particularly non-combatants, bombing campain. Remember the military objectives are "Accomplish the mission" first and "Welfare of the troops" second. As much as you or anyone else might feel that 456 American 76 coalition deaths is to high of a price to pay for this war and if there was more then it would not be worth it. Vietnam had about 75 times that amount with another almost 100,000 injured. Even if the war was 10 times more deadly I think we would have gone in. Technology probably saved four thousand American lives and coalition. (yes I'm pulling numbers out of the air but that is what we are doing.....hypothesizing)
War isn't entered into lightly. Yes it makes it a little more palettable but when the decision is made. I believe it should be made for the right reason but that isn't always the case. To often we, the people of the world, turn our backs on the right thing because it does not directly effect us. The number of places in the world (look around Africa for a few examples) where geneside is a common practice but the rest of the world cares nothing about it, or at best a 30 second new spot on TV, is shameful. So for these cases if technology makes it easier to make the decision to go in and do something about it, even if the end reason really isn't all about stopping the geneside but partly for ecconomic reasons, I really don't care. The motivation for an act is less important to me then the end result of that act in these cases. So in that I say YAY to technology that makes it more likely that we'll look like we give a damn about certian issues.
War isn't entered into lightly. Yes it makes it a little more palettable but when the decision is made. I believe it should be made for the right reason but that isn't always the case. To often we, the people of the world, turn our backs on the right thing because it does not directly effect us. The number of places in the world (look around Africa for a few examples) where geneside is a common practice but the rest of the world cares nothing about it, or at best a 30 second new spot on TV, is shameful. So for these cases if technology makes it easier to make the decision to go in and do something about it, even if the end reason really isn't all about stopping the geneside but partly for ecconomic reasons, I really don't care. The motivation for an act is less important to me then the end result of that act in these cases. So in that I say YAY to technology that makes it more likely that we'll look like we give a damn about certian issues.
- Thread starter
- #80
There are really good thoughts and viewpoints here. I like the idea of reducing the number of deaths and be more precise with technology, as long as it is used for an in ethics purpose. I am not, and will never be against the fact that one has to protect himself, his familly, his nation, and even then entire population on earth -- this is common sense. Do you mean that if the technology got better Saddam could have been captured the first day without one bomb coming down? Or maybe if we were that good, we wouldn't even need a war that cost billions to the US? Like a commando going in the country and gettting him out of there? Nobody got him DURING the war after all these bombing. It is the old word of mounth and common sense within the Iraqi people that got him located and captured.
The point of my original question is not to make anyone wrong; but some start reacting to it and being insulting. That's called bad conduct and a lack of self-control. A failure of communication is often what starts a fight, even a war. I am interested in hearing your opinions, and I do see some validity in some of the statements being uttered, even if I personally think that wars are more destructive than constructive. So thank you for you thoughts.
The point of my original question is not to make anyone wrong; but some start reacting to it and being insulting. That's called bad conduct and a lack of self-control. A failure of communication is often what starts a fight, even a war. I am interested in hearing your opinions, and I do see some validity in some of the statements being uttered, even if I personally think that wars are more destructive than constructive. So thank you for you thoughts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question