- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
In months where you don’t utilize any searches on your plan, we will automatically apply a full credit to your account for that month. This credit will be applied to your next billing cycle, effectively covering your subsequent month’s subscription at no additional cost.
US gives (incl. donating) weapons to Israel with the precise purpose of those being used in the current massacres. Also let’s not forget this is an absolutely momentary perspective. US was invading, torturing and bombing civilians until few years ago.
Now, I won’t claim it is equivalent, because it’s not and frankly doesn’t matter: if your morals say that one is OK and the other is not then I will simply disagree with those morals.
To me a moral argument is based on principles: if I don’t want my money to be spent on killing people, it doesn’t matter much if the killing happens slightly indirectly. Solid principles don’t hide behind thin layers of deniability.
So, I would expect someone with ironclad morals that want to avoid a small and indirect amount of money that to end up to Russia to also recognize that if the money go to the US government they have a pretty nice chance to also to result in people being killed (or right now to fund deportations etc.). However, I am interested in your perspective. You have stressed a lot on the two things not being equal, maybe you can explain how this difference changes everything for you, and makes one okay while the other unacceptable.
But the money going to the US also prevents Ukrainians being killed. Not to mention that wiping out Hamas and Hezbollah actually makes Israeli civilians safer.
In both cases, the US gives weapons to the country attacked by another party. In a more global context, Israel is fighting against Iranian proxies in the Middle East. Iran has been giving drones to Russia that kill Ukrainians.
So the US being involved indirectly in conflicts against the “Central Powers” of Russia, Iran and North Korea is actually a positive contribution.
Ufff that’s a brave moral stance to have. You do you, I completely disagree with it though.
Thanks for elaborating anyway.
I hope you can at least see how a person from another country might have a similar perspective as you, but reversed, therefore demanding kagi (or other companies) not to give money to US. Not everyone will have this US-centric perspective.
I have a Ukraine-centric perspective, not US-centric
Fair enough, hopefully you can see how someone from - say - Lebanon would see it differently.