To think not everybody would date an arms dealer?

[WineInTheSun]

At a dinner party, without giving too much away conversation turned to the subject of a mutual friend/former colleague.
The host casually dropped in how the individual no longer works after ‘doing alright when she met that arms dealer’.
Most of the table agreed said person had indeed ‘done well’ to date such a high earning worth individual and the new lifestyle she had.
Not trying to get on my high horse but I felt slightly disgusted!
So Aibu?

They're vile, but probably pretty thrilling to date, so kind of a mixed bag.

I'm thinking of Bradley Cooper in War Dogs.

AYBU about the fact he's an arms dealer or the fact she doesn't work ?

I struggle to understand what you are disgusted about really.

Aibu to the arms dealer part

Well, we need arms. Can’t see the problem myself

Do we need to sell arms to child soldiers? The ONLY people who profit from Child Soldiers are the Arms Dealers themselves?

Do we need to do corrupt arms deals which endanger the citizens of other countries and undermine efforts towards peaceful resolutions?

No.

I am in favour of disarmament generally but even I can see a difference between living in a war torn country and working in the munitions factory for instance and being part of and living on the profits of a company like BAE which routinely does the first two things I mentioned.

Arms companies need conflict to thrive. They need people to be murdered en Masse. They like war. That's how they make a profit.

I would never associate myself with any of that.

So where do you draw the line?

What about dating people in finance - specifically commodities? They’ve played a huge role in past food shortages, which killed scads more people than individual arms dealers could ever dream of.
frederickkaufman.typepad.com/files/the-food-bubble-pdf.pdf

What about men and women who work in the medical industry? Doctors and nurses are okay, but what about those who work for pharmaceutical companies? We’ve all heard about the horrors they’ve unleashed - the latest is cutting off the supply of a very vital chemotherapy drug for children (vincristine) because it didn’t make them enough money (only worth £8 a vial). (They’re backtracking on this now that the public’s heard). In fact, 163 drugs experienced shortages between 2012 and 2017, because making them wasn’t making companies rich enough. www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/health/cancer-drug-shortage.html

If you care about people dying, better not be dating any blokes in politics. Austerity has caused 130,000 (or more) preventable deaths since 2012 ( www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/perfect-storm-austerity-behind-130000-deaths-uk-ippr-report ).

The list goes on and on. In the scheme of things, I’m not sure small-time arms dealers are actually in my top-five “judge people for dating them” in comparison to the really evil bastards with high body counts. They might still be? I’d have to give it some thought. Because do you think they’re responsible for killing more or fewer babies than Nestlé? www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards

So... would you date someone who works in marketing at Nestlé or an arms dealer? Tough call.

Wouldn't bother me in the slightest beyond the implication of 'kept woman' status although if my significant other was sufficiently wealthy that I didn't need to work then I almost certainly wouldn't (presuming security of marriage etc etc)

Agree with RightYesButNo

Agree with RightYesButNo

So do I!

@raspberryk Cars or weapons?

Well of course both, but the police and other armed forces. Sadly we do need them.

^weapons

@RightYesButNo is just doing high-end whataboutery.

I also agree with RightYesButNo and wouldn't date anyone who worked for Nestlé or a politician either!
Finance starts to get onto my personal grey area. I wouldnt personally be put off by someone working in a high street bank. The lines are drawn differently for everyone.

@Sophonax It’s not meant to be. I really do think that every woman has the right to draw the line somewhere different for herself, but I do think you should THINK about where you draw the line, not simply be reactionary against one possible thing without considering the full ramifications of the society we live in. And the truth is we live in a society where you can end up dating a man (or woman) who works for a corporation that kills a hell of a lot of people in morally atrocious ways and have that be perfectly legal, and you have decide for yourself if that’s worse than arms dealing. If you want to be against all the things I listed, and not date someone involved in any of them, or other activities that lead to high amounts of deaths, that’s a completely valid choice. But for me, if I absolutely had to date one of two “high flyers,” I’d probably date an arms dealer over a high-level exec at Nestlé who knowingly marketed formula to poor African communities. And someone else on this thread might feel the opposite, which is totally her right. I agree with @BaronessBomburst.

I probably would.

But I'm very morally ambiguous which means to say my morals are extremely erm...flexible...according to what suits me best.

I don’t think it’s whataboutery. It comes down to what each individual deems as a no for them.

Would you date a bailiff?
Would you date someone who worked for the DWP?
Would you date a Conservative politician?

These jobs would and wouldn’t matter to different people.

I met a guy who sold big missiles for a living, he made more money on servicing them rather than the outright sale.

I don’t actually disagree in one sense, @RightYesButNo. I wouldn’t contemplate going out with/marrying all kinds of people on ethical grounds, including everything you and @BritishHorrorStory mention (with the exception of a politician — I know some excellent politicians in the UK and elsewhere who work incredibly hard for their constituents and to implement policies which aim to improve lives.)

I think a key difference for me is that Nestlé and pharmaceutical companies do not produce items specifically aimed at causing death.