The morality of being a soldier

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-07 06:25pm

Because we all know the great serial murderers of the past gave themselves up or committed suicide because of a sudden crisis of conscience.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-07 06:28pm

Sokartawi wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:
Sokartawi wrote: Why would one have a DUTY to defend themselves in the first place? And to whom?
To people who care about them, you fucking moron, and who would be hurt if harm were to come to them.
You're not responsible for the hurt of the people that care about you since they made that choice to care about you themselves. You could've seen that one comming

Doesn't work that way, dipshit. You have just made a conscious choice to hurt them, knowing that they care about you. While their initial choice is their responsibility, if you do something to consciously hurt them then that is YOUR responsibility.

Pascifists fight back when they die since their death damages the society which the rapist/murderers parasite upon.

So in other words, pacifists are making a conscious decision to harm society by dying, in order to get back at one murder who they could've just fought back against in the first place, so as to spare society from their actions? I guess it must be a good thing to harm society when the alternative is to hurt a single person. Your argument only grows more absurd as you cling to it.

Besides, it's all society's fault for counting on the dead person to do anything.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-07 06:30pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Because we all know the great serial murderers of the past gave themselves up or committed suicide because of a sudden crisis of conscience.

Pacifism worked great at preventing such things as the Holocaust, slavery in the American South, and the Rape of Nanking! You're just dismissing it because you made the conscious choice to let society brainwash you into believing that pacifism sucks!

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 06:33pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote: To people who care about them, you fucking moron, and who would be hurt if harm were to come to them.
You're not responsible for the hurt of the people that care about you since they made that choice to care about you themselves. You could've seen that one comming
Doesn't work that way, dipshit. You have just made a conscious choice to hurt them, knowing that they care about you. While their initial choice is their responsibility, if you do something to consciously hurt them then that is YOUR responsibility.

I do not make a concious choice to hurt them, the killer does, and the relatives made the concious choise to feel hurt.

Master of Ossus wrote:
Pascifists fight back when they die since their death damages the society which the rapist/murderers parasite upon.
So in other words, pacifists are making a conscious decision to harm society by dying, in order to get back at one murder who they could've just fought back against in the first place, so as to spare society from their actions? I guess it must be a good thing to harm society when the alternative is to hurt a single person. Your argument only grows more absurd as you cling to it.

Besides, it's all society's fault for counting on the dead person to do anything.

Again, the pascifist isn't responsible, the killer is.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2004-11-07 06:35pm

I don't mind people like Sokartawi. Peopler like her make decisions that much easier. Imagine the lifeboat scenario, where one person has to go. We can toss Sokartawi overboard because she wouldn't put up a struggle, or fight to get back on the boat. And we know she wouldn't bother assisting us in our survival, so its no big loss. At all.

Now that scenario where person A is going to kill 5 people; if I were person B, I'd shoot to kill, several times. Head shot if I could manage it. Now if person B sat idly byand let person A kill 5 people, me, as person C would beat person B to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat.

But that's just me...

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-07 06:36pm

Goddamn it Sokwarti. You can't compare Western soldiers to the scum that the Middle East and third world shitholes employ. Western armies have to adhere to the Geneva Convention as well as their own regulations. Although there are always those that break with these beliefs, on a whole Western soldiers are a decent group of people. I've met and served with soldiers of all different nations and never once did I get the impression that they are immoral.

I tried before to make you understand what motivates us to do what we do. Evidently it didn't sink it or you just want to believe that we're all murderers and scum.

Your entitled to your opinion and so am I, allow me to express it.

FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING COWARD

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-11-07 06:37pm

Sokartawi wrote:You're not responsible for the hurt of the people that care about you since they made that choice to care about you themselves. You could've seen that one comming

At every turn you shuck your own responsibility on others. Nice.

If you have loved ones, you are just as responsible for those bonds as they are. You have to DO something to foster such bonds, and thus you DO have responsibility in the relationship.

You do bear responsibility for the hurt you cause others by your actions and/or lack of actions.

Pascifists fight back when they die since their death damages the society which the rapist/murderers parasite upon.

*snort* They whaaaa? In that case, fight back and fight back hard.

Because the Americans are the agressor in this conflict and if I have to pick sides in a conflict I usually pick the side of the defender. I don't think what the insurgents are doing is enlightened behavour, and I wouldn't do such a thing myself. However I perfectly understand why they are doing such a thing. And I still say coalition soldiers in Iraq deserve to die because they are interfering with another nation and are killing people there,

But, as usual, you don't subscribe the same to the other Arabs from various countries who flocked there to fight the Americans. Those same are not defending their country and they are interfering with other nations and killing people.

But as usual, you give them a pass.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-11-07 06:38pm

Lord Poe wrote:I don't mind people like Sokartawi. Peopler like her make decisions that much easier. Imagine the lifeboat scenario, where one person has to go. We can toss Sokartawi overboard because she wouldn't put up a struggle, or fight to get back on the boat. And we know she wouldn't bother assisting us in our survival, so its no big loss. At all..

Remember, she did think it might be okay to beat somebody up, so we might have to whack her with a paddle a time or two.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-11-07 06:40pm

Sokartawi wrote:I do not make a concious choice to hurt them, the killer does, and the relatives made the concious choise to feel hurt.

Bullshit. By making a conscious choice NOT to resist in any way despite the ability to do so, you are in fact giving tacit approval to the killer for their actions, and are in fact consciously making a decision to harm the people who care about you by refusing to take the opportunity to survive the situation.

Again, the pascifist isn't responsible, the killer is.

You claimed that by dying, the pacifist is fighting back against society. Here's the thing, though: THE PACIFIST MADE THE DECISION TO DIE. They did so not only by dying, but by choosing not to live when they had the ability to do so. That IS their responsibility, and while the killer may be responsible for taking their lives, the pacifist is clearly responsible for making the decision to die in the first place and must own up for their actions.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-11-07 06:44pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:I do not make a concious choice to hurt them, the killer does, and the relatives made the concious choise to feel hurt.
Bullshit. By making a conscious choice NOT to resist in any way despite the ability to do so, you are in fact giving tacit approval to the killer for their actions, and are in fact consciously making a decision to harm the people who care about you by refusing to take the opportunity to survive the situation.

Again, the pascifist isn't responsible, the killer is.
You claimed that by dying, the pacifist is fighting back against society. Here's the thing, though: THE PACIFIST MADE THE DECISION TO DIE. They did so not only by dying, but by choosing not to live when they had the ability to do so. That IS their responsibility, and while the killer may be responsible for taking their lives, the pacifist is clearly responsible for making the decision to die in the first place and must own up for their actions.

She will twist and dodge every attempt to assign her responsibility. Her stance is counterdictory in various instances and she never owns up to it.

The very fact that in every scenario she shucks her responsibility on someone else shows the she herself is immoral and a coward.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2004-11-07 06:45pm

I don't mind people like Sokartawi. Peopler like her make decisions that much easier. Imagine the lifeboat scenario, where one person has to go. We can toss Sokartawi overboard because she wouldn't put up a struggle, or fight to get back on the boat. And we know she wouldn't bother assisting us in our survival, so its no big loss. At all.

Now that scenario where person A is going to kill 5 people; if I were person B, I'd shoot to kill, several times. Head shot if I could manage it. Now if person B sat idly byand let person A kill 5 people, me, as person C would beat person B to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat.

But that's just me...

I agree. Usually I am a Rule Utilitarian, and I wouldn't condone violence, but self-defense is a pretty good rule to follow, since it allows for preservation. Wonton violence and war is bad in generally, but due to the nature of humanity, you need to be aggressive to prevent a greater damage. This would be an emergency in which the rule can be bent.

As well, I don't generally think that average, non-law enforcement can go about killin gpeople to prevent the deaths of others, but if there is some emergency and you know for certain that that person is going to go off and kill more people if you don't stop them, fine. That seems like it would have a favourable outcome. Same goes with police. If police didn't do their jobs, society wouldnot fare very well, and that would not have overall good consequences, so a rule allowing complete pacificm is silly. You need violence to prevent violence, and the greastest end good is all that matters, as long as the long term societal effects do not become a dangerous precendent, which I sincerely doubt police taking action would have.

The same thing applies to the military. There is just not logic in allowing yourself to get stomped on or allowing the same thign to hapen to others around you. YOu have a responsibility to greater Utility i fyou can reasonably prevent it.

Everyone sitting around a camp-fire singing songs is all well in good in a sterile, metaphysical plane, but not in reality. I cannot see a moral system as being ok if it willingly allows people to get slaughtered because it's not your responsibility.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 06:47pm

Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-07 06:50pm

Sokartawi wrote:Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

It's rather convienant that you were born female and such get to avoid their draft. That way you never actually have to put your convictioons to the test. You describe soldiers as murders because you don't understand us and you lack the spine to actually do it yourself.

Once again you are a COWARD. The gene pool will thank you if you decide not to breed.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-11-07 06:52pm

Sokartawi wrote:Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

And once again, you wash yourself of any responsibility for the matter. You made those relasionships too. You had the ability to fight back and kill the murderer.

The murder is responsible for his/her actions as YOU are with YOURS.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 06:53pm

Lord Poe wrote:I don't mind people like Sokartawi. Peopler like her make decisions that much easier. Imagine the lifeboat scenario, where one person has to go. We can toss Sokartawi overboard because she wouldn't put up a struggle, or fight to get back on the boat. And we know she wouldn't bother assisting us in our survival, so its no big loss. At all.

Maybe asking nicely would work just as good as tossing...

Lord Poe wrote:Now that scenario where person A is going to kill 5 people; if I were person B, I'd shoot to kill, several times. Head shot if I could manage it. Now if person B sat idly byand let person A kill 5 people, me, as person C would beat person B to a bloody pulp with a baseball bat.

But that's just me...

I would try to stop person A, just not kill him.

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2004-11-07 06:54pm

C&C rant mode/ The civilians Sok seems to be referring to are no civilians at all, but those the game (I think Sok is talking about TS, not RA2) dubs Technicians, who seem to be just really crappy infantry. The true civilians are the three or four random guys who stand around the cities picking their noses and waiting for Nod to kill them. /C&C rant mode

On topic now, if you CHOSE to allow yourself to be killed, then you are partly responsible for your death. And you yourself must be responsible for people caring about you. Nobody cares about people for no reason, unless you count family, I suppose. Please don't tell me you'd be all right with the distress you'd cause your parents if you were to die and still wouldn't defend yourself, even if it meant killing a murderer. If you don't have anyone who gives a flying fuck about you, I guess it would be different, but how many people live such a sad, isolated life?

And just to clarify, do your perceptions on who's the good guys and the bad guys shift with who's defender and aggressor? Did the Allies in WWII become the bad guys when they invaded Germany?

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-11-07 06:54pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:It's rather convienant that you were born female and such get to avoid their draft. That way you never actually have to put your convictioons to the test. You describe soldiers as murders because you don't understand us and you lack the spine to actually do it yourself.

Once again you are a COWARD. The gene pool will thank you if you decide not to breed.

After the latest defence proposition, also called the surrender proposition, it is harder to get drafted than avoid it in Sweden.

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 06:55pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:Goddamn it Sokwarti. You can't compare Western soldiers to the scum that the Middle East and third world shitholes employ. Western armies have to adhere to the Geneva Convention as well as their own regulations. Although there are always those that break with these beliefs, on a whole Western soldiers are a decent group of people. I've met and served with soldiers of all different nations and never once did I get the impression that they are immoral.

Geneva convention or not, soldiers still kill, which is enough.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-07 06:56pm

Trogdor wrote: And just to clarify, do your perceptions on who's the good guys and the bad guys shift with who's defender and aggressor? Did the Allies in WWII become the bad guys when they invaded Germany?

He's got you know Sokwarti. Remember your family in the Netherlands that were slowing starving due to the Germans? If the Allies hadn't invaded The Netherlands than your family would be non-existant. Try and use your murderer defense here.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-11-07 06:56pm

This thread needs one of those head-into-brick-wall emoticons, only supersized.

There's no discussion to be had here.

I love how people can choose whether or not the death of a loved one will hurt them or not.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-11-07 06:57pm

In closing, let us review.

Sokartawi's morality favors the..

Cowards, because instead of confronting and attempting to end evil, it encourages running away or ignoring it.

The Selfish, because it refuses to consider the plight of others for a second.

The Irresponsible, because it encourages ignoring the potential effects of following it.

The Hypocrits, because it doesn't apply evenly to Western soldiers and Middle Eastern terrorists.

If you're the above four things, you'll agree with it. The rest of us will see through it.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-11-07 06:57pm

Sokartawi wrote: Geneva convention or not, soldiers still kill, which is enough.

So do terrorists, what's your point? If I had to choose one to vouch for, I think it's safe to say I'd go with the soldier defending people rather than causing cowardly attacks on civilians.

Trogdor · Post by **Trogdor** » 2004-11-07 06:57pm

Sokartawi wrote:Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.

This is just stupid. "Choose not to be hurt"? You can't just choose not to be hurt when someone you care about dies!

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-11-07 06:59pm

Knife wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:Nonsense. You can find the one responsible for the situation by going through all parties, and see what happens if they do not do anything.

Murderer kills person, relatives are hurt.

Murderer does nothing, relatives are not hurt.

Murderer kills person, relatives choose not to be hurt.

Murderer kills person that does nothing, relatives are hurt.

Thus the murderer is the most guilty party, and the relatives are the second guilty party, and the victim is innocent.
And once again, you wash yourself of any responsibility for the matter. You made those relasionships too. You had the ability to fight back and kill the murderer.

The murder is responsible for his/her actions as YOU are with YOURS.

Inaction weights less then action, and the murderer is clearly the cause here, and killing him makes me do an EVIL action while doing nothing or at least not killing him is not evil. Plus, the murderer probably has relatives too, so why lower myself to his level?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-07 06:59pm

Sokartawi wrote: Geneva convention or not, soldiers still kill, which is enough.

No it's not. For all your bluster and crying you still don't understand why we do it. We put our lives on the line to serve our countries. And when we have to kill, we don't like it. We do it because our friends are counting on us to pull our weight and watch our arcs of fire. Stop confusing professional Western Soldiers with the fundie asshats that the Middle East employs, those people enjoy killing and are the real murderers.

I suggest you go educate yourself on soldiers and their motivations before spouting this dogma.