Sokartawi posted this in a N&P thread:

As per the board's apparent "soldiers are a sacred cow" policy, it was immediately HoSed by some mod who chose not to identify himself, whereupon the vultures immediately leapt upon it, instead of being split here as it should have been (it is a general comment on the morality of being a soldier, which is only tangentially relevant to the original thread which was about a very specific set of circumstances and one particular soldier).

However, it should be noted that despite some peoples' wishes to the contrary (or the fact that I personally disagree with her position), the fact that an opinion is anti-soldier does not warrant automatic classification as trolling. It is tactics that determine that, not the opinion itself unless it qualifies as outright hate speech (eg- someone who posts "kill all the Jews" is engaged in outright hatemongering).

Having said that, some people can no doubt generate some reasoned arguments against this position. For example, the outcome-based utilitarian argument would be a good place to start. Nevertheless, we do not automatically classify something as trolling based on political alignment rather than tactics. If you want to argue against her position, do it here instead of being a vulture.

I repeat the statement I made in the original thread AND the HoS'd thread.

Mindless pacifism is, flatly put, moral cowardice. I can name a dozen situations.. Historical examples or RAR! HIPOTHETICAL SENARIO!'s.. Where a short, sharp act of violence is the sole means to stop far greater evil's from being perpetrated. To shy away from this, to run and hide behind 'Well, uh, violence is bad...' is to allow these evils to run free, under the guise of 'Humanity could get better, really.'

Humanity won't get better. We are the result of Natural Selection, a method which selects the most inventively brutal species to become dominant, those that can wield their violence against their foes and temper it with enough wisdom not to annihilate themselves. If Humanity reaches the point where it can't temper it's violence, it'll blow itself off the map. If Humanity reaches the point where it tosses away violence, some other species will ascend and slaughter us. That's the way of the world. Those of you who've studied the things bandied about in this forum will understand this. Those of you who are mindless parrots will not.

Screeching and whining about how things SHOULD be when it's impossible to get there is a classic example of Ivory Tower syndrome. And nothing useful ever came from those.

---

Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

In my view, a soldier shouldn't not act as a mindless automaton and blindly follow orders especially when they contravene certain ground rules, the whole Abu Ghraib debacle springs to mind along with the Nuremberg trials.

That said, I believe the soldier and other servicemen have a moral duty set to protecting their own and, maybe to a lesser extent, those they come into contact with in hostilities. A soldier cannot go around killing innocents, that's when you cross into murder territory. But a soldier is a necessity in this world whether you agree with the use of violence or not. Of course, the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" may factor into it, but in essence, the military is there to safeguard lives as part of a defence rather than act as a conquest machine as in the past and enslave other people.

They do deserve respect in my eyes for giving back to their country, even if some do join merely for the cash (remember that kid who got called to go to Iraq and fled to Canada to avoid it because he thought the military was there just to pay his college fees?).

I don't know, maybe it's simply coming from a militarily involved family.

I'm sure you would get full agreement from every member of the Mess that this particular kid did not deserve any respect.

Sokartawi was pining for the end of war, not violence. And if we did evolve to the point where we settled our differences without going to war, how exactly does it follow that a species will rise UNCHALLENGED by us? Just because we being the evolved species don't need to go to war, doesn't mean we'd sit back and let a violent species rise and beat us down. And what species do you actually think would rise to challenge us? Dolphins?

There's a line between objecting to the war(How the fuck do you spell Conscientious Objector?) and running away like a fucktard.

Of course, I can think of some other soldiers I don't and probably can't respect. I've run into at least one who was outright pleased he would get to assault Fallujah and kill 'the damn towelheads'. Hopefully rare, but these folks exist, and they are vile.

---

Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

That should be: doesn't mean we'd sit back and let a warring species rise and beat us down

War is just violence on a larger scale, fucktard. What, are you moronic enough to think there'll ever be a point where people won't use violence to enact political change? How will you enact this, mass brainwashing? I'd take up arms against that, and I'm mildly pacifistic.

As for another species, it could be something that develops alongside us. It could just be another branch of humanity. Or it could be a species that's willing to take the long view and roam around star systems for mileenia just to spread out so far they can't get killed in one disaster. Yes, I beleive aliens exist. The confirmation of complex sugars in a fucking nebula kind of sealed it for me.

---

Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

What would you do? Humanity has evolved beyond war in your idiotic, impossible scenario.

---

Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

Yeah, I meant to write that as that guy in particular was not a true soldier since he saw joining up as just another way to obtain capital to further his education. Not every soldier is a saint. I am willing to bet that the majority join for reasons more suitable to the mythos of soldiers in the days gone by.

As I have said before, the attitude can be similar for other jobs like policemen and firemen. There are those jerks every now and then. On the whole though, they're in it not for the money, but for the true meaning of the job; to save lives and work towards improving humanity.

Beware moral arguments based on the assumption that Natural Selection is necessarily ethical. That way lies eugenics.

That only applies if you assume that a prohibition on violence against other humans also extends to other animal species (in which case I would assume that the person would have to be a vegan).

I can think of virtue-based and outcome-based reasons to respect soldiers, but there must be some examples more plausible than an inter-species war on our planet to use as justification.

I think the question that should be asked is not whether the soldier should be held accountable for participating in an unjust war, but whether the soldier should participate in unjust acts.

With Iraq, there was a regieme topled which has been accused of horrendous acts. Fighting against this regime is not particularly wrong. However if that soldier then turns to stripping and humiliating pows, or goes and rapes a few woman, at that point the soldier is fully accountable and the bastard needs to be put on trial. Going and fighting in a place is not a crime. Going and raping is.

---

Beware Windows. Linux Comes.
http://ammtb.keenspace.com

Quite. I just want to speak out against the idea of becoming a soldier instantly makes you respectable. Not in my eyes; you have to show you have the discipline and skill you gain from being a soldier, without losing your humanity.

---

Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

I respect soldier as long honest people who want to do their duty and fall into these categories

1. Mindlless automaton. an organic battledroid so speak that takes any order without question or dout
2. looser do it just for money(or some other reason) and run when they have to do their duty.
3. People who join the military because it's excuse to kill a lot of people (AKA an excuse for massmurder).

You have remember that Human are predators by nature.

No modern democracy requires violent political change. I see no reason why we can't eventually work towards a world democracy. At that point war might well cease.

---

Hi! I'm Prozac the Robert!

EBC: "We can categorically state that we will be releasing giant man-eating badgers into the area."

To clarify my position: I do not beleive it is moral to have soldiers, wars, violence, and all this. I think I stated in my post that these are evils. I just think that from all we've seen that there are times you must commit some evils to prevent the bigger ones.



Okay, how about: It's immoral to brainwash all of humanity, as that's the only way you're going to remove the desire to use violence to enact change?

I can't take the idea of us 'evolving' violence away terribly seriously; how would that work? Honestly. Some form of eugenics where only those people with happy, nice thoughts breed? Is such even possible? Even then, you have to get rid of every single one of the ones that aren't like you. Or they'll just flatten you because you put your weapons away and won't defend yourself. I find the idea of forcibly changing everyone in the world pretty repugnant, but maybe that's me.

---

Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

Er, maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about just war between governments. Modern democracies have violence and wars of their own. Or am I alone in thinking that the violence of anti-abortionists and greenpeace nutjobs are wars against their targets? They certainly use violence, strategies(Not necessarily good ones), and fear.

---

Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

I have always held the belief that respect is earned, no matter who you are. I will always have a ground rate of respect, I'm not going to just tread on everyone until they prove themselves, but to get that true respect, the stuff heroes no matter who they are get from society, well, that is earnt be it earning a VC in combat, going back into burning building or helping a disabled person feel life is worth living again.

Seeing Apocalypse Now again last night actually explains where a lot of this vitriol against soldiers comes from today. Some just see them as mindless kids eager to go and shoot at people and become John Rambo or something and get paid to boot.

Well, even a world democracy would require the threat of violence (on the part of the world police) to maintain order, just as any society does today. However, there are certain rules in war which do not apply to policing. For example (and most glaringly so), in war it is typically considered acceptable to kill civilians on the other side (whether by accident or design) if it will accomplish some legitimate military objective. It goes without saying that even the accidental killing of civilians is considered unacceptable in police work.

War is violent, but violence encompasses more, and everyone with a brain sees that. Why can't people be violent, while countries don't go to war? Seeing how we HAVEN'T evolved to not needing war, I'd LOVE to see you try making the leap.



It was your supposition that we evolve to not needing violence you stupid prick.



That isn't YOUR EVOLVED SPECIES, is it, you stupid fuck.

With each other you dipshit. And that was your scenario, not mine.

Violence will always be inherent within the system by way of the nature of mankind. It is impossible to keep everyone happy, even in a perfect Greco-Roman democracy. With some people, the mere fact that another type of people even exists is cause for violence. Look at racism and other completely unjustifiable persecutional campaigns and see why.

It'd be nice (and it really would) if we could all have our own space and enjoy life as we want. But economics, differing views on morality and ethics and a whole host of other factors leads to a world where the use of force or at least heavy policing be it civil or militarily is just the norm to keep chaos from ensuing.

Argument from ignorance, sounds like. 'PROVE WE CAN'T!'



Show me another way to get there, you ignorant pile of cuntslime. And try to avoid the fallacy you made in the earlier paragraph.



Hey, retard-boy. Show me a way to get rid of war without violence and you'll have a tiny, miniscule point until you meet the fact that as long as violence is conceivable, people can conceive of using it to further political ends, thus, war.

And if your answer is to alter the mind to make it inconceivable, I think you have a long way to show that mindcontrol is more morally acceptable.

---

Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

Well here another aspect of my way of thinking comes into play. I do not believe an individual is responsible for another individuals actions even if he could prevent it but chooses not to. So if person A moves to kill 5 people, and person B is armed and can kill person A before he kills the 5 people, he would still be a murderer if he does (my definition of murder is killing people without their consent, I have no problem with euthenesia and for some reason killing during duels is acceptable to me to, but killing in war is still murder to me), and if I were in the situation of person B I would not kill person A, because I am not responsible for the deaths of 5 people through my inaction, but I would be responsible for the death of 1 person if I would kill person A.


I do not believe we're just a meatsack which was given a bunch of genes when created and got sent into the world to screw around and get as much kids as possible. I've had plenty of experiences that indicated to me that there indeed is something as a soul, unfortunately that is no scientific evidence, and you can always use the "you're hallucinating" argument as well. Before you ask, neither I nor my parents are religious.


I'm not the kind of person that's eager to exclude anything from being a possiblility.

---

Stubborn as ever - Let's hope it pays off this time.

That you can sleep at night after allowing, yes allowing the murder of five people, dispite you being fully capable of preventing it, disturbs me greatly.