Hypothetical: in combat, you're being shot at by a 10 year old...

Ok, so you just have problems in understanding. I take note.

I understand just fine and here you are simply being rude.

I already told you what it means firing at you and Flying Pig has explained it "as if you were a 2 years old kid", to quote D. Washington in Philadelphia. Your answer is that you refuse to understand. Discussion over, it seems.

Guess what...I dont agree with your interpretation. Deal with it. In fact, I have also pointed out why your point is entirely moot. Dead is dead, and whether they are shooting at you for an ideal or not they are still your enemy.

Perhaps you don't realize that I have everything clear, but you have some problems in understanding I will not willingly take part in any war nor think that I have enemies to kill in war.

No problem. A one sided war is a pretty easy one to win. Carry on.

I do not care of my "fellow countrymen" more than I care about those manning machine guns firing at us, they are both not part of my life so I don't see why I should consider one friend and the other enemy.

I would think one trying to shoot you and the other not a definite factor. But to each his own.

The fact that the enemy wants to kill me is the reason why I don't want to take part in the conflict, not the other way around. It's exactly because they are firing at me that I will try to retreat or take cover.

And what happens if you get backed or chased into a corner? The point being, once they have worked their way through your countrymen (whom you admittedly dont care about) they will eventually get to you in whatever spider hole you will be hiding in. In some cases, you simply cant run forever.

I would try to save my comrades by telling them the same things I'm telling you now. If we were there I would tell you it's time to run.

And....what if the enemy advances in the face of your bold retreat? Continue to run then?

MobBoss instead is of the opposite idea, he claims they are firing precisely at me.

Semantics. Like I said, the OP says they are firing at you. Whether that means you personally or an ideal, it matters little, you are the one still getting bullets sent your way.
 
Semantics. Like I said, the OP says they are firing at you. Whether that means you personally or an ideal, it matters little, you are the one still getting bullets sent your way.
Exactly. They don't care who or what you are. All they care about is making sure that you, their enemy, fall to the ground as a lifeless, limp body.
 
No problem. A one sided war is a pretty easy one to win. Carry on.

Yes it is. Now if I wanted to get 10-year-olds killed, I would know something of how to do it.

It might help if I convinced MobBoss that 10-year-olds were shooting at him.

Thanks for the manipulation tips, guys.


Oh wait..
 
Perhaps you don't realize that I have everything clear, but you have some problems in understanding I will not willingly take part in any war nor think that I have enemies to kill in war.

You don't have to do anything willingly; assume you've been conscripted (highly possible) and you'll be shot if you refuse.

I do not care of my "fellow countrymen" more than I care about those manning machine guns firing at us, they are both not part of my life so I don't see why I should consider one friend and the other enemy.

Because one is shooting to protect you and the other is shooting to kill you?

The fact that the enemy wants to kill me is the reason why I don't want to take part in the conflict, not the other way around. It's exactly because they are firing at me that I will try to retreat or take cover.

Well, actually if you can you dash forwards a few metres, take cover, crawl forwards, and return fire. Trying to retreat without the support of the rest of your section suppressing the enemy just means you get shot to peices.

I'm just saying that I won't consider those kids or the adults around them "British pigs" and will do everything to avoid being involved in that situation. On the other hand, you two are trying to convince me that it is not possible for me to even think to do it, I'm sure you (maybe not MobBoss) will realize you're wasting bytes.

Considering your enemy as human is a requirement for being a civilised human being; the problem is that the enemy often isn't a civilised human being. With regards to the scenario, it precludes 'I wouldn't be in that situation' - you're supposed to read the linked-in post explaining the 'rules' for hypothetical situations

(note to both of you about what I suppose to be your native language: as you can see this pronoun is also plural, not just singular, hence the interpretation that you give that the kids are firing specifically at me is all but unquestionable, especially since they are firing a machine gun)

I am a native British English speaker: do you mean 'you' being both singular and plural? I'm not sure what you mean by the rest, but it's far from unquestionable (they could be firing suppressively on your unit, meaning that they're probably raking the line of men rather than aiming at you personally). But as I said I don't really understand all after 'hence'.

I would try to save my comrades by telling them the same things I'm telling you now. If we were there I would tell you it's time to run.

OK: you'd have to have about half your men suppress the enemy while the other half dropped back, and then repeat that until out of firing range. Otherwise, you just all get shot to peices in a very bloody manner indeed. And as Mobby said, if they know you run away from child soldiers - what are they going to send against you next time?


I'd let them march, where's the problem?

I think we have a fundamental difference here, which can't be resolved. If you have no problem with your country being invaded, then there's nothing really more to be said.


Hate isn't a reflexive feeling. I don't care if Hitler hates me. Given the very low opinion I have about his thoughts and the sanity of them, I more specifically wouldn't give a damn. Besides, as a side note, I don't see Hitler in the OP, I see 10 years old kids.

Anyone who would allow 10 year old children to fight under his flag has earned his place in the Adolf Hitler Hall of Infamy.

And that's a good sentiment; it guards against the sort of thing that people later regret. The only problem is that if the enemy hate you they're more inclined to attack you without regard for their own safety, or torture you if you surrender, than if they treat you as human beings.

I disagree, our instincts are to save our arse, not the one of our neighbor. "Mors tua, vita mea". As I've said in the beginning, I'd open fire if I was cornered, but the OP leaves hopes for other options, which I would certainly try before the one above.

No, actually, you see a lot of people do things which look incredibly stupid in hindsight because they were looking out for their mates and when you give them the interview without coffee back at base and ask what the hell they thought they were doing they say 'oh, yeah, that was dangerous: wasn't really thinking about that to be honest sir'. Most people will try to keep themselves safe before helping others - those that don't end up either dead or decorated- but very few allow that consideration to stop them taking part in the battle.

You were probably home sick during the Christianity religion lecture. I doubt you would ever stand before Him if you'd feel proud for your course of action.

Well first of all I don't subscribe to a lot of mainstream ideas about God; I don't get it from Church or from Scripture (although that helps); I just know that God's there and try to act so that if he is watching he won't be displeased. Secondly, I think we all have to justify ourselves in the end, regardless of how good we've been - but that's just my own ideas.

Not to be a prick but that's exactly my point not MobBoss'. They are firing at us because we are enemies not because I am Tommy Atkins. This at all effects means I am entitled to say they aren't firing at me. MobBoss instead is of the opposite idea, he claims they are firing precisely at me.

Does it really matter whether the bullets are inscribed with 'Tommy Atkins' or 'to whom it may concern'?

Exactly. They don't care who or what you are. All they care about is making sure that you, their enemy, fall to the ground as a lifeless, limp body.

Precisely.
 
Sorry if I resume this but I find it an interesting discussion that I had lost buried by other posts.


And what happens if you get backed or chased into a corner? The point being, once they have worked their way through your countrymen (whom you admittedly dont care about) they will eventually get to you in whatever spider hole you will be hiding in. In some cases, you simply cant run forever.

I won't answer the rest of your post since I have already answered every objection you made. I also answered this one but just to prove you that a discussion can't be made with you, you will find the answer in post#8... shouldn't have been hard to read it since it's my answer to the OP. You should try to better read and understand my position if you really want to have a discussion, or otherwise you will give the impression you only want to mock my opinions which is more rude than saying you don't understand them or don't want to understand them.

You don't have to do anything willingly; assume you've been conscripted (highly possible) and you'll be shot if you refuse.

Of course I have assumed it. But in case you didn't think about it, I can take part in a war not willingly, which is what I said, which incidentally means I will not be the most reliable soldier, got what I mean?

Because one is shooting to protect you and the other is shooting to kill you?

Argh... again this mistake. This is your "militarized" point of view. From my pow they are both shooting at the enemy. If I run away, I would even expect the one at my side to shoot at my back, so I would be kinda cautious to this regard.

Well, actually if you can you dash forwards a few metres, take cover, crawl forwards, and return fire. Trying to retreat without the support of the rest of your section suppressing the enemy just means you get shot to peices.

To keep it short, let's say I won't try to commit suicide and I would take into consideration the situation, ok?

I am a native British English speaker: do you mean 'you' being both singular and plural? I'm not sure what you mean by the rest, but it's far from unquestionable (they could be firing suppressively on your unit, meaning that they're probably raking the line of men rather than aiming at you personally). But as I said I don't really understand all after 'hence'.

The OP says "they are firing at you" and MobBoss was saying they are firing exactly at me. My objection is that it is not clear, it rather seems, since they are manning machine guns and not precision rifles, that they are shooting in the general direction of the enemy, hence not specifically at me.

OK: you'd have to have about half your men suppress the enemy while the other half dropped back, and then repeat that until out of firing range. Otherwise, you just all get shot to peices in a very bloody manner indeed. And as Mobby said, if they know you run away from child soldiers - what are they going to send against you next time?

Nothing. Do you think a deserter will be in the line the next time? Do you think I will be conscripted another time? I would go hide in the mountains (I would have done it even the first time, but the hypothetical wants I didn't manage). And contrary to you, I don't expect you to actually change your mind, so I would tell you to run while expecting you will instead keep firing at the enemy.

I think we have a fundamental difference here, which can't be resolved. If you have no problem with your country being invaded, then there's nothing really more to be said.

I told you from the beginning :D It's the difference between a military person and a common one. It is my convinction that an enemy army invading my country is more bearable than dying. I can manage the first somehow I'm sure, can't do anything about the second. Once dead, you're dead for good. Game over. Only problem is that it's not a game.
 
Dare I say that the prospect of fighting child soldiers is far scarier than adult ones. Adults can at least be assumed to have at one time had somewhat developed ideas about morality, killing people, and things like mercy. A child doesn't. He probably doesn't even fully grasp the concept of mortality. Sure, he understands that people die and aren't merely "asleep forever," but does he really grasp the concept of humanity? A child soldier cannot be expected to show any sort of restraint or mercy, or even to show considerable regard for their own safety.
 
Dare I say that the prospect of fighting child soldiers is far scarier than adult ones. Adults can at least be assumed to have at one time had somewhat developed ideas about morality, killing people, and things like mercy. A child doesn't. He probably doesn't even fully grasp the concept of mortality. Sure, he understands that people die and aren't merely "asleep forever," but does he really grasp the concept of humanity? A child soldier cannot be expected to show any sort of restraint or mercy, or even to show considerable regard for their own safety.

Yeah, I remember reading 'Lord of the Flies' as well....:sad:
 
Dare I say that the prospect of fighting child soldiers is far scarier than adult ones. Adults can at least be assumed to have at one time had somewhat developed ideas about morality, killing people, and things like mercy. A child doesn't. He probably doesn't even fully grasp the concept of mortality. Sure, he understands that people die and aren't merely "asleep forever," but does he really grasp the concept of humanity? A child soldier cannot be expected to show any sort of restraint or mercy, or even to show considerable regard for their own safety.

True, except that they also won't have anything like the level of discipline, skill and courage of a trained soldier. They're likely to panic the minute they start losing people, unless they're high on something - not unusual, mind.
 
Top Bottom