Torture vs Drones

[kochman]

Let me change my previous answer...
In some cases, I absolutely would not choose my fellow "countryman".

 

[Borachio]

Granted, the military does try to imbue in their personnel the notion that they should have extreme loyalty to all their fellow soldiers. But I would contend that this is so highly ingrained through training and repetitive exercises because it is so alien to many under similar circumstances.

I don't think this is true. I think soldiers, because they face life-threatening situations and have to rely on each other for their own survival, develop this camaraderie of their own accord. True, the military might try to foster it through team-building and discipline, but that's a paltry thing in comparison, imo.

 

[kochman]

I don't think this is true. I think soldiers, because they face life-threatening situations and have to rely on each other for their own survival, develop this camaraderie of their own accord. True, the military might try to foster it through team-building and discipline, but that's a paltry thing in comparison, imo.

Borachio, you aren't following the script.

The military is a Christian institution, trying to create a "White USA", before it sets the veterans free to murder innocents with their hand guns all over the world.

 

[Borachio]

Borachio, you aren't following the script.

Sorry. I don't follow scripts. I make up my own mind.

And then, very often at some stage I change it again - sometimes in the light of new information, sometimes because I start to think my original analysis was faulty.

 

[kochman]

As do most sane people.

 

[Borachio]

Oh? Then I have something in common with sane people after all.

 

[kochman]

Oh? Then I have something in common with sane people after all.

 

[MobBoss]

Supposing your choice was: you could save only one of your sons. Which one would you choose? There is a natural precedent based on age. Would you employ it?

You mean the natural precendent to save the younger? I dont deny that it might indeed apply that way. Such a situation would be truly horrible.

I can tell you with full assurance I wouldnt refuse to pick on and let them both die.

Supposing you simply liked one son better than the other (it does happen), which one would you choose then?

Most likely the one I liked most I would suppose. Again, thats how such things work if such a precedent were indeed present.

As for kinship precedence, whom do you rate higher? Yourself or your wife?

I'd give my life for my wife any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[Borachio]

You mean the natural precendent to save the younger? I dont deny that it might indeed apply that way. Such a situation would be truly horrible.

Interestingly, according to research amongst famine afflicted families it's more natural to choose the elder - since this is the child with more resources invested in it.

I can tell you with full assurance I wouldnt refuse to pick on and let them both die.

You're made of stern stuff. Many people would not refuse - they would simply find it impossible to do so.

Most likely the one I liked most I would suppose. Again, thats how such things work if such a precedent were indeed present.

Some would say to choose the one they liked least. But this is psychologically complicated indeed. How would you feel in the future, about having chosen the favourite?

I'd give my life for my wife any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

But from a kinship point of view, this makes no sense at all. You should share fewer genes with your wife than with any of your blood relations. Otherwise it's a incestuous relationship.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't think this is true. I think soldiers, because they face life-threatening situations and have to rely on each other for their own survival, develop this camaraderie of their own accord. True, the military might try to foster it through team-building and discipline, but that's a paltry thing in comparison, imo.

It's no accident that the military doesn't want a soldier in combat showing initiative by trying to rescue his best friend, a woman, or a child to the detriment of his unit, which would be the natural reaction without such training. They quite carefully replace that innate response with one that will cause you to stay where you are under such circumstances.

 

[Borachio]

I'm sorry I can't get that concept to make any sense.

 

[Formaldehyde]

What part are you having so much difficulty with?

The notion that most civilians would naturally try to save the lives of their best friend or women and children if they were in imminent danger, even if it might jeopardize the mission of their unit? Why the military can't have people deserting their assignments whenever they please in combat situations to do so? The fact that the military does teach ordinary civilians to be soldiers by overcoming these innate responses through rigorous training and exercises by intentionally instilling that sense of loyalty to their unit over everything else?

You do realize this was at least part of the reason why the US military was segregated for so long? That they thought it would be impossible for them to teach racists to overcome their prejudices to act like that in combat situations if the units were mixed racially? Why this is such a critical element to being a cohesive fighting unit? That if you don't really care what happens to the soldier next to you that it could have a massive negative effect?

 

[kochman]

It's no accident that the military doesn't want a soldier in combat showing initiative by trying to rescue his best friend, a woman, or a child to the detriment of his unit, which would be the natural reaction without such training. They quite carefully replace that innate response with one that will cause you to stay where you are under such circumstances.

I'm sorry I can't get that concept to make any sense.

That's because it doesn't make any sense.

As we say in the USA, "you can't polish a turd".

 

[Borachio]

It is so simple that I don't understand how anybody who posts here can't comprehend it. What part are you having so much difficulty with? The notion where most civilians would naturally try to save the lives of their best friend or women and children if they were in imminent danger? Why the military can't have people deserting their assignments whenever they please in combat situations to save the lives of civilians or their best friends? The fact that the military does teach civilians to be soldiers by overcoming these innate responses through rigorous training and exercises designed to do just that?

No. It's not that. I was trying to get my head round a soldier in combat, presumably with his best friend - as comrades in arms are generally much closer than any other relationships the man might have. And otherwise his best friend is highly unlikely to be anywhere near a combat zone.

Civilians do get involved in combat situations of course. But the training documentaries I have seen have emphasized avoiding shooting them. Naturally rescuing them will not be the highest priority for a soldier fighting in a life or death situation. But other than that I can well imagine soldiers acting in some kind of rescue role.


But then again, I have no direct experience of serving in the military, so I must take for granted what anyone tells me is so.

(I have in the past, tried to polish a turd - usually with the sole of my shoe.)

 

[Formaldehyde]

I wasn't suggesting that somehow a person's best friend in civilian life suddenly materialized on the battlefield a few hundred yards away. Sorry if that was unclear. What if a person in his unit or another in the same regiment becomes his best friend?

As a civilian, if you suddenly found yourself being shot at and there were women or children in imminent danger in the immediate vicinity, what would you do? Would you stay and try to protect whoever happened to be alongside you at the time to protect his own life to the possible detriment of the women and children? Or would you try to help them instead?

 

[Borachio]

Well, that's exactly what I'm referring to. Aren't soldiers supposed to save each other? I rather think they are, baring really extraordinary circumstances. Are you not thinking of an earlier period in military history?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you think that occurs automatically when you join the military? You suddenly forget all the innate responses which would have you trying to save the life of your best friend, or women and children, to the possible detriment of your unit? Or is it something you are deliberately taught and conditioned to do, because combat effectiveness is far more important to the military than saving the life of your best friend or innocent civilians?

 

[Borachio]

:exhale:

I really have no idea.

 

[Farm Boy]

Grrr! I cannot find the clip of the drowning scene from the movie "I Robot" with Will Smith. I thought it would fit here.

 

[Agent327]

You thought wrong.

But feel free tot try and post a scene with torture or what drones do to people.