Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Narz, Nov 18, 2011.
Oh, you mean like the liberal french army in Algeria? or that of the USA in Vietnam?
You talk about presuming motives and them presume motives right now.
I will tell you right now service is most definetly a major component for doing what I do. Not the only component mind you, but not as you presumed it.
A military is something that is necessary for most countries. A few small countries like Iceland and Costa Rica can do without one but for most countries it's necessary. This doesn't mean that every conflict a military is engaged in is necessary and I do agree that it doesn't really make sense to say that those fighting in Iraq are fighting for our freedom, but I don't think we should let our opinions of the Iraq War or Afghan War shape our opinion of soldiers in general. They are doing something valuable for their nation and it's not their fault if they are not used well in that capacity. Also, let's not forget that many of the people who took part in the Iraq or Afghan wars signed on before those started.
There's really no comparison with porn stars. They are people who provide a service, the same as someone who works at a restaurant or informs you about the news on TV. They're just not as respected since most people don't respect those who give blow jobs for a living.
Military is necessary for decent countries like Russia to fight the influence of the degenerate U$A.
While in the past many soldiers have killed civilians and many porn stars have committed adultery, the difference is that killing civilians is anathema to military people and there are almost no serving soldiers who have done it (and none who have been caught doing it), while the porn industry encourages adultery. You could therefore say that as a profession the military is far more moral about that sort of thing, because it strongly discourages sin while pornography strongly encourages it.
Yeah, adultery is comparable to killing civilians. Whose making silly comparisons now?
Frankly, people who don't think the deaths of innocents are in a whole different and much more morally reprehensible league than adultery are screwed up in the head.
The military strongly discourages sin? How many people have died because of porn again?
I'm all for the military as protection, but that's not the only way it gets used.
More soldier bashing, yeah! Look, what was the point of this poll, if not to offend?
I don't bash soldiers (I was one myself), but I do have serious issues with how our military is used... which of course effects how I view the profession of being a soldier as a whole.
Well, we should be looking at those who direct how soldiers are used... as you know.
I'll simply reiterate my response to the last time you stated "soldiers are murderers": "Murder" requires the aspect of being unlawful. Since neither domestic nor international law proscribes uniformed enemy combatants killing each other while a state of war exists between their countries, they're not murderers.
Or policeman, more accurately. They're traditionally the first line of defense of a government repressing its citizens.
Yeah, killing civilians is obviously worse than adultery.
Now, any suggestions about how we could stop (or avoid altogether) the killing of civilians?
I voted Soldiers, but we need both professions.
If I see any of those, I'll be sure to let you know. Now back to the point:
The military profession may provide opportunity to do wrong, but categorically discourages its employees from taking those opportunities and severely punishes them if they do so. It's therefore a bit disingenous to call it an 'immoral profession', while the porn industry actively encourages smaller acts of vice from its employees and so very much deserves that label.
A common view which I'm very keen to dispel. Most soldiers, most of the time, don't think they're doing what they signed up to do or particularly like the overall mission - you might feel differently when you've been in Bosnia for a few months holding a thin red line between civilians and genocidal pseudo-soldiers, but on the aircraft down everyone's thinking 'bugger this, how is this our problem?'. Part of the contract that we sign is to 'obey all lawful orders of HM the Queen' and so on, and this means that what politicians ask their military to do has no bearing on how moral the people involved are - provided that it doesn't blatantly violate international law, and even then it's a very grey area - or indeed how moral the profession of arms is as a whole.
If all humans were moral, neither profession would be needed.
It seems to me that neither add anything to the "moral" situation.
...for varying flavors/definitions of "moral"...
Yes, but what soldiers are asked to do has a direct bearing on how moral I view the profession as a whole (as opposed to the morality of the individual members of the profession). My judgement of the morality of being a soldier as a profession is not a judgement of the individual soldiers, which is a matter of each individual (just like every other profession).
If that were the case why would you not just pay your next door neighbor, at least they would not be "shafted" by their "owner"?
Can you list how many "moral" wars there have been?
So in other words, the morality of the profession changes depending on who's in government?
That's a few logical jumps, but if we say that it depends on what they're asked to do (which I'd contest straight away, but I'm a moral relativist and I understand quite a few people outright disagree with me on that regard), and the orders that are given reflect the person giving the orders, we can say that the morality of being in the military changes based on election results.
If you see any of those in my posts, be sure to let me know.
Separate names with a comma.