Poll: Would you pay $250 to pay for a proper military burial for someone you do not know?

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
omega 616 said:
I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.

I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.

Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.
This is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read. Do you understand what those soldiers gave up? Everything. They'll never get to experience what a full life is, they might not have wanted to be in that battle, or the war. But their sacrifice was real.

Think about what you have, what you're going to have. Now imagine giving it all up, never getting to experience what life has to offer. Not everyone amounts to something, but everyone has the potential. They gave that potential up so that others could have it instead.
No poor dumb bastard ever became a hero by dying for his country. He did it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his.

Or to put it another way, they only made that sacrifice because some other soldier was willing to pull the trigger, and they in turn probably killed more than their share. There could be no wars without willing soldiers, and propaganda to the contrary, that's not an oversimplification. It's the unvarnished truth, which is just too horrifying for most people to consider. In the absolute best case scenario, a soldier's job is to commit justifiable homicide in order to defend his own borders. In a more realistic scenario, they're murderers who invade other countries to benefit a few bastards at the top. It's been over 60 years since a soldier in my country's military actually did anything to defend me. Why the hell should I support the murders committed by the modern military because my grandfather actually fought in a war of defense? His was the last generation that did.

Those poor "insurgents" in the middle east, on the other hand...

Captcha: army training, sir!

Oh fuck off with the propaganada, captcha. I'm not in the mood. Although nice going on giving an example of just how much money and effort goes into normalizing this crap.
It's just like you said, respect the individual soldier, he is doing his job. Everyone has to make a living. If you have problems with the army in general, then it's the high command you want to go after. Their the ones who sit in their chair in safe room moving around peoples lives (friendly and enemy) like their chess pieces. I am in full agreement that we haven't been in a needed war since WW2.
So then you're in full agreement that the modern military is nothing but a bunch of hired thugs who, if they had a shred of decency, would lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders? Because right now the job they're doing is not at all worthy of respect, and respecting the individual soldier in this day and age is nothing but accepting the nuremberg defense, in a society where we don't kill soldiers for not following orders, no less. The Nazi's didn't give their soldiers that cushy chance of just sitting in a jail cell, and it was still ruled that "just following orders" was no excuse. That makes it even worse that we don't hold that standard to our own troops.

You can't blame the military without blaming the troops. It just doesn't work that way. It may be a big blame that each person holds a tiny part of, but they still have that tiny part. We have altogether too much respect for the soldier in this country, and not enough of that healthy fear of him that was so common prior to World War II.

Edit: Maybe this will make my stance a bit clearer:

Universal Soldier

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
...that's like blaming prostitutes for the spread of STDs, man (as opposed to our horrifically insufficient healthcare system). People do what they have to to survive. Mind you, I don't think people like myself are automatically deserving of more praise than a prostitute... but neither are we (or the prostitutes) deserving of your scorn. Many soldiers do see the writing on the wall, but that doesn't give us any more options than we had before... and the option you would have us take is tantamount to suicide.

You work with the society you have, not the society you want. Don't like it? Start a revolution... for which you need soldiers. Power concedes nothing, and only the dead have seen the end of war.
Better suicide than murder for pay, man. The military is an inherently evil organization, and the "Necessary" part of "necessary evil" has long since been exceeded. It's not at all like blaming a prostitute for spreading STDs. It's like blaming a hitman for committing a murder. Sure, someone else asked him to do it, but it was his choice to take the payment and carry it out.

Edit: Especially since the "suicide" is figurative, but the murder is literal. Again, the individual soldiers who carried out the holocaust would have been killed themselves had they spoken out (or at least, they would if they were standing alone -- even there, it wouldn't have happened if enough of them had been brave enough to take the bullet instead of firing it). Despite that, they found out the hard way that "I was just following orders" is no excuse. In the US, we don't execute people for refusing to go to war. We might throw them in jail if they're either already members of the military, or, as in Vietnam, if they've been drafted, but we don't kill them. So no, it's really not suicide. If we didn't excuse people who would have been killed themselves if they had decided not to follow their horrific orders, we shouldn't excuse those who would have merely been thrown in jail just because they're our own. Hell, we shouldn't excuse it /especially/ because they're our own.
Really, your definition of murder (unlawful killing... as defined by the society you live in, wrongheaded or not) here is nearly as figurative as my definition of suicide (which was meant as figurative)... unless you happen to be Judge Dredd [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo]. Like it or not (and for the record, I don't either), the many "police actions" the US has executed since our last declared war (December 1941) have been close enough to lawful that no one has been criminally charged for kicking them off. Thusly, no killing in said police actions is murder that has not been prosecuted as such. Doesn't make 'em right... but murder doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

In my experience, the military is mostly full of desperate people reaching for the all-hallowed "opportunity" that our nation no longer affords the economically disadvantaged. I stand by my prostitute analogy, though it would work just as well had I used low-level street enforcers with a gang... just not hitmen (look to PMCs for those). As with gangs and prostitution, prosecuting street workers who are just doing what they have to to survive will avail you nothing. History is right to blame the architects of these conflicts. The "Universal Soldier" of the poem is nothing more than every desperate person ever.

The problem with defining murder as unlawful killing is that it comes from the legal definition of murder. If you define it that way, then no real mass murderer(Think Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin -- people who really killed massive numbers of people, not just the relative handful that they could kill personally before getting caught) in history was guilty of anything, since by the laws of their land, what they were doing was legal -- how could it not be? They wrote them. So no, saying that it's legal therefore it's not murder is not an excuse. The most cold blooded murderers on the planet are the judges, juries, and executioners who put people to death under the color(Or how about we make that "cover") of law.

Even if it were true that the military is mostly full of desperate people(and it's not, as much as I'd like it to be true the statistics have shown time and time again that "lack of money" isn't the reason most people sign up, the majority have other options and decide to do it anyway for various reasons, usually some appeal to "patriotism" or family tradition.), all that does is illustrate how screwed up our society is. We don't give drug dealers a pass just because they were desperate, and I'd be a lot quicker to believe most of them at least started out that way than I would soldiers. There's no public glory to being a drug dealer. For a minority of the population, sure, but even then it's just glamorization. Soldiers, on the other hand, are practically the angels of the major deity that is the military in this country. They may find out the hard way on exiting that it's mostly lip service with very little actual help coming from the people swearing up and down that they "support the troops", and other such platitudes that they strangely never act upon unless they're one of those families that keeps sending their own children in generation after generation(and then the material support is in the form of yet another warm body to fill a pair of boots and hold a gun), but a new idiot hits the recruitment age every day, and the few dissenting voices are drowned out by the waves of military worship. So it doesn't matter if the vets realize how little that hero worship helps them in later life, only that enough kids keep getting caught up in the waves of propaganda.
...second attempt, lost my first reply to the forum goblins... going to truncate.

Murder: legal term, colloquial use applies only to metaphorical use, not killing. Global society is still society, Hitler et cetera were deemed murderers on that scale. It's a plutocracy, as history is written by the victors, certainly not fair. Nothing is in this world, get used to it.

Military propaganda: most people have more pragmatic reasons than they let on. No other applicable skills, no longer enough jobs to go around, especially in rural areas. Best not to demonize people for the ignorant culture they're raised in... you'll only convince them that they're right and you're evil. Fucked up society? Agreed.

"Drug dealers aren't glorified"... bullshit. They're often heroes where they come from, keeping the only functioning economy at their rung of society going. Give more back to their communities than corporate "philanthropists".

hope that was intelligible. It was certainly a lot shorter.

Lost connection again, but copied text this time. Escapist is shitty tonight. Attempt 3.
Drug dealers aren't glorified /by an entire society to the point that it's suicide to speak out against them (And I don't mean to their face -- yeah, a drug dealer might shoot you if you you said something to his face. However, you wouldn't have to worry about being ostracized from parts of society above the bottom rung for saying it in general.), soldiers are. I'm not ashamed to say I wouldn't be posting this stuff publicly under my real name -- not of myself, that is. Of the society that makes it so dangerous to criticize its warrior caste, however...

I do agree that the drug dealers give back more to their community than the corporate raiders do. Hell, depending on the company in question, your average wartime company of soldiers may have less blood on its hands than some of those bastards, and for a better reason.

I disagree strongly about murder. A circular definition is no definition at all, this is something whoever wrote that law should have learned around the sixth grade, where you have to write definitions in your own words without using the word itself for exactly that reason.
agreed on most of it then... but...
"The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human"(wikipedia)

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"(mirriam-webster)
and
"The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" (dictionary.com)

...are not circular definitions... but do all require law to define them. Like it or not, unlawful killing is murder; lawful killing is not. "Personal definitions" are a cop-out.
The better way of looking at it is killing is murder by default, but there can be mitigating circumstances that make it either a lesser crime (like manslaughter) or fully excusable (like killing in self defense). Basically don't start from the legal forms of killing and define murder from there, start with murder and then separate the lesser types of killing from it. Besides, I'd imagine that's closer to how the average person understands it to begin with. Which makes sense, because the law isn't where right and wrong come from. Quite the contrary, it's an imperfect attempt to codify pre-existing ideas of what is and is not okay.
Still strikes me as a bit of a cop-out. Denial of facts in favor of an emotional response. Murder has nothing to do with "right or wrong" (which are subjective), only with legal or illegal.

**edit** if most people truly understand it that... incorrectly... I suppose the definitions should be updated. Pretty sure that's not the case, though.
What facts, though? That murder is apparently illegal because it's not legal? That's how the legal definition scans. I find "murder is illegal because it's illegal. There are forms of killing that are legal, but definitionally they are not murder because murder is killing for illegal reasons" a much bigger copout than "if you kill someone, you have committed murder unless there are mitigating circumstances."
That... is a very garbled argument. Murder is a type of killing, qualified by being unlawful. Murder is illegal because without that qualifier, it's merely killing. Fairly simple definition, one I knew at age 10.
It's a semantic difference, but an important one -- if law were a science it would be called "applied semantics." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," all that has to be done to make murder okay is to change the law -- after all, by that definition, it is the law itself that makes something murder. To go back to the hitler example, his law wasn't "it's okay to murder jews." It was "Jews are to be killed." He didn't legalize murder, he made killing jews explicitly not murder, while keeping more general murder laws on the books. You avoid this problem by making it so murder is the default state when killing a person, with exceptions that make it not murder /in the eyes of the law./ If you define it that way, it's entirely possible to say something like "I can't support this because it's just legalized murder." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," by definition there's no such thing as legal murder, and you can't call, for example, an execution (or even, under the right circumstances, a genocide) murder. Even though it totally is from any sane standpoint.
"Any sane standpoint?" You're still applying a moral qualifier to murder. The definition of murder has nothing to do with morality. Anyone using the term "legalized murder" doesn't know the definition of murder. Hardly unheard of, but still incorrect. Hitler changed a law locally, that change was trumped by international law, enforced by invasion and occupation. There's no "problem" in the definition.
It is when it's a local law. Under US law an execution is not murder. The laws of most other Western nations, which have long since banned executions, would disagree. Which set of laws are correct? Answer? The one that doesn't define "murder" in such a recursive fashion.
The answer is "both are correct". The minutiae of the definition depends on where you live... and can be changed, quite retroactively, by outside forces. Why is that so hard? This has all been semantics over a legal term... one that seems to be evoking one hell of a crusader response in you.
Then you're arguing that "murder" has no English definition, on a legal one contingent on local laws. I'm not sorry to say most English speakers would disagree with that.
No, I'm not. The english definition of murder is "The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human" unlawful is the word with the complex definition here.

If most English speakers really disagree with me, the definition needs to be changed to include a moral qualifier... but I truly don't believe that is the case. Most people will accept a dictionary definition when they look it up.

**edit** The crusade I was referring to is for a definition. Wrongful killing is wrong, yes... but it's not always murder. Nor is murder always wrong. Bad, wrong, wrongbad and badong are all subjective.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
omega 616 said:
I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.

I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.

Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.
This is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read. Do you understand what those soldiers gave up? Everything. They'll never get to experience what a full life is, they might not have wanted to be in that battle, or the war. But their sacrifice was real.

Think about what you have, what you're going to have. Now imagine giving it all up, never getting to experience what life has to offer. Not everyone amounts to something, but everyone has the potential. They gave that potential up so that others could have it instead.
No poor dumb bastard ever became a hero by dying for his country. He did it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his.

Or to put it another way, they only made that sacrifice because some other soldier was willing to pull the trigger, and they in turn probably killed more than their share. There could be no wars without willing soldiers, and propaganda to the contrary, that's not an oversimplification. It's the unvarnished truth, which is just too horrifying for most people to consider. In the absolute best case scenario, a soldier's job is to commit justifiable homicide in order to defend his own borders. In a more realistic scenario, they're murderers who invade other countries to benefit a few bastards at the top. It's been over 60 years since a soldier in my country's military actually did anything to defend me. Why the hell should I support the murders committed by the modern military because my grandfather actually fought in a war of defense? His was the last generation that did.

Those poor "insurgents" in the middle east, on the other hand...

Captcha: army training, sir!

Oh fuck off with the propaganada, captcha. I'm not in the mood. Although nice going on giving an example of just how much money and effort goes into normalizing this crap.
It's just like you said, respect the individual soldier, he is doing his job. Everyone has to make a living. If you have problems with the army in general, then it's the high command you want to go after. Their the ones who sit in their chair in safe room moving around peoples lives (friendly and enemy) like their chess pieces. I am in full agreement that we haven't been in a needed war since WW2.
So then you're in full agreement that the modern military is nothing but a bunch of hired thugs who, if they had a shred of decency, would lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders? Because right now the job they're doing is not at all worthy of respect, and respecting the individual soldier in this day and age is nothing but accepting the nuremberg defense, in a society where we don't kill soldiers for not following orders, no less. The Nazi's didn't give their soldiers that cushy chance of just sitting in a jail cell, and it was still ruled that "just following orders" was no excuse. That makes it even worse that we don't hold that standard to our own troops.

You can't blame the military without blaming the troops. It just doesn't work that way. It may be a big blame that each person holds a tiny part of, but they still have that tiny part. We have altogether too much respect for the soldier in this country, and not enough of that healthy fear of him that was so common prior to World War II.

Edit: Maybe this will make my stance a bit clearer:

Universal Soldier

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
...that's like blaming prostitutes for the spread of STDs, man (as opposed to our horrifically insufficient healthcare system). People do what they have to to survive. Mind you, I don't think people like myself are automatically deserving of more praise than a prostitute... but neither are we (or the prostitutes) deserving of your scorn. Many soldiers do see the writing on the wall, but that doesn't give us any more options than we had before... and the option you would have us take is tantamount to suicide.

You work with the society you have, not the society you want. Don't like it? Start a revolution... for which you need soldiers. Power concedes nothing, and only the dead have seen the end of war.
Better suicide than murder for pay, man. The military is an inherently evil organization, and the "Necessary" part of "necessary evil" has long since been exceeded. It's not at all like blaming a prostitute for spreading STDs. It's like blaming a hitman for committing a murder. Sure, someone else asked him to do it, but it was his choice to take the payment and carry it out.

Edit: Especially since the "suicide" is figurative, but the murder is literal. Again, the individual soldiers who carried out the holocaust would have been killed themselves had they spoken out (or at least, they would if they were standing alone -- even there, it wouldn't have happened if enough of them had been brave enough to take the bullet instead of firing it). Despite that, they found out the hard way that "I was just following orders" is no excuse. In the US, we don't execute people for refusing to go to war. We might throw them in jail if they're either already members of the military, or, as in Vietnam, if they've been drafted, but we don't kill them. So no, it's really not suicide. If we didn't excuse people who would have been killed themselves if they had decided not to follow their horrific orders, we shouldn't excuse those who would have merely been thrown in jail just because they're our own. Hell, we shouldn't excuse it /especially/ because they're our own.
Really, your definition of murder (unlawful killing... as defined by the society you live in, wrongheaded or not) here is nearly as figurative as my definition of suicide (which was meant as figurative)... unless you happen to be Judge Dredd [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo]. Like it or not (and for the record, I don't either), the many "police actions" the US has executed since our last declared war (December 1941) have been close enough to lawful that no one has been criminally charged for kicking them off. Thusly, no killing in said police actions is murder that has not been prosecuted as such. Doesn't make 'em right... but murder doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

In my experience, the military is mostly full of desperate people reaching for the all-hallowed "opportunity" that our nation no longer affords the economically disadvantaged. I stand by my prostitute analogy, though it would work just as well had I used low-level street enforcers with a gang... just not hitmen (look to PMCs for those). As with gangs and prostitution, prosecuting street workers who are just doing what they have to to survive will avail you nothing. History is right to blame the architects of these conflicts. The "Universal Soldier" of the poem is nothing more than every desperate person ever.

The problem with defining murder as unlawful killing is that it comes from the legal definition of murder. If you define it that way, then no real mass murderer(Think Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin -- people who really killed massive numbers of people, not just the relative handful that they could kill personally before getting caught) in history was guilty of anything, since by the laws of their land, what they were doing was legal -- how could it not be? They wrote them. So no, saying that it's legal therefore it's not murder is not an excuse. The most cold blooded murderers on the planet are the judges, juries, and executioners who put people to death under the color(Or how about we make that "cover") of law.

Even if it were true that the military is mostly full of desperate people(and it's not, as much as I'd like it to be true the statistics have shown time and time again that "lack of money" isn't the reason most people sign up, the majority have other options and decide to do it anyway for various reasons, usually some appeal to "patriotism" or family tradition.), all that does is illustrate how screwed up our society is. We don't give drug dealers a pass just because they were desperate, and I'd be a lot quicker to believe most of them at least started out that way than I would soldiers. There's no public glory to being a drug dealer. For a minority of the population, sure, but even then it's just glamorization. Soldiers, on the other hand, are practically the angels of the major deity that is the military in this country. They may find out the hard way on exiting that it's mostly lip service with very little actual help coming from the people swearing up and down that they "support the troops", and other such platitudes that they strangely never act upon unless they're one of those families that keeps sending their own children in generation after generation(and then the material support is in the form of yet another warm body to fill a pair of boots and hold a gun), but a new idiot hits the recruitment age every day, and the few dissenting voices are drowned out by the waves of military worship. So it doesn't matter if the vets realize how little that hero worship helps them in later life, only that enough kids keep getting caught up in the waves of propaganda.
...second attempt, lost my first reply to the forum goblins... going to truncate.

Murder: legal term, colloquial use applies only to metaphorical use, not killing. Global society is still society, Hitler et cetera were deemed murderers on that scale. It's a plutocracy, as history is written by the victors, certainly not fair. Nothing is in this world, get used to it.

Military propaganda: most people have more pragmatic reasons than they let on. No other applicable skills, no longer enough jobs to go around, especially in rural areas. Best not to demonize people for the ignorant culture they're raised in... you'll only convince them that they're right and you're evil. Fucked up society? Agreed.

"Drug dealers aren't glorified"... bullshit. They're often heroes where they come from, keeping the only functioning economy at their rung of society going. Give more back to their communities than corporate "philanthropists".

hope that was intelligible. It was certainly a lot shorter.

Lost connection again, but copied text this time. Escapist is shitty tonight. Attempt 3.
Drug dealers aren't glorified /by an entire society to the point that it's suicide to speak out against them (And I don't mean to their face -- yeah, a drug dealer might shoot you if you you said something to his face. However, you wouldn't have to worry about being ostracized from parts of society above the bottom rung for saying it in general.), soldiers are. I'm not ashamed to say I wouldn't be posting this stuff publicly under my real name -- not of myself, that is. Of the society that makes it so dangerous to criticize its warrior caste, however...

I do agree that the drug dealers give back more to their community than the corporate raiders do. Hell, depending on the company in question, your average wartime company of soldiers may have less blood on its hands than some of those bastards, and for a better reason.

I disagree strongly about murder. A circular definition is no definition at all, this is something whoever wrote that law should have learned around the sixth grade, where you have to write definitions in your own words without using the word itself for exactly that reason.
agreed on most of it then... but...
"The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human"(wikipedia)

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"(mirriam-webster)
and
"The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" (dictionary.com)

...are not circular definitions... but do all require law to define them. Like it or not, unlawful killing is murder; lawful killing is not. "Personal definitions" are a cop-out.
The better way of looking at it is killing is murder by default, but there can be mitigating circumstances that make it either a lesser crime (like manslaughter) or fully excusable (like killing in self defense). Basically don't start from the legal forms of killing and define murder from there, start with murder and then separate the lesser types of killing from it. Besides, I'd imagine that's closer to how the average person understands it to begin with. Which makes sense, because the law isn't where right and wrong come from. Quite the contrary, it's an imperfect attempt to codify pre-existing ideas of what is and is not okay.
Still strikes me as a bit of a cop-out. Denial of facts in favor of an emotional response. Murder has nothing to do with "right or wrong" (which are subjective), only with legal or illegal.

**edit** if most people truly understand it that... incorrectly... I suppose the definitions should be updated. Pretty sure that's not the case, though.
What facts, though? That murder is apparently illegal because it's not legal? That's how the legal definition scans. I find "murder is illegal because it's illegal. There are forms of killing that are legal, but definitionally they are not murder because murder is killing for illegal reasons" a much bigger copout than "if you kill someone, you have committed murder unless there are mitigating circumstances."
That... is a very garbled argument. Murder is a type of killing, qualified by being unlawful. Murder is illegal because without that qualifier, it's merely killing. Fairly simple definition, one I knew at age 10.
It's a semantic difference, but an important one -- if law were a science it would be called "applied semantics." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," all that has to be done to make murder okay is to change the law -- after all, by that definition, it is the law itself that makes something murder. To go back to the hitler example, his law wasn't "it's okay to murder jews." It was "Jews are to be killed." He didn't legalize murder, he made killing jews explicitly not murder, while keeping more general murder laws on the books. You avoid this problem by making it so murder is the default state when killing a person, with exceptions that make it not murder /in the eyes of the law./ If you define it that way, it's entirely possible to say something like "I can't support this because it's just legalized murder." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," by definition there's no such thing as legal murder, and you can't call, for example, an execution (or even, under the right circumstances, a genocide) murder. Even though it totally is from any sane standpoint.
"Any sane standpoint?" You're still applying a moral qualifier to murder. The definition of murder has nothing to do with morality. Anyone using the term "legalized murder" doesn't know the definition of murder. Hardly unheard of, but still incorrect. Hitler changed a law locally, that change was trumped by international law, enforced by invasion and occupation. There's no "problem" in the definition.
It is when it's a local law. Under US law an execution is not murder. The laws of most other Western nations, which have long since banned executions, would disagree. Which set of laws are correct? Answer? The one that doesn't define "murder" in such a recursive fashion.
The answer is "both are correct". The minutiae of the definition depends on where you live... and can be changed, quite retroactively, by outside forces. Why is that so hard? This has all been semantics over a legal term... one that seems to be evoking one hell of a crusader response in you.
Then you're arguing that "murder" has no English definition, on a legal one contingent on local laws. I'm not sorry to say most English speakers would disagree with that.
No, I'm not. The english definition of murder is "The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human" unlawful is the word with the complex definition here.

If most English speakers really disagree with me, the definition needs to be changed to include a moral qualifier... but I truly don't believe that is the case. Most people will accept a dictionary definition when they look it up.

**edit** The crusade I was referring to is for a definition. Wrongful killing is wrong, yes... but it's not always murder. Nor is murder always wrong. Bad, wrong, wrongbad and badong are all subjective.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. If they're defining it that way, the problem is in the dictionary, not the word. If you look in the talk section for the Wikipedia article you quoted at the start of this discussion, even /they/ were arguing about it. The definition they gave is one of those terrible definitions that often happen on Wikipedia because of the way their notability guidelines work.

Interestingly, that discussion page quotes English common law at one point, and the legal definition there doesn't actually say "unlawful killing," because whoever wrote it was smart enough to realize how dumb a recursive definition is. Instead it gives a description of murder as a homicide done on purpose and without a justifiable reason[footnote]Here's the text of it: 210.1 Criminal Homicide (1)A person is guitly of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. (2)Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide 210.2 Murder (1)Except "a homicide...committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse," criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (a)it is committed purposely or knowingly; or (b)it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.
2.02.(2)(a)Purposely. A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:(i)if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such result; (b)Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i)if the element involves the nature of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result; (c) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.[/footnote]. Seems to me that both the dictionary definition and the Wikipedia definition are a terrible (on a semantic level) way of trying to simplify a very explicit definition from English common law.

Edit: Correction, the explicit definition there is from US law, the dictionary definition is based on an incredibly outdated portion of English common law, taken from a quote from a guy who died in the 18th century.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
omega 616 said:
I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.

I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.

Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.
This is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read. Do you understand what those soldiers gave up? Everything. They'll never get to experience what a full life is, they might not have wanted to be in that battle, or the war. But their sacrifice was real.

Think about what you have, what you're going to have. Now imagine giving it all up, never getting to experience what life has to offer. Not everyone amounts to something, but everyone has the potential. They gave that potential up so that others could have it instead.
No poor dumb bastard ever became a hero by dying for his country. He did it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his.

Or to put it another way, they only made that sacrifice because some other soldier was willing to pull the trigger, and they in turn probably killed more than their share. There could be no wars without willing soldiers, and propaganda to the contrary, that's not an oversimplification. It's the unvarnished truth, which is just too horrifying for most people to consider. In the absolute best case scenario, a soldier's job is to commit justifiable homicide in order to defend his own borders. In a more realistic scenario, they're murderers who invade other countries to benefit a few bastards at the top. It's been over 60 years since a soldier in my country's military actually did anything to defend me. Why the hell should I support the murders committed by the modern military because my grandfather actually fought in a war of defense? His was the last generation that did.

Those poor "insurgents" in the middle east, on the other hand...

Captcha: army training, sir!

Oh fuck off with the propaganada, captcha. I'm not in the mood. Although nice going on giving an example of just how much money and effort goes into normalizing this crap.
It's just like you said, respect the individual soldier, he is doing his job. Everyone has to make a living. If you have problems with the army in general, then it's the high command you want to go after. Their the ones who sit in their chair in safe room moving around peoples lives (friendly and enemy) like their chess pieces. I am in full agreement that we haven't been in a needed war since WW2.
So then you're in full agreement that the modern military is nothing but a bunch of hired thugs who, if they had a shred of decency, would lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders? Because right now the job they're doing is not at all worthy of respect, and respecting the individual soldier in this day and age is nothing but accepting the nuremberg defense, in a society where we don't kill soldiers for not following orders, no less. The Nazi's didn't give their soldiers that cushy chance of just sitting in a jail cell, and it was still ruled that "just following orders" was no excuse. That makes it even worse that we don't hold that standard to our own troops.

You can't blame the military without blaming the troops. It just doesn't work that way. It may be a big blame that each person holds a tiny part of, but they still have that tiny part. We have altogether too much respect for the soldier in this country, and not enough of that healthy fear of him that was so common prior to World War II.

Edit: Maybe this will make my stance a bit clearer:

Universal Soldier

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
...that's like blaming prostitutes for the spread of STDs, man (as opposed to our horrifically insufficient healthcare system). People do what they have to to survive. Mind you, I don't think people like myself are automatically deserving of more praise than a prostitute... but neither are we (or the prostitutes) deserving of your scorn. Many soldiers do see the writing on the wall, but that doesn't give us any more options than we had before... and the option you would have us take is tantamount to suicide.

You work with the society you have, not the society you want. Don't like it? Start a revolution... for which you need soldiers. Power concedes nothing, and only the dead have seen the end of war.
Better suicide than murder for pay, man. The military is an inherently evil organization, and the "Necessary" part of "necessary evil" has long since been exceeded. It's not at all like blaming a prostitute for spreading STDs. It's like blaming a hitman for committing a murder. Sure, someone else asked him to do it, but it was his choice to take the payment and carry it out.

Edit: Especially since the "suicide" is figurative, but the murder is literal. Again, the individual soldiers who carried out the holocaust would have been killed themselves had they spoken out (or at least, they would if they were standing alone -- even there, it wouldn't have happened if enough of them had been brave enough to take the bullet instead of firing it). Despite that, they found out the hard way that "I was just following orders" is no excuse. In the US, we don't execute people for refusing to go to war. We might throw them in jail if they're either already members of the military, or, as in Vietnam, if they've been drafted, but we don't kill them. So no, it's really not suicide. If we didn't excuse people who would have been killed themselves if they had decided not to follow their horrific orders, we shouldn't excuse those who would have merely been thrown in jail just because they're our own. Hell, we shouldn't excuse it /especially/ because they're our own.
Really, your definition of murder (unlawful killing... as defined by the society you live in, wrongheaded or not) here is nearly as figurative as my definition of suicide (which was meant as figurative)... unless you happen to be Judge Dredd [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo]. Like it or not (and for the record, I don't either), the many "police actions" the US has executed since our last declared war (December 1941) have been close enough to lawful that no one has been criminally charged for kicking them off. Thusly, no killing in said police actions is murder that has not been prosecuted as such. Doesn't make 'em right... but murder doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

In my experience, the military is mostly full of desperate people reaching for the all-hallowed "opportunity" that our nation no longer affords the economically disadvantaged. I stand by my prostitute analogy, though it would work just as well had I used low-level street enforcers with a gang... just not hitmen (look to PMCs for those). As with gangs and prostitution, prosecuting street workers who are just doing what they have to to survive will avail you nothing. History is right to blame the architects of these conflicts. The "Universal Soldier" of the poem is nothing more than every desperate person ever.

The problem with defining murder as unlawful killing is that it comes from the legal definition of murder. If you define it that way, then no real mass murderer(Think Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin -- people who really killed massive numbers of people, not just the relative handful that they could kill personally before getting caught) in history was guilty of anything, since by the laws of their land, what they were doing was legal -- how could it not be? They wrote them. So no, saying that it's legal therefore it's not murder is not an excuse. The most cold blooded murderers on the planet are the judges, juries, and executioners who put people to death under the color(Or how about we make that "cover") of law.

Even if it were true that the military is mostly full of desperate people(and it's not, as much as I'd like it to be true the statistics have shown time and time again that "lack of money" isn't the reason most people sign up, the majority have other options and decide to do it anyway for various reasons, usually some appeal to "patriotism" or family tradition.), all that does is illustrate how screwed up our society is. We don't give drug dealers a pass just because they were desperate, and I'd be a lot quicker to believe most of them at least started out that way than I would soldiers. There's no public glory to being a drug dealer. For a minority of the population, sure, but even then it's just glamorization. Soldiers, on the other hand, are practically the angels of the major deity that is the military in this country. They may find out the hard way on exiting that it's mostly lip service with very little actual help coming from the people swearing up and down that they "support the troops", and other such platitudes that they strangely never act upon unless they're one of those families that keeps sending their own children in generation after generation(and then the material support is in the form of yet another warm body to fill a pair of boots and hold a gun), but a new idiot hits the recruitment age every day, and the few dissenting voices are drowned out by the waves of military worship. So it doesn't matter if the vets realize how little that hero worship helps them in later life, only that enough kids keep getting caught up in the waves of propaganda.
...second attempt, lost my first reply to the forum goblins... going to truncate.

Murder: legal term, colloquial use applies only to metaphorical use, not killing. Global society is still society, Hitler et cetera were deemed murderers on that scale. It's a plutocracy, as history is written by the victors, certainly not fair. Nothing is in this world, get used to it.

Military propaganda: most people have more pragmatic reasons than they let on. No other applicable skills, no longer enough jobs to go around, especially in rural areas. Best not to demonize people for the ignorant culture they're raised in... you'll only convince them that they're right and you're evil. Fucked up society? Agreed.

"Drug dealers aren't glorified"... bullshit. They're often heroes where they come from, keeping the only functioning economy at their rung of society going. Give more back to their communities than corporate "philanthropists".

hope that was intelligible. It was certainly a lot shorter.

Lost connection again, but copied text this time. Escapist is shitty tonight. Attempt 3.
Drug dealers aren't glorified /by an entire society to the point that it's suicide to speak out against them (And I don't mean to their face -- yeah, a drug dealer might shoot you if you you said something to his face. However, you wouldn't have to worry about being ostracized from parts of society above the bottom rung for saying it in general.), soldiers are. I'm not ashamed to say I wouldn't be posting this stuff publicly under my real name -- not of myself, that is. Of the society that makes it so dangerous to criticize its warrior caste, however...

I do agree that the drug dealers give back more to their community than the corporate raiders do. Hell, depending on the company in question, your average wartime company of soldiers may have less blood on its hands than some of those bastards, and for a better reason.

I disagree strongly about murder. A circular definition is no definition at all, this is something whoever wrote that law should have learned around the sixth grade, where you have to write definitions in your own words without using the word itself for exactly that reason.
agreed on most of it then... but...
"The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human"(wikipedia)

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"(mirriam-webster)
and
"The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" (dictionary.com)

...are not circular definitions... but do all require law to define them. Like it or not, unlawful killing is murder; lawful killing is not. "Personal definitions" are a cop-out.
The better way of looking at it is killing is murder by default, but there can be mitigating circumstances that make it either a lesser crime (like manslaughter) or fully excusable (like killing in self defense). Basically don't start from the legal forms of killing and define murder from there, start with murder and then separate the lesser types of killing from it. Besides, I'd imagine that's closer to how the average person understands it to begin with. Which makes sense, because the law isn't where right and wrong come from. Quite the contrary, it's an imperfect attempt to codify pre-existing ideas of what is and is not okay.
Still strikes me as a bit of a cop-out. Denial of facts in favor of an emotional response. Murder has nothing to do with "right or wrong" (which are subjective), only with legal or illegal.

**edit** if most people truly understand it that... incorrectly... I suppose the definitions should be updated. Pretty sure that's not the case, though.
What facts, though? That murder is apparently illegal because it's not legal? That's how the legal definition scans. I find "murder is illegal because it's illegal. There are forms of killing that are legal, but definitionally they are not murder because murder is killing for illegal reasons" a much bigger copout than "if you kill someone, you have committed murder unless there are mitigating circumstances."
That... is a very garbled argument. Murder is a type of killing, qualified by being unlawful. Murder is illegal because without that qualifier, it's merely killing. Fairly simple definition, one I knew at age 10.
It's a semantic difference, but an important one -- if law were a science it would be called "applied semantics." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," all that has to be done to make murder okay is to change the law -- after all, by that definition, it is the law itself that makes something murder. To go back to the hitler example, his law wasn't "it's okay to murder jews." It was "Jews are to be killed." He didn't legalize murder, he made killing jews explicitly not murder, while keeping more general murder laws on the books. You avoid this problem by making it so murder is the default state when killing a person, with exceptions that make it not murder /in the eyes of the law./ If you define it that way, it's entirely possible to say something like "I can't support this because it's just legalized murder." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," by definition there's no such thing as legal murder, and you can't call, for example, an execution (or even, under the right circumstances, a genocide) murder. Even though it totally is from any sane standpoint.
"Any sane standpoint?" You're still applying a moral qualifier to murder. The definition of murder has nothing to do with morality. Anyone using the term "legalized murder" doesn't know the definition of murder. Hardly unheard of, but still incorrect. Hitler changed a law locally, that change was trumped by international law, enforced by invasion and occupation. There's no "problem" in the definition.
It is when it's a local law. Under US law an execution is not murder. The laws of most other Western nations, which have long since banned executions, would disagree. Which set of laws are correct? Answer? The one that doesn't define "murder" in such a recursive fashion.
The answer is "both are correct". The minutiae of the definition depends on where you live... and can be changed, quite retroactively, by outside forces. Why is that so hard? This has all been semantics over a legal term... one that seems to be evoking one hell of a crusader response in you.
Then you're arguing that "murder" has no English definition, on a legal one contingent on local laws. I'm not sorry to say most English speakers would disagree with that.
No, I'm not. The english definition of murder is "The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human" unlawful is the word with the complex definition here.

If most English speakers really disagree with me, the definition needs to be changed to include a moral qualifier... but I truly don't believe that is the case. Most people will accept a dictionary definition when they look it up.

**edit** The crusade I was referring to is for a definition. Wrongful killing is wrong, yes... but it's not always murder. Nor is murder always wrong. Bad, wrong, wrongbad and badong are all subjective.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. If they're defining it that way, the problem is in the dictionary, not the word. If you look in the talk section for the Wikipedia article you quoted at the start of this discussion, even /they/ were arguing about it. The definition they gave is one of those terrible definitions that often happen on Wikipedia because of the way their notability guidelines work.

Interestingly, that discussion page quotes English common law at one point, and the legal definition there doesn't actually say "unlawful killing," because whoever wrote it was smart enough to realize how dumb a recursive definition is. Instead it gives a description of murder as a homicide done on purpose and without a justifiable reason
Here's the text of it: 210.1 Criminal Homicide (1)A person is guitly of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. (2)Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide 210.2 Murder (1)Except "a homicide...committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse," criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (a)it is committed purposely or knowingly; or (b)it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.
2.02.(2)(a)Purposely. A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:(i)if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such result; (b)Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i)if the element involves the nature of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result; (c) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
. Seems to me that both the dictionary definition and the Wikipedia definition are a terrible (on a semantic level) way of trying to simplify a very explicit definition from English common law.
Huh. English common law, is it? That's deeper than I've researched it. Seems like the application of highly subjective ideals to something with an objective definition... but hell, who am I to argue with the origin of a word under a theocracy? If it originally had a moral component, you're right... and that leaves us with you calling soldiers murderers, drug dealers calling the cops murderers and vice-versa... and all of you being correct due to differences in morality. Seems like a shitty system for fostering understanding... which might explain a few things.
 

teisjm

New member
Mar 3, 2009
3,561
0
0
Nope
Funerals are for those left behind, not for the dead
I don't belive that the dead are capable of careing one way or the other, seeing as they're dead.
Military affiliation doesn't really change anything for me.

I'd find it admirable to financially help people who can't afford to bury their loved ones proberly though.
 

Owyn_Merrilin

New member
May 22, 2010
7,370
0
0
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
omega 616 said:
I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.

I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.

Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.
This is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read. Do you understand what those soldiers gave up? Everything. They'll never get to experience what a full life is, they might not have wanted to be in that battle, or the war. But their sacrifice was real.

Think about what you have, what you're going to have. Now imagine giving it all up, never getting to experience what life has to offer. Not everyone amounts to something, but everyone has the potential. They gave that potential up so that others could have it instead.
No poor dumb bastard ever became a hero by dying for his country. He did it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his.

Or to put it another way, they only made that sacrifice because some other soldier was willing to pull the trigger, and they in turn probably killed more than their share. There could be no wars without willing soldiers, and propaganda to the contrary, that's not an oversimplification. It's the unvarnished truth, which is just too horrifying for most people to consider. In the absolute best case scenario, a soldier's job is to commit justifiable homicide in order to defend his own borders. In a more realistic scenario, they're murderers who invade other countries to benefit a few bastards at the top. It's been over 60 years since a soldier in my country's military actually did anything to defend me. Why the hell should I support the murders committed by the modern military because my grandfather actually fought in a war of defense? His was the last generation that did.

Those poor "insurgents" in the middle east, on the other hand...

Captcha: army training, sir!

Oh fuck off with the propaganada, captcha. I'm not in the mood. Although nice going on giving an example of just how much money and effort goes into normalizing this crap.
It's just like you said, respect the individual soldier, he is doing his job. Everyone has to make a living. If you have problems with the army in general, then it's the high command you want to go after. Their the ones who sit in their chair in safe room moving around peoples lives (friendly and enemy) like their chess pieces. I am in full agreement that we haven't been in a needed war since WW2.
So then you're in full agreement that the modern military is nothing but a bunch of hired thugs who, if they had a shred of decency, would lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders? Because right now the job they're doing is not at all worthy of respect, and respecting the individual soldier in this day and age is nothing but accepting the nuremberg defense, in a society where we don't kill soldiers for not following orders, no less. The Nazi's didn't give their soldiers that cushy chance of just sitting in a jail cell, and it was still ruled that "just following orders" was no excuse. That makes it even worse that we don't hold that standard to our own troops.

You can't blame the military without blaming the troops. It just doesn't work that way. It may be a big blame that each person holds a tiny part of, but they still have that tiny part. We have altogether too much respect for the soldier in this country, and not enough of that healthy fear of him that was so common prior to World War II.

Edit: Maybe this will make my stance a bit clearer:

Universal Soldier

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
...that's like blaming prostitutes for the spread of STDs, man (as opposed to our horrifically insufficient healthcare system). People do what they have to to survive. Mind you, I don't think people like myself are automatically deserving of more praise than a prostitute... but neither are we (or the prostitutes) deserving of your scorn. Many soldiers do see the writing on the wall, but that doesn't give us any more options than we had before... and the option you would have us take is tantamount to suicide.

You work with the society you have, not the society you want. Don't like it? Start a revolution... for which you need soldiers. Power concedes nothing, and only the dead have seen the end of war.
Better suicide than murder for pay, man. The military is an inherently evil organization, and the "Necessary" part of "necessary evil" has long since been exceeded. It's not at all like blaming a prostitute for spreading STDs. It's like blaming a hitman for committing a murder. Sure, someone else asked him to do it, but it was his choice to take the payment and carry it out.

Edit: Especially since the "suicide" is figurative, but the murder is literal. Again, the individual soldiers who carried out the holocaust would have been killed themselves had they spoken out (or at least, they would if they were standing alone -- even there, it wouldn't have happened if enough of them had been brave enough to take the bullet instead of firing it). Despite that, they found out the hard way that "I was just following orders" is no excuse. In the US, we don't execute people for refusing to go to war. We might throw them in jail if they're either already members of the military, or, as in Vietnam, if they've been drafted, but we don't kill them. So no, it's really not suicide. If we didn't excuse people who would have been killed themselves if they had decided not to follow their horrific orders, we shouldn't excuse those who would have merely been thrown in jail just because they're our own. Hell, we shouldn't excuse it /especially/ because they're our own.
Really, your definition of murder (unlawful killing... as defined by the society you live in, wrongheaded or not) here is nearly as figurative as my definition of suicide (which was meant as figurative)... unless you happen to be Judge Dredd [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo]. Like it or not (and for the record, I don't either), the many "police actions" the US has executed since our last declared war (December 1941) have been close enough to lawful that no one has been criminally charged for kicking them off. Thusly, no killing in said police actions is murder that has not been prosecuted as such. Doesn't make 'em right... but murder doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

In my experience, the military is mostly full of desperate people reaching for the all-hallowed "opportunity" that our nation no longer affords the economically disadvantaged. I stand by my prostitute analogy, though it would work just as well had I used low-level street enforcers with a gang... just not hitmen (look to PMCs for those). As with gangs and prostitution, prosecuting street workers who are just doing what they have to to survive will avail you nothing. History is right to blame the architects of these conflicts. The "Universal Soldier" of the poem is nothing more than every desperate person ever.

The problem with defining murder as unlawful killing is that it comes from the legal definition of murder. If you define it that way, then no real mass murderer(Think Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin -- people who really killed massive numbers of people, not just the relative handful that they could kill personally before getting caught) in history was guilty of anything, since by the laws of their land, what they were doing was legal -- how could it not be? They wrote them. So no, saying that it's legal therefore it's not murder is not an excuse. The most cold blooded murderers on the planet are the judges, juries, and executioners who put people to death under the color(Or how about we make that "cover") of law.

Even if it were true that the military is mostly full of desperate people(and it's not, as much as I'd like it to be true the statistics have shown time and time again that "lack of money" isn't the reason most people sign up, the majority have other options and decide to do it anyway for various reasons, usually some appeal to "patriotism" or family tradition.), all that does is illustrate how screwed up our society is. We don't give drug dealers a pass just because they were desperate, and I'd be a lot quicker to believe most of them at least started out that way than I would soldiers. There's no public glory to being a drug dealer. For a minority of the population, sure, but even then it's just glamorization. Soldiers, on the other hand, are practically the angels of the major deity that is the military in this country. They may find out the hard way on exiting that it's mostly lip service with very little actual help coming from the people swearing up and down that they "support the troops", and other such platitudes that they strangely never act upon unless they're one of those families that keeps sending their own children in generation after generation(and then the material support is in the form of yet another warm body to fill a pair of boots and hold a gun), but a new idiot hits the recruitment age every day, and the few dissenting voices are drowned out by the waves of military worship. So it doesn't matter if the vets realize how little that hero worship helps them in later life, only that enough kids keep getting caught up in the waves of propaganda.
...second attempt, lost my first reply to the forum goblins... going to truncate.

Murder: legal term, colloquial use applies only to metaphorical use, not killing. Global society is still society, Hitler et cetera were deemed murderers on that scale. It's a plutocracy, as history is written by the victors, certainly not fair. Nothing is in this world, get used to it.

Military propaganda: most people have more pragmatic reasons than they let on. No other applicable skills, no longer enough jobs to go around, especially in rural areas. Best not to demonize people for the ignorant culture they're raised in... you'll only convince them that they're right and you're evil. Fucked up society? Agreed.

"Drug dealers aren't glorified"... bullshit. They're often heroes where they come from, keeping the only functioning economy at their rung of society going. Give more back to their communities than corporate "philanthropists".

hope that was intelligible. It was certainly a lot shorter.

Lost connection again, but copied text this time. Escapist is shitty tonight. Attempt 3.
Drug dealers aren't glorified /by an entire society to the point that it's suicide to speak out against them (And I don't mean to their face -- yeah, a drug dealer might shoot you if you you said something to his face. However, you wouldn't have to worry about being ostracized from parts of society above the bottom rung for saying it in general.), soldiers are. I'm not ashamed to say I wouldn't be posting this stuff publicly under my real name -- not of myself, that is. Of the society that makes it so dangerous to criticize its warrior caste, however...

I do agree that the drug dealers give back more to their community than the corporate raiders do. Hell, depending on the company in question, your average wartime company of soldiers may have less blood on its hands than some of those bastards, and for a better reason.

I disagree strongly about murder. A circular definition is no definition at all, this is something whoever wrote that law should have learned around the sixth grade, where you have to write definitions in your own words without using the word itself for exactly that reason.
agreed on most of it then... but...
"The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human"(wikipedia)

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"(mirriam-webster)
and
"The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" (dictionary.com)

...are not circular definitions... but do all require law to define them. Like it or not, unlawful killing is murder; lawful killing is not. "Personal definitions" are a cop-out.
The better way of looking at it is killing is murder by default, but there can be mitigating circumstances that make it either a lesser crime (like manslaughter) or fully excusable (like killing in self defense). Basically don't start from the legal forms of killing and define murder from there, start with murder and then separate the lesser types of killing from it. Besides, I'd imagine that's closer to how the average person understands it to begin with. Which makes sense, because the law isn't where right and wrong come from. Quite the contrary, it's an imperfect attempt to codify pre-existing ideas of what is and is not okay.
Still strikes me as a bit of a cop-out. Denial of facts in favor of an emotional response. Murder has nothing to do with "right or wrong" (which are subjective), only with legal or illegal.

**edit** if most people truly understand it that... incorrectly... I suppose the definitions should be updated. Pretty sure that's not the case, though.
What facts, though? That murder is apparently illegal because it's not legal? That's how the legal definition scans. I find "murder is illegal because it's illegal. There are forms of killing that are legal, but definitionally they are not murder because murder is killing for illegal reasons" a much bigger copout than "if you kill someone, you have committed murder unless there are mitigating circumstances."
That... is a very garbled argument. Murder is a type of killing, qualified by being unlawful. Murder is illegal because without that qualifier, it's merely killing. Fairly simple definition, one I knew at age 10.
It's a semantic difference, but an important one -- if law were a science it would be called "applied semantics." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," all that has to be done to make murder okay is to change the law -- after all, by that definition, it is the law itself that makes something murder. To go back to the hitler example, his law wasn't "it's okay to murder jews." It was "Jews are to be killed." He didn't legalize murder, he made killing jews explicitly not murder, while keeping more general murder laws on the books. You avoid this problem by making it so murder is the default state when killing a person, with exceptions that make it not murder /in the eyes of the law./ If you define it that way, it's entirely possible to say something like "I can't support this because it's just legalized murder." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," by definition there's no such thing as legal murder, and you can't call, for example, an execution (or even, under the right circumstances, a genocide) murder. Even though it totally is from any sane standpoint.
"Any sane standpoint?" You're still applying a moral qualifier to murder. The definition of murder has nothing to do with morality. Anyone using the term "legalized murder" doesn't know the definition of murder. Hardly unheard of, but still incorrect. Hitler changed a law locally, that change was trumped by international law, enforced by invasion and occupation. There's no "problem" in the definition.
It is when it's a local law. Under US law an execution is not murder. The laws of most other Western nations, which have long since banned executions, would disagree. Which set of laws are correct? Answer? The one that doesn't define "murder" in such a recursive fashion.
The answer is "both are correct". The minutiae of the definition depends on where you live... and can be changed, quite retroactively, by outside forces. Why is that so hard? This has all been semantics over a legal term... one that seems to be evoking one hell of a crusader response in you.
Then you're arguing that "murder" has no English definition, on a legal one contingent on local laws. I'm not sorry to say most English speakers would disagree with that.
No, I'm not. The english definition of murder is "The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human" unlawful is the word with the complex definition here.

If most English speakers really disagree with me, the definition needs to be changed to include a moral qualifier... but I truly don't believe that is the case. Most people will accept a dictionary definition when they look it up.

**edit** The crusade I was referring to is for a definition. Wrongful killing is wrong, yes... but it's not always murder. Nor is murder always wrong. Bad, wrong, wrongbad and badong are all subjective.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. If they're defining it that way, the problem is in the dictionary, not the word. If you look in the talk section for the Wikipedia article you quoted at the start of this discussion, even /they/ were arguing about it. The definition they gave is one of those terrible definitions that often happen on Wikipedia because of the way their notability guidelines work.

Interestingly, that discussion page quotes English common law at one point, and the legal definition there doesn't actually say "unlawful killing," because whoever wrote it was smart enough to realize how dumb a recursive definition is. Instead it gives a description of murder as a homicide done on purpose and without a justifiable reason
Here's the text of it: 210.1 Criminal Homicide (1)A person is guitly of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. (2)Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide 210.2 Murder (1)Except "a homicide...committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse," criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (a)it is committed purposely or knowingly; or (b)it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.
2.02.(2)(a)Purposely. A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:(i)if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such result; (b)Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i)if the element involves the nature of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result; (c) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
. Seems to me that both the dictionary definition and the Wikipedia definition are a terrible (on a semantic level) way of trying to simplify a very explicit definition from English common law.
Huh. English common law, is it? That's deeper than I've researched it. Seems like the application of highly subjective ideals to something with an objective definition... but hell, who am I to argue with the origin of a word under a theocracy? If it originally had a moral component, you're right... and that leaves us with you calling soldiers murderers, drug dealers calling the cops murderers and vice-versa... and all of you being correct due to differences in morality. Seems like a shitty system for fostering understanding... which might explain a few things.
As I noted in my edit, I was actually mistaken in that the big block of text was from US law, while the definition of murder actually including the word "unlawful" was from a book of commentary on English common law written at some point in the 18th century. That definition is most likely a simplification originally meant to be used in the context of a more explicit law or set of laws, like the one I quoted above. The problem with English common law in particular is that it's not one nice big set of laws, it's more the entire body of English laws and their interpretations going back several centuries, so it's not always as nice and neat as you'd think it would be. Chances are Wikipedia and certain dictionaries have latched on to that "unlawful" thing because it's easier to find a source for a commentary on the presumably numerous laws that have been written on the subject over the centuries than it is to track them all down and interpret them yourself, especially if you happen to be a grammarian, and not a lawyer.

That's the nice thing about US law vs. English common law -- when the country was founded we took the common law as a basis for many things[footnote]most of the national laws have their roots there, and the only state whose government isn't based on it is Louisiana, which used the French Code Napoleon as a basis instead[/footnote], but instead of just keeping that old body of laws that have to be sifted through and interpreted, we re-wrote them into a nice, neat, and new body of laws, where new laws on the same subject usually replace, rather than supplement the old ones. Even if the text of the old law is kept, it's understood to be amended to include the new text, and any contradictions will either be superseded by the new law (if the legislature is smart enough to catch it) or sorted out by the courts instead[footnote]A good example here is that violent videogame law from California that was struck down by the Supreme Court a while back. That law conflicted with the first amendment, and because the constitution takes precedence over state law, the California law was declared invalid. If you're from the US/otherwise already have an understanding of how this sort of thing works in the US, I apologize for over-explaining.[/footnote]. Things can get kind of hairy when you look at things that have different legal definitions in different states, but typically you have to worry about either the law of the state you live in, or the federal laws, with the other state laws only really mattering in the sense that something that starts in one state may spread to others or to Federal law over time, especially if it was prompted by a national movement that happened to have enough supporters in that one state to get something implemented there before it was feasible elsewhere.

P.S.: Full disclosure, I'm not a lawyer, but I am a social studies teacher, so while I don't know as much about the law as a lawyer would, I know more than the average person, and potentially as much or more about the broad historical and philosophical underpinnings than your average lawyer. I don't mean to give the impression from the authoritative way I've been speaking that I am, in fact, a lawyer.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
loc978 said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
Owyn_Merrilin said:
MrDumpkins said:
omega 616 said:
I don't think I would go whole hog and pay $250 to bury a guy I don't know. If there was a dude who had done some impressive stuff, I'd certainly throw the dude a bone if I could.

I don't mean to nasty but the guys who were the first to charge off the boats on D day, didn't actually do much... They allowed other soldiers to advance but all they did was die (was like "operation meat shield" ). If a guy did something that made you go "Daym, dude is THE manly man!" then I think he should have a big ass ceremony.

Although, I think people in WW1 AND WW2 are fucking hero's but these modern day wars seem more like bullies.
This is the most unbelievable thing I have ever read. Do you understand what those soldiers gave up? Everything. They'll never get to experience what a full life is, they might not have wanted to be in that battle, or the war. But their sacrifice was real.

Think about what you have, what you're going to have. Now imagine giving it all up, never getting to experience what life has to offer. Not everyone amounts to something, but everyone has the potential. They gave that potential up so that others could have it instead.
No poor dumb bastard ever became a hero by dying for his country. He did it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his.

Or to put it another way, they only made that sacrifice because some other soldier was willing to pull the trigger, and they in turn probably killed more than their share. There could be no wars without willing soldiers, and propaganda to the contrary, that's not an oversimplification. It's the unvarnished truth, which is just too horrifying for most people to consider. In the absolute best case scenario, a soldier's job is to commit justifiable homicide in order to defend his own borders. In a more realistic scenario, they're murderers who invade other countries to benefit a few bastards at the top. It's been over 60 years since a soldier in my country's military actually did anything to defend me. Why the hell should I support the murders committed by the modern military because my grandfather actually fought in a war of defense? His was the last generation that did.

Those poor "insurgents" in the middle east, on the other hand...

Captcha: army training, sir!

Oh fuck off with the propaganada, captcha. I'm not in the mood. Although nice going on giving an example of just how much money and effort goes into normalizing this crap.
It's just like you said, respect the individual soldier, he is doing his job. Everyone has to make a living. If you have problems with the army in general, then it's the high command you want to go after. Their the ones who sit in their chair in safe room moving around peoples lives (friendly and enemy) like their chess pieces. I am in full agreement that we haven't been in a needed war since WW2.
So then you're in full agreement that the modern military is nothing but a bunch of hired thugs who, if they had a shred of decency, would lay down their arms and refuse to follow orders? Because right now the job they're doing is not at all worthy of respect, and respecting the individual soldier in this day and age is nothing but accepting the nuremberg defense, in a society where we don't kill soldiers for not following orders, no less. The Nazi's didn't give their soldiers that cushy chance of just sitting in a jail cell, and it was still ruled that "just following orders" was no excuse. That makes it even worse that we don't hold that standard to our own troops.

You can't blame the military without blaming the troops. It just doesn't work that way. It may be a big blame that each person holds a tiny part of, but they still have that tiny part. We have altogether too much respect for the soldier in this country, and not enough of that healthy fear of him that was so common prior to World War II.

Edit: Maybe this will make my stance a bit clearer:

Universal Soldier

He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
...that's like blaming prostitutes for the spread of STDs, man (as opposed to our horrifically insufficient healthcare system). People do what they have to to survive. Mind you, I don't think people like myself are automatically deserving of more praise than a prostitute... but neither are we (or the prostitutes) deserving of your scorn. Many soldiers do see the writing on the wall, but that doesn't give us any more options than we had before... and the option you would have us take is tantamount to suicide.

You work with the society you have, not the society you want. Don't like it? Start a revolution... for which you need soldiers. Power concedes nothing, and only the dead have seen the end of war.
Better suicide than murder for pay, man. The military is an inherently evil organization, and the "Necessary" part of "necessary evil" has long since been exceeded. It's not at all like blaming a prostitute for spreading STDs. It's like blaming a hitman for committing a murder. Sure, someone else asked him to do it, but it was his choice to take the payment and carry it out.

Edit: Especially since the "suicide" is figurative, but the murder is literal. Again, the individual soldiers who carried out the holocaust would have been killed themselves had they spoken out (or at least, they would if they were standing alone -- even there, it wouldn't have happened if enough of them had been brave enough to take the bullet instead of firing it). Despite that, they found out the hard way that "I was just following orders" is no excuse. In the US, we don't execute people for refusing to go to war. We might throw them in jail if they're either already members of the military, or, as in Vietnam, if they've been drafted, but we don't kill them. So no, it's really not suicide. If we didn't excuse people who would have been killed themselves if they had decided not to follow their horrific orders, we shouldn't excuse those who would have merely been thrown in jail just because they're our own. Hell, we shouldn't excuse it /especially/ because they're our own.
Really, your definition of murder (unlawful killing... as defined by the society you live in, wrongheaded or not) here is nearly as figurative as my definition of suicide (which was meant as figurative)... unless you happen to be Judge Dredd [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJiYrRcfQo]. Like it or not (and for the record, I don't either), the many "police actions" the US has executed since our last declared war (December 1941) have been close enough to lawful that no one has been criminally charged for kicking them off. Thusly, no killing in said police actions is murder that has not been prosecuted as such. Doesn't make 'em right... but murder doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

In my experience, the military is mostly full of desperate people reaching for the all-hallowed "opportunity" that our nation no longer affords the economically disadvantaged. I stand by my prostitute analogy, though it would work just as well had I used low-level street enforcers with a gang... just not hitmen (look to PMCs for those). As with gangs and prostitution, prosecuting street workers who are just doing what they have to to survive will avail you nothing. History is right to blame the architects of these conflicts. The "Universal Soldier" of the poem is nothing more than every desperate person ever.

The problem with defining murder as unlawful killing is that it comes from the legal definition of murder. If you define it that way, then no real mass murderer(Think Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin -- people who really killed massive numbers of people, not just the relative handful that they could kill personally before getting caught) in history was guilty of anything, since by the laws of their land, what they were doing was legal -- how could it not be? They wrote them. So no, saying that it's legal therefore it's not murder is not an excuse. The most cold blooded murderers on the planet are the judges, juries, and executioners who put people to death under the color(Or how about we make that "cover") of law.

Even if it were true that the military is mostly full of desperate people(and it's not, as much as I'd like it to be true the statistics have shown time and time again that "lack of money" isn't the reason most people sign up, the majority have other options and decide to do it anyway for various reasons, usually some appeal to "patriotism" or family tradition.), all that does is illustrate how screwed up our society is. We don't give drug dealers a pass just because they were desperate, and I'd be a lot quicker to believe most of them at least started out that way than I would soldiers. There's no public glory to being a drug dealer. For a minority of the population, sure, but even then it's just glamorization. Soldiers, on the other hand, are practically the angels of the major deity that is the military in this country. They may find out the hard way on exiting that it's mostly lip service with very little actual help coming from the people swearing up and down that they "support the troops", and other such platitudes that they strangely never act upon unless they're one of those families that keeps sending their own children in generation after generation(and then the material support is in the form of yet another warm body to fill a pair of boots and hold a gun), but a new idiot hits the recruitment age every day, and the few dissenting voices are drowned out by the waves of military worship. So it doesn't matter if the vets realize how little that hero worship helps them in later life, only that enough kids keep getting caught up in the waves of propaganda.
...second attempt, lost my first reply to the forum goblins... going to truncate.

Murder: legal term, colloquial use applies only to metaphorical use, not killing. Global society is still society, Hitler et cetera were deemed murderers on that scale. It's a plutocracy, as history is written by the victors, certainly not fair. Nothing is in this world, get used to it.

Military propaganda: most people have more pragmatic reasons than they let on. No other applicable skills, no longer enough jobs to go around, especially in rural areas. Best not to demonize people for the ignorant culture they're raised in... you'll only convince them that they're right and you're evil. Fucked up society? Agreed.

"Drug dealers aren't glorified"... bullshit. They're often heroes where they come from, keeping the only functioning economy at their rung of society going. Give more back to their communities than corporate "philanthropists".

hope that was intelligible. It was certainly a lot shorter.

Lost connection again, but copied text this time. Escapist is shitty tonight. Attempt 3.
Drug dealers aren't glorified /by an entire society to the point that it's suicide to speak out against them (And I don't mean to their face -- yeah, a drug dealer might shoot you if you you said something to his face. However, you wouldn't have to worry about being ostracized from parts of society above the bottom rung for saying it in general.), soldiers are. I'm not ashamed to say I wouldn't be posting this stuff publicly under my real name -- not of myself, that is. Of the society that makes it so dangerous to criticize its warrior caste, however...

I do agree that the drug dealers give back more to their community than the corporate raiders do. Hell, depending on the company in question, your average wartime company of soldiers may have less blood on its hands than some of those bastards, and for a better reason.

I disagree strongly about murder. A circular definition is no definition at all, this is something whoever wrote that law should have learned around the sixth grade, where you have to write definitions in your own words without using the word itself for exactly that reason.
agreed on most of it then... but...
"The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human"(wikipedia)

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"(mirriam-webster)
and
"The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" (dictionary.com)

...are not circular definitions... but do all require law to define them. Like it or not, unlawful killing is murder; lawful killing is not. "Personal definitions" are a cop-out.
The better way of looking at it is killing is murder by default, but there can be mitigating circumstances that make it either a lesser crime (like manslaughter) or fully excusable (like killing in self defense). Basically don't start from the legal forms of killing and define murder from there, start with murder and then separate the lesser types of killing from it. Besides, I'd imagine that's closer to how the average person understands it to begin with. Which makes sense, because the law isn't where right and wrong come from. Quite the contrary, it's an imperfect attempt to codify pre-existing ideas of what is and is not okay.
Still strikes me as a bit of a cop-out. Denial of facts in favor of an emotional response. Murder has nothing to do with "right or wrong" (which are subjective), only with legal or illegal.

**edit** if most people truly understand it that... incorrectly... I suppose the definitions should be updated. Pretty sure that's not the case, though.
What facts, though? That murder is apparently illegal because it's not legal? That's how the legal definition scans. I find "murder is illegal because it's illegal. There are forms of killing that are legal, but definitionally they are not murder because murder is killing for illegal reasons" a much bigger copout than "if you kill someone, you have committed murder unless there are mitigating circumstances."
That... is a very garbled argument. Murder is a type of killing, qualified by being unlawful. Murder is illegal because without that qualifier, it's merely killing. Fairly simple definition, one I knew at age 10.
It's a semantic difference, but an important one -- if law were a science it would be called "applied semantics." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," all that has to be done to make murder okay is to change the law -- after all, by that definition, it is the law itself that makes something murder. To go back to the hitler example, his law wasn't "it's okay to murder jews." It was "Jews are to be killed." He didn't legalize murder, he made killing jews explicitly not murder, while keeping more general murder laws on the books. You avoid this problem by making it so murder is the default state when killing a person, with exceptions that make it not murder /in the eyes of the law./ If you define it that way, it's entirely possible to say something like "I can't support this because it's just legalized murder." If you define murder as "unlawful killing," by definition there's no such thing as legal murder, and you can't call, for example, an execution (or even, under the right circumstances, a genocide) murder. Even though it totally is from any sane standpoint.
"Any sane standpoint?" You're still applying a moral qualifier to murder. The definition of murder has nothing to do with morality. Anyone using the term "legalized murder" doesn't know the definition of murder. Hardly unheard of, but still incorrect. Hitler changed a law locally, that change was trumped by international law, enforced by invasion and occupation. There's no "problem" in the definition.
It is when it's a local law. Under US law an execution is not murder. The laws of most other Western nations, which have long since banned executions, would disagree. Which set of laws are correct? Answer? The one that doesn't define "murder" in such a recursive fashion.
The answer is "both are correct". The minutiae of the definition depends on where you live... and can be changed, quite retroactively, by outside forces. Why is that so hard? This has all been semantics over a legal term... one that seems to be evoking one hell of a crusader response in you.
Then you're arguing that "murder" has no English definition, on a legal one contingent on local laws. I'm not sorry to say most English speakers would disagree with that.
No, I'm not. The english definition of murder is "The unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human" unlawful is the word with the complex definition here.

If most English speakers really disagree with me, the definition needs to be changed to include a moral qualifier... but I truly don't believe that is the case. Most people will accept a dictionary definition when they look it up.

**edit** The crusade I was referring to is for a definition. Wrongful killing is wrong, yes... but it's not always murder. Nor is murder always wrong. Bad, wrong, wrongbad and badong are all subjective.
Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive. If they're defining it that way, the problem is in the dictionary, not the word. If you look in the talk section for the Wikipedia article you quoted at the start of this discussion, even /they/ were arguing about it. The definition they gave is one of those terrible definitions that often happen on Wikipedia because of the way their notability guidelines work.

Interestingly, that discussion page quotes English common law at one point, and the legal definition there doesn't actually say "unlawful killing," because whoever wrote it was smart enough to realize how dumb a recursive definition is. Instead it gives a description of murder as a homicide done on purpose and without a justifiable reason
Here's the text of it: 210.1 Criminal Homicide (1)A person is guitly of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another human being. (2)Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide 210.2 Murder (1)Except "a homicide...committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse," criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (a)it is committed purposely or knowingly; or (b)it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.
2.02.(2)(a)Purposely. A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:(i)if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such result; (b)Knowingly. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i)if the element involves the nature of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result; (c) Recklessly. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
. Seems to me that both the dictionary definition and the Wikipedia definition are a terrible (on a semantic level) way of trying to simplify a very explicit definition from English common law.
Huh. English common law, is it? That's deeper than I've researched it. Seems like the application of highly subjective ideals to something with an objective definition... but hell, who am I to argue with the origin of a word under a theocracy? If it originally had a moral component, you're right... and that leaves us with you calling soldiers murderers, drug dealers calling the cops murderers and vice-versa... and all of you being correct due to differences in morality. Seems like a shitty system for fostering understanding... which might explain a few things.
As I noted in my edit, I was actually mistaken in that the big block of text was from US law, while the definition of murder actually including the word "unlawful" was from a book of commentary on English common law written at some point in the 18th century. That definition is most likely a simplification originally meant to be used in the context of a more explicit law or set of laws, like the one I quoted above. The problem with English common law in particular is that it's not one nice big set of laws, it's more the entire body of English laws and their interpretations going back several centuries, so it's not always as nice and neat as you'd think it would be. Chances are Wikipedia and certain dictionaries have latched on to that "unlawful" thing because it's easier to find a source for a commentary on the presumably numerous laws that have been written on the subject over the centuries than it is to track them all down and interpret them yourself, especially if you happen to be a grammarian, and not a lawyer.

That's the nice thing about US law vs. English common law -- when the country was founded we took the common law as a basis for many things(most of the national laws have their roots there, and the only state whose government isn't based on it is Louisiana, which used the French Code Napoleon as a basis instead), but instead of just keeping that old body of laws that have to be sifted through and interpreted, we re-wrote them into a nice, neat, and new body of laws, where new laws on the same subject usually replace, rather than supplement the old ones. Even if the text of the old law is kept, it's understood to be amended to include the new text, and any contradictions will either be superseded by the new law (if the legislature is smart enough to catch it) or sorted out by the courts instead(A good example here is that violent videogame law from California that was struck down by the Supreme Court a while back. That law conflicted with the first amendment, and because the constitution takes precedence over state law, the California law was declared invalid. If you're from the US/otherwise already have an understanding of how this sort of thing works in the US, I apologize for over-explaining.). Things can get kind of hairy when you look at things that have different legal definitions in different states, but typically you have to worry about either the law of the state you live in, or the federal laws, with the other state laws only really mattering in the sense that something that starts in one state may spread to others or to Federal law over time, especially if it was prompted by a national movement that happened to have enough supporters in that one state to get something implemented there before it was feasible elsewhere.

P.S.: Full disclosure, I'm not a lawyer, but I am a social studies teacher, so while I don't know as much about the law as a lawyer would, I know more than the average person, and potentially as much or more about the broad historical and philosophical underpinnings than your average lawyer. I don't mean to give the impression from the authoritative way I've been speaking that I am, in fact, a lawyer.
Oh, no problem. I knew bits and pieces of that beforehand, but it's nice to read it all laid out like that.

Unfortunately, as usual when I learn something new about US law or the English law it's based on, I now have an even lower opinion of the rules forcibly governing my actions.

I see why you're so well-versed in these things now... full disclosure on me: displaced electronics worker (globalization is a *****) turned soldier turned armed guard... so this is just an idle hobby for me, one that helps vent rage.

We seem to have strayed quite far afield, eh? From a killer (murderer?) to an educator... good show, old boy.
 

Korolev

No Time Like the Present
Jul 4, 2008
1,853
0
0
Not really. I don't consider burials to be all that important. When I die, you can do whatever you like with my body. You can even scoop out my organs, fill my husk with candy, freeze me in liquid nitrogen and use my candy-filled shell as a pinata if you want. I don't care - I'm dead. The dead have no feelings... cause their dead.

Money should be spent on the living. Like poor people. You know, you could fund the creation of clean-water wells in Africa for that much money. You'd be saving lives, real, living people with families and emotions and feelings. Giving 250 to bury dead people when no body even knows who they are seems ridiculous. Tell me, will the corpse know it is buried? And if you think there is a soul in heaven looking down, what difference does it make if the shell of its former life is put in a fancy coffin or not? If I were dead and if I were in Heaven (provided Heaven even exists, which I have my doubts about), I wouldn't give a darn what happened to my useless corpse back on Earth.