Hating the army is like being mad at the fire that burned your house down, with the help of a little gasoline
Or, you know, a hired radio repairman. That's what I was attempting to go in as when I enlisted. Didn't work out, as i couldn't handle the stress of boot camp, but a hired killer, I was not.3aqua said:When you sign up to become a soldier you agree to surrender your judgement to the government. You are no longer allowed to make moral decisions and you essentially become a hired killer of the state.
Took the words out of my mouth. Especially the last sentence. I mean, I could pull up a Cracked article as evidence that 911 operators are uncaring bastards with a poor sense of judgement. Proof! [http://www.cracked.com/article_17150_5-horrifying-tales-911-incompetence.html]generals3 said:I'm confused to how someone could dislike the Army. The Army is nothing more than a political tool to do what is most likely the dirtiest job ever. You should be happy it exists and you don't have to do what they do.
Sure some folks in the army do bad things and fuck it up, but it happens in any profession. Unfortunately due to the nature of a soldier's job when he fucks up it usually is a big fuck up.
But that would entirely defeat the purpose of an army. There is a difference between a soldier and a (wom)man with a gun. A (wom)man with a gun can make moral judgements and therefor take full responsibility for (her)his actions while a soldier cannot. A soldier should only be held accountable for decisions (s)he makes on his own (like going on a murdering spree for fun, disobeying orders, etc.).Mortai Gravesend said:People who let themselves be used as tools should be judged for what they are used for if they were sufficiently knowledgeable. Can't really cede responsibility.generals3 said:I'm confused to how someone could dislike the Army. The Army is nothing more than a political tool to do what is most likely the dirtiest job ever. You should be happy it exists and you don't have to do what they do.
But there lies the issue if you ask me. How can you hold someone who lost any ability to make his own judgement responsible for his acts?Mortai Gravesend said:It doesn't defeat the purpose of the army unless perhaps you misunderstood me. I am saying that they cannot cede moral responsibility. They do lose much ability to make their own judgements, but I hold they are still fully responsible for what they do morally. Why? Because they agreed to follow orders.generals3 said:But that would entirely defeat the purpose of an army. There is a difference between a soldier and a (wom)man with a gun. A (wom)man with a gun can make moral judgements and therefor take full responsibility for (her)his actions while a soldier cannot. A soldier should only be held accountable for decisions (s)he makes on his own (like going on a murdering spree for fun, disobeying orders, etc.).
It's the same as cops actually. A cop has to uphold the law regardless of how f*cked up the law is. He's also a political tool just like a soldier.
And sure the cop has to uphold the law regardless, that does not mean he isn't responsible for it because he signed up for a job where he had to uphold the law regardless. It's pretty much impossible to give up responsibility because in trying to do so you are responsible for accepting another's orders making you responsible nonetheless.
You think that getting rid of the police force would set us back to before the paleolithic period? You think that dissolving an institution which only came to be considered desirable within the last few hundred years would cause human civilisation to regress 150 000 years?sibrenfetter said:What you are saying here is that you would prefer a country without any laws. Because, if you have laws you need law keepers, which is per definition what cops are.How would you see such a country? Nothing of your comfortable life would be possible as all would be about pure survival regardless of the costs to others. That is no world I would want to live in. Technically speaking, that would be pre-stoneage and even then it can be argued groups had certain rules and laws (like not killing each other).manic_depressive13 said:There is no point in being a cop
Soldiers aren't taught that, it is not effective militarily and leads to a greater chance of atrocities, which, shock and horror, the military does not actually want.Amethyst Wind said:I don't agree with the idea of being conditioned to obey without question. I think it teaches diminished responsibility.