Are soldiers murderers?

[Dywyddyr]

I didn't say anything like that...

No?
My mistake...

Soldiers are hired guns, they kill for somebody else (decision makers, politicians). They do it for money

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2386878&postcount=64

Plus Mike47's comment:

They have no morals, no conscience and they have never known the word justice . Yes they are there for money and benefits .

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2387569&postcount=86

I also didn't scrutinize any of these.

So what?
It doesn't make them any less true.

I still say soldiers are hired guns, even if they are storemen, medics or communication officers.

Wrong again (except for drill purposes).

even if individual soldiers had never killed anybody, the organisation they are actively working is specifically designed for killing (or exterminating) the enemy.

Ah so now we're getting to the organisation rather than the individual.
And it's a fallacy that they are specifically designed for killing: the purpose of an army (or air force or navy) is to impose a national will. If it can be done without killing so much the better.

This is a completely different feature comparing with a civilian storemen, medics or communication officers.

Strawman again.
Civilians != soldiers.

 

[Randwolf]

And all of them are supporting the main function of the soldier, to kill the enemy. The medic is there to ensure the soldier is kept alive, the truck driver to transport his food and equipment, the storeman for provisions, the intelligence analyst to aid in strategy

Note that if you eliminated all of these, it would make the job of the soldier harder, but he could still carry on. If you eliminated the soldier himself, none of them would even be required.

The problem with your latest post here SAM, considering you usually you say stuff that has some sense to it, is the obvious and self-evident irony. that I'm not sure it requires comment.

How about we eliminate all the non-combatant citizens? Then we could disband the soldiers, including the cooks and the snipers, and simply surrender. Then "none of them would even be required", including those protecting your neck.

Please take a number tab from this machine, so we can keep track of the demand on the execution machines... Thank you...
Please take a number tab from this machine, so we can keep track of the demand on the execution machines... Thank you...
Please take a number tab from this machine, so we can keep track of the demand on the execution machines... Thank you...

Remember, soldiers work on behalf of the citizens... Don't ever forget that, SAM I AM!!!!

 

[Search & Destroy]

What makes you think you have a right to water, food, and shelter? Who said this? What happens if you don't get them? Nothing, huh?



When you become an armed henchman with 'a license to kill' at the behest of an oligarchy so deceitful and corrupt that it's a tired punchline, why should you expect anything but derision from other people?

You asked me "what makes me think I have the right to..." Hmm I'm not sure, but judging how every animal in the animal kingdom has a strong will to survive, I would bet it comes from my genes.

Why are you asking me "who said this" I said it. I am saying it right now, and everything I say henceforth will be said be me.

If I don't get my basic rights, and I think I am being treated unjustly, perhaps I will fight. Perhaps I won't. It depends on many things. Why would you assume I would do nothing? You should assume something is just as valid a case. Why would you try and predict the future? Even I can't tell you exactly how I might react in a high-pressure situation.

I'm not a machine, I am very much human. Humans are not usually logical, ethically consistent, or do they have the capacity to predict the future... in my opinion. BTW if you don't have any food or water I encourage you to steal it from me (just not too much).

 

[Zap]

You may have self-interest to get food and water, and a desire to do so, and an opportunity to do so - but what makes this a 'right', exactly?

 

[Search & Destroy]

You may have self-interest to get food and water, and a desire to do so, and an opportunity to do so - but what makes this a 'right', exactly?

where else would it come from? It comes from my head, my genes, and from natural selection.

What makes it right? Because I say so.

As long as what you say is right is similar enough to what I say is right, we can be friends.

If what you think is right, is very different to what I think is right, perhaps I will not be your friend.

And if you violate certain thresholds of wrongness, I will send in the troops.

 

[Zap]

where else would it come from? It comes from my head, my genes, and from natural selection.

What makes it right? Because I say so.

As long as what you say is right is similar enough to what I say is right, we can be friends.

If what you think is right, is very different to what I think is right, perhaps I will not be your friend.

And if you violate certain thresholds of wrongness, I will send in the troops.

Might makes right, then, huh? So you're a nihilist - which is what I've been saying all along.

 

[Search & Destroy]

And to be more clear about where rights come from

They are all in my brain, let's be clear about that.

And my brain may hear opinions from Governments, Friends, Family, be biased from Genes, and teachers, and my own personal narrative. I would say these writers collaborate to create 6 billion Books of Rights.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Unfortunately we are both humans, so we are in the same boat.

I can point to my brain and say "Hey my rights are here!"

Where do you point?

 

[Search & Destroy]

Might makes right, then, huh? So you're a nihilist - which is what I've been saying all along.

Is it possible a nihilist could be one of the most moral people in the world?

 

[Zap]

I don't claim to have any rights. I have self-interests, desires, and opportunities. I have never seen any reason to believe that anyone has or ever has had anything more than this. Rights are nothing more than opinions, like the divinity of Jesus. If you can trick, persuade, or coerce others into a belief that you have certain 'rights', more power to you. But it doesn't make them real in any objective sense. Nature, certainly, will never believe them.

You're a vegan?

 

[Search & Destroy]

I don't claim to have any rights. I have self-interests, desires, and opportunities. I have never seen any reason to believe that anyone has or ever has had anything more than this. Rights are nothing more than opinions, like the divinity of Jesus. If you can trick, persuade, or coerce others into a belief that you have certain 'rights', more power to you. But it doesn't make them real in any objective sense.

You're a vegan?

Well as usual there seems to be a confusion over words. For rights can be nothing more than self-interest, desires, and opportunities as you put it.

As I have made clear, I don't believe in an objective moral code.

No I'm not a vegan but I do sometimes feel disgusted eating it and try to stay away. In China though even eggs and lettuce are drenched in meat sauce. I have no problem eating insects though, I just see no reason to kill them otherwise.

 

[Zap]

Is it possible a nihilist could be one of the most moral people in the world?

Morality is relative and subjective, so it certainly is possible that to a particular person or persons, a given nihilist might be 'the most moral'. But not in any objective sense, since there is no objective morality.

 

[S.A.M.]

Remember, soldiers work on behalf of the citizens... Don't ever forget that, SAM I AM!!!!

Really? Give me an example of a current war where soldiers are fighting on behalf of their citizens and not as murderous oppressors who are making the future more unsafe for their own citizens.

 

[TSchmee]

I will ask it again - read it very slowly so you will understand it this time (or have a better chance to): WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE CLAIMS IN IT ARE TRUE?

RHETORICAL PLAUSIBLITY |= PATENT VERACITY



In what sense does a prisoner give 'tacit approval' to his jailer, if he is unable to escape? You win the Gold Medal in the Special Olympics with this one.



What if some of the 'governed' object? Like half? Tough luck? Why should 100% of the governed have to submit to the will of 35% of the people (a majority of those of voting age - presuming everyone votes, which is never the case).



You have failed to respond to my example of the My Lai massacre, the 500 unarmed civilians who were massacred by 26 US troops, and how the only penalty the Americans received was given to the commander only, who got three years of house arrest. What penalty would you, as a civilian receive for butchering 500 people?



The US commits atrocities all the time, and no one puts a stop to it. Not to African slavery, not to the genocide of the natives, not to the imperialistic interference in Cuba or central America, not to the merciless dictators the US has installed over the world quite regularly for the past fifty years, not to the massacre of Nicaraguans in the 1980s, not to the million children killed in the illegal food embargoes of Iraq during the 1990s, not to the illegal Iraqi war, and not to the maintenance of more than 700 US military installations in more than a hundred countries around the world. There were and are members of the 'governed' who vigorously protested and do protest all of these things, to no avail.



Again, says who? If a planet-killing comet is hurdling towards Earth, and you don't stop it, is it safe to say you 'approve' of that comet's actions? God, what a fucking idiot.

I'm now going to give you some very careful and precise instructions:
1) Find the sharpest knife you can.
2) Undress.
3) Locate your genitalia.
4) Use the knife to slice or saw off said genitalia.
5) Use authorised biohazard bag to safely dispose of genitalia.
6) Get a mirror, two pieces of paper, and a marker.
7) Write the word 'moron' on one of those pieces of paper.
8) Reflect the writing in the mirror, and copy the mirrored word it exactly as it appears onto the other sheet of paper.
9) Hold the mirror up so that you can view your own forehead.
10) Using the knife, carve into your forehead the mirrored word just as it appears on the second sheet of paper.
11) Find your voter registration card, if you have one.
12) Set it on fire, and use the flame to cauterise the wounds.

Reported.

These kinds of comments are better suited to 4chan than sciforums. I came here looking for intelligent discussion, not ad hominem attacks.

Now, to answer the actual points in your post:

I use the Declaration of Independence because it was used as the basis upon which a few colonies broke off from the most powerful nation in the 18th century to become a world superpower within 150 years. I use it because historically, it has been shown to work, and work well.

Some of your other posts have shown that you are convinced there is no objective truth or morality. I do not understand then how you can say that I am so completely wrong. If you are arguing that there is only subjectivity, then objectively stating that I am incorrect, where does that leave us?

A prisoner's first responsibility is regaining his freedom. Whether that is by good behavior followed by early release, or by escape, is up to the prisoner. If prisoners did not have that desire, then jails would not need bars.

The My Lai massacre was committed by soldiers who were also murderers. This in no way shows that all soldiers are murderers. And no, they did not receive the proper punishment for their crimes.

If the governed disagree with their government, then they should do something about it. Protesting the trade embargo with Cuba, then going home to your suburban house and eating your supermarket dinner while watching your American-made cable news show is not enough. There are plenty of methods for getting redress of your grievances, but the sacrifice required to go through with it are far too much for most people.

Again, would I 'approve' of a comet hurtling towards the earth? No. Is a comet flying through space responsible to the people it is influencing? No. These are two completely different issues.

 

[TSchmee]

Really? Give me an example of a current war where soldiers are fighting on behalf of their citizens and not as murderous oppressors who are making the future more unsafe for their own citizens.

The citizens of the US demanded revenge for the 9/11 attacks. The government said "ok, here is where the attackers came from," and proceeded to order the military to attack Afghanistan.

Is revenge right? No, but that is not the discussion we are having in this thread. The US military is in Afghanistan because the American people wanted them there. Therefore, the military is acting on behalf of the people.

 

[Zap]

Reported.

Pop goes the weasel.

These kinds of comments are better suited to 4chan than sciforums. I came here looking for intelligent discussion, not ad hominem attacks

Ad hominem attacks can be intelligent, too. And at least as relevant to this discussion as anything you have written here.

I use the Declaration of Independence because it was used as the basis upon which a few colonies broke off from the most powerful nation in the 18th century to become a world superpower within 150 years. I use it because historically, it has been shown to work, and work well.

Work for what?

Some of your other posts have shown that you are convinced there is no objective truth or morality.

Objective truth, yes. Objective morality, no.

I do not understand then how you can say that I am so completely wrong. If you are arguing that there is only subjectivity, then objectively stating that I am incorrect, where does that leave us?

With you still wrong, and tedious.

A prisoner's first responsibility is regaining his freedom. Whether that is by good behavior followed by early release, or by escape, is up to the prisoner. If prisoners did not have that desire, then jails would not need bars.

If you were jailed right now for a crime you didn't commit, would you think you deserved it since you couldn't escape?

The My Lai massacre was committed by soldiers who were also murderers. This in no way shows that all soldiers are murderers. And no, they did not receive the proper punishment for their crimes.

What would have been the proper punishment?

If the governed disagree with their government, then they should do something about it. Protesting the trade embargo with Cuba, then going home to your suburban house and eating your supermarket dinner while watching your American-made cable news show is not enough. There are plenty of methods for getting redress of your grievances, but the sacrifice required to go through with it are far too much for most people.

So you are publicly advocating overthrow of the government?

Again, would I 'approve' of a comet hurtling towards the earth? No. Is a comet flying through space responsible to the people it is influencing? No. These are two completely different issues.

Why wouldn't you be responsible? According to your logic, if you are unable or unwilling to stop the comet, then you have given tacit approval to its shenanigans.

 

[mike47]

The problem with your latest post here SAM, considering you usually you say stuff that has some sense to it, is the obvious and self-evident irony. that I'm not sure it requires comment.

How about we eliminate all the non-combatant citizens? Then we could disband the soldiers, including the cooks and the snipers, and simply surrender. Then "none of them would even be required", including those protecting your neck.

Please take a number tab from this machine, so we can keep track of the demand on the execution machines... Thank you...
Please take a number tab from this machine, so we can keep track of the demand on the execution machines... Thank you...
Please take a number tab from this machine, so we can keep track of the demand on the execution machines... Thank you...

Remember, soldiers work on behalf of the citizens... Don't ever forget that, SAM I AM!!!!

Soldiers do not work on behalf of the citizens because they work for their own pockets and they take orders from their bosses the politicians .
Just like dogs in an iron leash .
:shrug::shrug:

 

[flameofanor5]

If killing is wrong, then are soldiers murderers?

Killing is not wrong, murder is. They are two different things. If you come at me with a knife and I shoot you, that would me killing. If I kill you out of anger, or something like that, it is murder. Some soldiers are in fact murderers, but not all.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Soldiers do not work on behalf of the citizens because they work for their own pockets and they take orders from their bosses the politicians .
Just like dogs in an iron leash .
:shrug::shrug:

hmmm like "dogs in an iron leash?" I prefer like "humans in the military"... it's more accurate.

Face it, it's impossible for each individual soldier to survey each individual American. So there are governing bodies that make this possible.

 

[Zap]

Killing is not wrong, murder is. They are two different things. If you come at me with a knife and I shoot you, that would me killing. If I kill you out of anger, or something like that, it is murder. Some soldiers are in fact murderers, but not all.

Why is your life more important than that of the attacker? If everyone is equal, shouldn't you kill each other instead - if you can't both manage to walk away in peace?