Are soldiers murderers?

No?
My mistake...

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

Plus Mike47's comment:

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

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

Wrong again (except for drill purposes).

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.

Strawman again.
Civilians != soldiers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Pop goes the weasel.

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

Work for what?

Objective truth, yes. Objective morality, no.

With you still wrong, and tedious.

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

What would have been the proper punishment?

So you are publicly advocating overthrow of the government?

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.

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?