3 ms·

> the assumption that the United States is the only country [...] Do you see the part of the earlier message where I said "literally every war in every country

> the assumption that the United States is the only country [...] Do you see the part of the earlier message where I said "literally every war in every country?" No? Maybe because I didn't write that... > That's not the best line of argument I've come across. You need to read the entirety of my messages and not add anything of your own, otherwise you're just arguing with yourself. > people called up to the military can easily avoid the trauma of being shot at and having to take other human lives by.... buying a gun and starting a firefight. Sigh, no. Where did I say easily? It's your responsibility to not be forced into murdering innocents. If you can more-easily leave the country, great. If not, even jail is better than killing people, but if all else fails - it's better to shoot the people conscripting you than be forced to kill innocents. > probably don't feel better for shooting back Who said it was enjoyable? But the conscripts still have more agency than the civilians they're firing at.

notahacker 11y ago
I'm still struggling to see where your obtuse fixation on the idea that conscripts are obliged to murder the people conscripting them in order to avoid a hypothetical future scenario in which they might be ordered to kill civilians actually counters my original argument that civilians generally don't suffer more in war zones than troops. I mean, if I was going to try to refute that argument I'd probably say something like "except when there's a food shortage and the soldiers have all the requisitioning power" rather than branching into obtuse lines of argument about last resort responsibility to shoot recruiting sergeants. Sorry, but taking out the word "easily" doesn't make the argument that prospective conscripts have more agency to avoid the unpleasantness of potentially having to shoot people because they can buy a civilian firearm (unlike civilians?!) and fire first any less silly. And no, soldiers generally ordered to follow a particular course of action on pain of death generally don't have more agency than civilians who generally aren't under such orders. In particular, civilians are far more likely to be allowed to permanently leave the war zone(s) at any given time than soldiers, and far less likely to be intentionally fired at.
- EdHominem 11y ago
  > your obtuse fixation Uh huh. You're the one trying to go down a rathole. The point is soldiers have it better than the civilians because they have more choice, more is always better even if it isn't great. > conscripts are obliged to murder the people conscripting them in order to avoid You see, this is you moving the goalposts. This is merely one of the choices, the extreme one. And it's not as much an obligation as a right. Slavers are morally abhorrent and conscripts are slaves. Slaves always have a right to escape and no number of slaver deaths is ever a bad thing. The obligation comes in when they're actually given the illegal orders as nothing forgives the crimes they commit. Ultimately all responsibility for their actions is theirs. > hypothetical future scenario in which they might be ordered to kill civilians In the Vietnam example that wasn't hypothetical - it was evening news. And the war was started on false information from our own government so it wasn't legitimate even if the targets were military. > Sorry, but taking out the word "easily" You aren't sorry, the whole "easily" was your invention in the first place. > doesn't make the argument that prospective conscripts have more agency Actually, it does. In the American wars where we've drafted people the draftees have always had considerable rights (travel, etc) before actually being inducted. And certainly more than the Vietnamese - even taking wealth into account. > can buy a civilian firearm (unlike civilians [in the victim country]?!) Had Americans taken up arms to stop the war it would have stopped without going to Vietnam, or would have come home quickly. If Vietnamese had taken up arms ... we'd have burned their entire village to the ground anyways. Our conscripts have more agency. > any less silly. Or any less right. > And no, soldiers generally ordered to follow a particular course of action on pain of death At worst they're holding a gun. They can take their officer out - the one ordering the illegal actions, rather than performing the illegal actions. And they usually have a lot of advance warning before being inducted, let alone shot at. Time to flee, or shoot themselves in the foot, or just protest and go to jail, or - yes - to fight back at home rather than abroad. But if you force the discussion to the ridiculous point where they're already on the battlefield, being ordered to fire into a village, before they consider any of this, then yes they're morally required to go to ridiculously painful lengths to avoid killing. If someone kidnaps you and orders you to kill someone else, or he'll kill you, you're still morally and legally culpable if you pull the trigger. Why do you think soldiers shouldn't be held to the same standard?

notahacker 11y ago

I'm still struggling to see where your obtuse fixation on the idea that conscripts are obliged to murder the people conscripting them in order to avoid a hypothetical future scenario in which they might be ordered to kill civilians actually counters my original argument that civilians generally don't suffer more in war zones than troops. I mean, if I was going to try to refute that argument I'd probably say something like "except when there's a food shortage and the soldiers have all the requisitioning power" rather than branching into obtuse lines of argument about last resort responsibility to shoot recruiting sergeants. Sorry, but taking out the word "easily" doesn't make the argument that prospective conscripts have more agency to avoid the unpleasantness of potentially having to shoot people because they can buy a civilian firearm (unlike civilians?!) and fire first any less silly. And no, soldiers generally ordered to follow a particular course of action on pain of death generally don't have more agency than civilians who generally aren't under such orders. In particular, civilians are far more likely to be allowed to permanently leave the war zone(s) at any given time than soldiers, and far less likely to be intentionally fired at.

EdHominem 11y ago
> your obtuse fixation Uh huh. You're the one trying to go down a rathole. The point is soldiers have it better than the civilians because they have more choice, more is always better even if it isn't great. > conscripts are obliged to murder the people conscripting them in order to avoid You see, this is you moving the goalposts. This is merely one of the choices, the extreme one. And it's not as much an obligation as a right. Slavers are morally abhorrent and conscripts are slaves. Slaves always have a right to escape and no number of slaver deaths is ever a bad thing. The obligation comes in when they're actually given the illegal orders as nothing forgives the crimes they commit. Ultimately all responsibility for their actions is theirs. > hypothetical future scenario in which they might be ordered to kill civilians In the Vietnam example that wasn't hypothetical - it was evening news. And the war was started on false information from our own government so it wasn't legitimate even if the targets were military. > Sorry, but taking out the word "easily" You aren't sorry, the whole "easily" was your invention in the first place. > doesn't make the argument that prospective conscripts have more agency Actually, it does. In the American wars where we've drafted people the draftees have always had considerable rights (travel, etc) before actually being inducted. And certainly more than the Vietnamese - even taking wealth into account. > can buy a civilian firearm (unlike civilians [in the victim country]?!) Had Americans taken up arms to stop the war it would have stopped without going to Vietnam, or would have come home quickly. If Vietnamese had taken up arms ... we'd have burned their entire village to the ground anyways. Our conscripts have more agency. > any less silly. Or any less right. > And no, soldiers generally ordered to follow a particular course of action on pain of death At worst they're holding a gun. They can take their officer out - the one ordering the illegal actions, rather than performing the illegal actions. And they usually have a lot of advance warning before being inducted, let alone shot at. Time to flee, or shoot themselves in the foot, or just protest and go to jail, or - yes - to fight back at home rather than abroad. But if you force the discussion to the ridiculous point where they're already on the battlefield, being ordered to fire into a village, before they consider any of this, then yes they're morally required to go to ridiculously painful lengths to avoid killing. If someone kidnaps you and orders you to kill someone else, or he'll kill you, you're still morally and legally culpable if you pull the trigger. Why do you think soldiers shouldn't be held to the same standard?