7 ms·

Just because people died, doesn't mean we have to honor them and keep hold of what they caused. That's the logic of Christianity. Most soldiers don't really die

by Hondor 10y ago

Just because people died, doesn't mean we have to honor them and keep hold of what they caused. That's the logic of Christianity. Most soldiers don't really die for any noble purpose, they just fight other soldiers and eventually somebody wins. Nobody knows if the winner will end up good or bad, free or oppressive. It doesn't matter if people got themselves killed because they happened to choose the winning side in a historic war. Those soldiers certainly didn't know what the consequences were going to be. They just followed their naive emotions and/or threats of violence from their governments.

toss1 10y ago
Wow, you really think that Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? That our democracy, as flawed as it is, is not better than China's one-party, censorship, mobile execution vans? Why have you not moved there yet? Yes, there are are sometimes, even many senseless wars, but that does not mean that all are so. And it certainly does not mean that people who volunteered to fight that war, and those who paid the ultimate price and died in it, don't deserve some honor (and no, honoring them does not mean that we cannot question or adjust belief structures later). The ignorance expressed in your statement is so profound that it is truly frightening, and if many hold it, then our society will not last. Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance). Or if you don't want to learn history, just examine some current societies that don't have the trust and stability in which you were obviously raised and take for granted.
- JupiterMoon 10y ago
  > Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Russia and China were on the same side as the US and UK in the second world war. > Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance) OK... EDIT Not sure why this would be drive by down voted?
  - toss1 10y ago
    Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam). My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome. As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership. As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it. More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die. Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.
- dang 10y ago
  This comment breaks HN's civility rule by being unduly personal. Please edit that kind of thing out of comments here.

by Hondor 10y ago

toss1 10y ago

Wow, you really think that Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao? That our democracy, as flawed as it is, is not better than China's one-party, censorship, mobile execution vans? Why have you not moved there yet? Yes, there are are sometimes, even many senseless wars, but that does not mean that all are so. And it certainly does not mean that people who volunteered to fight that war, and those who paid the ultimate price and died in it, don't deserve some honor (and no, honoring them does not mean that we cannot question or adjust belief structures later). The ignorance expressed in your statement is so profound that it is truly frightening, and if many hold it, then our society will not last. Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance). Or if you don't want to learn history, just examine some current societies that don't have the trust and stability in which you were obviously raised and take for granted.

JupiterMoon 10y ago
> Roosevelt and Churchill and the societies and they lead were equivalent to those of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Russia and China were on the same side as the US and UK in the second world war. > Seriously, please learn some actual history (or at least don't spout the ignorance) OK... EDIT Not sure why this would be drive by down voted?
- toss1 10y ago
  Yes, Stalin and Mao were at least enemies-of-our-enemies in WWII; and immediately after they became our direct enemies in the cold war (in which people died directly and in proxy wars, e.g., Korea, Vietnam). My comment was not about one specific war, but about the general concept that some societies and ways of living are qualitatively and quantitatively better than others, and that people will willingly sign up to fight to preserve those societies, even knowing that being killed is a likely outcome. As a simple quantitative measure, Google "Dictator Death Tolls", and you'll find Hitler in third place variously counted at 17-30 million, Stalin in 2nd at 23-40 million and Mao topping the charts at 60-78 Million -- people killed by their leadership. As much as we complain about the inequities of our governments, every possible complaint utterly pales on contrast to those societies -- at least we can complain, or wear glasses, or be born into an unfavored family without being killed for it. More to the point, when threatened with living under one of those regimes instead of ours, many sane people would eagerly sign up to fight, with full knowledge that they could die. Signing up to fight for such a cause is considered noble far outside the bounds of Christianity cited by the GP, is the furthest thing possible from the "not knowing the consequences" and "following their naive emotions" cited by the GP, and the contempt with which the GP writes of those actions is simply wrong.
dang 10y ago
This comment breaks HN's civility rule by being unduly personal. Please edit that kind of thing out of comments here.