4 ms·

I wonder why you differentiate so much between the life of a civilian and a non-civilian. You imply that as soon as you decide to fight — be it righteous or not

by madez 9y ago

I wonder why you differentiate so much between the life of a civilian and a non-civilian. You imply that as soon as you decide to fight — be it righteous or not — you forfeit your life and it is okay to kill you. Isn't it equally bad if a civilian dies as to when someone who fights dies? The attitude behind these ideas stink of arrogant bigotry. It reeks of the shit you get from the abrahamistic relevation-based religions.

Filligree 9y ago
Never mind the religion. This attitude--differentiating based on civilian-ness--is useful. Spreading it allows wars to do less damage, because if fewer civilians die then repairing the economy is easier afterwards. This leads to a host of good consequences, most importantly that it reduces the chance of renewed war later on. Soldiers' lives aren't as important, in that sense. Sorry, but they're not. And soldiers are going to die no matter what; the cultural innovation here isn't treating soldiers' lives as worth little, it's treating civilians as highly valuable. Some of which has later spread to the soldiers as well...
- madez 9y ago
  > This attitude--differentiating based on civilian-ness--is useful. I disagree. War must be deadly and costly for both sides. Human intercation is heavily based on deterrents. One can see that in interactions in small and big groups. Taking away the deadliness and cost of war will make it happen more often. Besides the obvious example, there is peace in europe for so long only because the war before has been so costly and deadly. A power in the world that can wage military conflicts without significant loss in their rows is a disaster for the world.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    What of a power that treats its enemy's scruples over civilian casualties as a vulnerability to be exploited?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - ifdefdebug 9y ago
    > there is peace in europe for so long only because the war before has been so costly and deadly That's a bold statement and not supported by any evidence. Look at the Yugoslav wars. One of the most brutalized regions in WWII, and nobody gave a shit when it was about starting a new war some decades later.
mrkrab 9y ago
>You imply that as soon as you decide to fight — be it righteous or not — you forfeit your life and it is okay to kill you. Of course it is. If you choose to fight in a war, you forfeit your life. That's how wars work. You only win a battle by decimating your enemy. How is this bigotry? Also, you believe your cause to be righteous, and so does your enemy. You both believe your cause to be so righteous, and your enemy to be so menacing to your cause, that you both have decided to go to arms over it. On the other hand a civilian is a civilian. He didn't choose war, so he doesn't deserve to have his life taken away by a conflict he has no interest in.
- madez 9y ago
  > You only win a battle by decimating your enemy. You are wrong. You may decide to fight but not want to be killed nor kill anybody, but just want the war to stop. Most battles ended without decimating any side, and they can even end without much confrontation at all.
ifdefdebug 9y ago
> as soon as you decide to fight — be it righteous or not — you forfeit your life and it is okay to kill you It's more like: as soon as you decide to fight, you willingly seek situations in which you might get killed by those who fight back. It's your choice. As a civilian, you try to avoid those situations. So yes, there is a difference, and it has nothing to do with religion, but with choice.
- madez 9y ago
  If you decide to fight, it might be because you are fighting back.
  - ifdefdebug 9y ago
    That does not change my argument.
    - madez 9y ago
      Just because you are accepting the risk of getting killed does not mean it is okay to kill you. That would be a ridiculous point of view.

by madez 9y ago

Filligree 9y ago

Never mind the religion. This attitude--differentiating based on civilian-ness--is useful. Spreading it allows wars to do less damage, because if fewer civilians die then repairing the economy is easier afterwards. This leads to a host of good consequences, most importantly that it reduces the chance of renewed war later on. Soldiers' lives aren't as important, in that sense. Sorry, but they're not. And soldiers are going to die no matter what; the cultural innovation here isn't treating soldiers' lives as worth little, it's treating civilians as highly valuable. Some of which has later spread to the soldiers as well...

madez 9y ago
> This attitude--differentiating based on civilian-ness--is useful. I disagree. War must be deadly and costly for both sides. Human intercation is heavily based on deterrents. One can see that in interactions in small and big groups. Taking away the deadliness and cost of war will make it happen more often. Besides the obvious example, there is peace in europe for so long only because the war before has been so costly and deadly. A power in the world that can wage military conflicts without significant loss in their rows is a disaster for the world.
- throwanem 9y ago
  What of a power that treats its enemy's scruples over civilian casualties as a vulnerability to be exploited?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- ifdefdebug 9y ago
  > there is peace in europe for so long only because the war before has been so costly and deadly That's a bold statement and not supported by any evidence. Look at the Yugoslav wars. One of the most brutalized regions in WWII, and nobody gave a shit when it was about starting a new war some decades later.

mrkrab 9y ago

>You imply that as soon as you decide to fight — be it righteous or not — you forfeit your life and it is okay to kill you. Of course it is. If you choose to fight in a war, you forfeit your life. That's how wars work. You only win a battle by decimating your enemy. How is this bigotry? Also, you believe your cause to be righteous, and so does your enemy. You both believe your cause to be so righteous, and your enemy to be so menacing to your cause, that you both have decided to go to arms over it. On the other hand a civilian is a civilian. He didn't choose war, so he doesn't deserve to have his life taken away by a conflict he has no interest in.

madez 9y ago
> You only win a battle by decimating your enemy. You are wrong. You may decide to fight but not want to be killed nor kill anybody, but just want the war to stop. Most battles ended without decimating any side, and they can even end without much confrontation at all.

ifdefdebug 9y ago

> as soon as you decide to fight — be it righteous or not — you forfeit your life and it is okay to kill you It's more like: as soon as you decide to fight, you willingly seek situations in which you might get killed by those who fight back. It's your choice. As a civilian, you try to avoid those situations. So yes, there is a difference, and it has nothing to do with religion, but with choice.

madez 9y ago
If you decide to fight, it might be because you are fighting back.
- ifdefdebug 9y ago
  That does not change my argument.
  - madez 9y ago
    Just because you are accepting the risk of getting killed does not mean it is okay to kill you. That would be a ridiculous point of view.