5 ms·

One could argue the qualities of a soldier or officer (individuals) transcend their organisational context (groups) and time. In other words: politics, technolo

by zdkl 6y ago

One could argue the qualities of a soldier or officer (individuals) transcend their organisational context (groups) and time. In other words: politics, technology or best practices change, not the responsabilities. The ability (necessity, even) to adapt to that fact defines a fit-for-service soldier/officer. So, I contend you find remarkable soldiers even in terrible groups, and that they (individuals) should not be judged on their group but on their own qualities of service. Whether you find those parameters noble is entirely subjective and not mine to question but I do believe anyone who sincerely understands and accepts these obligations deserves respect, as an individual.

bayindirh 6y ago
Thanks for clarifying. This is exactly what I was trying to compose in my mind as an answer, but unable to do so.
watwut 6y ago
> So, I contend you find remarkable soldiers even in terrible groups, and that they (individuals) should not be judged on their group but on their own qualities of service. So, we should praise ISIS fighters? I am intentionally picking up example of extreme, but very real organization. Same question can be asked about SS members. They knew what they joined. Does them doing good job in that organization is really praise worthy? The better quality their service was, the more victims they have.
- bayindirh 6y ago
  > So, we should praise ISIS fighters? You're distorting it. I was trying to point out that, they have to deform themselves to somewhat non-human states. It's not valid only for servicemen. Firefighters are same. Police are same. Long haul truckers, cargo ship crew are same. I think everybody making sacrifices for doing what they find worthy are eligible for some respect. They accept to deform themselves to do something they find value in. Do not add ethnicity, politics, geography, race into this. It's about being human, and other parts are neither part of my comment nor has place in this specific thread.
  - watwut 6y ago
    I am not distorting. I am using unambiguous example of what I have in mind. > soldiers even in terrible groups, and that they (individuals) should not be judged on their group but on their own qualities of service. Unless you was forced into that group, which was not case of SS but in some cases could be ISIS, you know what you were joining. I don't think sacrifice itself is worth respect, if the goal of that sacrifice is destructive and wrong. If you sacrifice yourself in service of group that does genocide or tortures to get power and so on, you did genocide and tortured people so that your group have power. The ideology of "sacrifice is worth respect no matter what" empowers exactly these groups first. Believing this makes people more likely to join these. The victims, especially those who stood against that group should be celebrated. Those who said "no" deserve respect. Those who were avoiding still deserve more respect.
    - bayindirh 6y ago
      > I don't think sacrifice itself is worth respect, if the goal of that sacrifice is destructive and wrong. Wrong is a subjective term and relative to viewing point. This is exactly what I'm avoiding here. I'm not discussing whether it's right or wrong from one particular perspective. Moreover, I'm trying to direct discussion away from war and other sensitive matters with all the power I have with my words, but you want to fixate the subject to ISIS and other terrorist organizations, that's fine. As a citizen of a country which has to defend against terrorism in point-blank distances, I understand you, but forcing the subject to this perspective is not correct, at least in this context. Especially me, as the OP, trying to clarify it further. My family is a victim of a genocide, but world won't acknowledge it. With your reasoning my family was on the wrong side, in a war which they weren't actively participating and was not killing anyone. When a TV channel renames the people killing our citizens, they become heroes. They become right and we become wrong. Hah. So, don't pull this into politics, war, genocides and other stuff. That tar pit is not a part of this conversation. It shouldn't be. Leave it here. End of this slope is not pretty.
      - watwut 6y ago
        I intentionally uses also example of SS which was state army. ISIS see themselves as army for state too. For that matter, genocide in China and Rwanda were all helped by regular armies. It is simply not true that all armies would primary defend. You make the "state run army therefore good" implication, not me. You are not leaving politics out when you claim that sacrifice of joining army is always wortht of respect. It is very political statement that prevents criticism of armies and empowers abusers in uniform. What you are doing is trying to divorce consequences of joining those organizations and paint their members in unfairly good lights. Sacrifice is also subjective. Some of those people like the organizations they are in.

by zdkl 6y ago

bayindirh 6y ago

Thanks for clarifying. This is exactly what I was trying to compose in my mind as an answer, but unable to do so.

watwut 6y ago

> So, I contend you find remarkable soldiers even in terrible groups, and that they (individuals) should not be judged on their group but on their own qualities of service. So, we should praise ISIS fighters? I am intentionally picking up example of extreme, but very real organization. Same question can be asked about SS members. They knew what they joined. Does them doing good job in that organization is really praise worthy? The better quality their service was, the more victims they have.

bayindirh 6y ago
> So, we should praise ISIS fighters? You're distorting it. I was trying to point out that, they have to deform themselves to somewhat non-human states. It's not valid only for servicemen. Firefighters are same. Police are same. Long haul truckers, cargo ship crew are same. I think everybody making sacrifices for doing what they find worthy are eligible for some respect. They accept to deform themselves to do something they find value in. Do not add ethnicity, politics, geography, race into this. It's about being human, and other parts are neither part of my comment nor has place in this specific thread.
- watwut 6y ago
  I am not distorting. I am using unambiguous example of what I have in mind. > soldiers even in terrible groups, and that they (individuals) should not be judged on their group but on their own qualities of service. Unless you was forced into that group, which was not case of SS but in some cases could be ISIS, you know what you were joining. I don't think sacrifice itself is worth respect, if the goal of that sacrifice is destructive and wrong. If you sacrifice yourself in service of group that does genocide or tortures to get power and so on, you did genocide and tortured people so that your group have power. The ideology of "sacrifice is worth respect no matter what" empowers exactly these groups first. Believing this makes people more likely to join these. The victims, especially those who stood against that group should be celebrated. Those who said "no" deserve respect. Those who were avoiding still deserve more respect.
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    > I don't think sacrifice itself is worth respect, if the goal of that sacrifice is destructive and wrong. Wrong is a subjective term and relative to viewing point. This is exactly what I'm avoiding here. I'm not discussing whether it's right or wrong from one particular perspective. Moreover, I'm trying to direct discussion away from war and other sensitive matters with all the power I have with my words, but you want to fixate the subject to ISIS and other terrorist organizations, that's fine. As a citizen of a country which has to defend against terrorism in point-blank distances, I understand you, but forcing the subject to this perspective is not correct, at least in this context. Especially me, as the OP, trying to clarify it further. My family is a victim of a genocide, but world won't acknowledge it. With your reasoning my family was on the wrong side, in a war which they weren't actively participating and was not killing anyone. When a TV channel renames the people killing our citizens, they become heroes. They become right and we become wrong. Hah. So, don't pull this into politics, war, genocides and other stuff. That tar pit is not a part of this conversation. It shouldn't be. Leave it here. End of this slope is not pretty.
    - watwut 6y ago
      I intentionally uses also example of SS which was state army. ISIS see themselves as army for state too. For that matter, genocide in China and Rwanda were all helped by regular armies. It is simply not true that all armies would primary defend. You make the "state run army therefore good" implication, not me. You are not leaving politics out when you claim that sacrifice of joining army is always wortht of respect. It is very political statement that prevents criticism of armies and empowers abusers in uniform. What you are doing is trying to divorce consequences of joining those organizations and paint their members in unfairly good lights. Sacrifice is also subjective. Some of those people like the organizations they are in.