3 ms·

It's hard to know what to make of an article like this because of the lack of context. Killing the kids of your enemy is bad, but was happening long before huma

It's hard to know what to make of an article like this because of the lack of context. Killing the kids of your enemy is bad, but was happening long before humans showed up. So, the question is, given comparable conditions, how did SAS perform vs others? Are they 1/2 as cruel as the French and 1/4 as cruel than they used to be? If so, we should be happy they're improving. We don't know. This seems like a systemic problem with war fighting and requires system improvements. The Heinlein in me is uneasy with a prosecutorial focus. Improve the culture, make it easier to take a couple of weeks off, whistleblow, whatever--but telling someone who volunteered to fight for their country to go get shot at and dodge bombs for a few hours, watch their friends get their faces blown off, and then flip a switch, seems unreasonable.

pessimizer 1y ago
> Killing the kids of your enemy is bad, but was happening long before humans showed up. What does this mean, and why is it relevant? Some animals eat their weaker young. Would you include this in an argument defending a child cannibal? Did he eat fewer or more children than others? I think this is how you reason when you have no values. "I know it's probably bad or whatever, but it's 5% fewer than the French!" "Who are the French?" "An excuse to kill 4% more kids. If we need to kill even more kids, I'll find another country that at some point in the past could justify a few more basis points." "You know, some invaders in the past killed all the kids as a matter of policy. Who are we to say they weren't great or moral? It's culturally insensitive." "Lets consult Heinlein. I know he has a lot about sleeping with your children, but he's got to have something about killing them."
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  >What does this mean, and why is it relevant? It depends on the question you are asking, and what you want to learn. If you want to know if you should lock up an individual child cannibal, it doesn't. If you want to know if the government is doing a good job at catching and preventing child cannibalism, then the trends and comparators matter. Are there more child cannibals than 10 years ago? Are there more or less than in other countries like France?

pessimizer 1y ago

> Killing the kids of your enemy is bad, but was happening long before humans showed up. What does this mean, and why is it relevant? Some animals eat their weaker young. Would you include this in an argument defending a child cannibal? Did he eat fewer or more children than others? I think this is how you reason when you have no values. "I know it's probably bad or whatever, but it's 5% fewer than the French!" "Who are the French?" "An excuse to kill 4% more kids. If we need to kill even more kids, I'll find another country that at some point in the past could justify a few more basis points." "You know, some invaders in the past killed all the kids as a matter of policy. Who are we to say they weren't great or moral? It's culturally insensitive." "Lets consult Heinlein. I know he has a lot about sleeping with your children, but he's got to have something about killing them."

s1artibartfast 1y ago
>What does this mean, and why is it relevant? It depends on the question you are asking, and what you want to learn. If you want to know if you should lock up an individual child cannibal, it doesn't. If you want to know if the government is doing a good job at catching and preventing child cannibalism, then the trends and comparators matter. Are there more child cannibals than 10 years ago? Are there more or less than in other countries like France?