5 ms·

An argument which can be used by all sides. In the end, it's the civilians who get screwed.

by wreegab 13y ago

yetanotherphd 13y ago
Statistically it's the people in the military who have it worse.
- ivanca 13y ago
  Absolute bullshit, 50:1 is the ratio of civilians casualties in the Israeli conflict. http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/05/06/combatantcivilian-casualties-and-the-moral-hysteriahypocrisy-of-the-west/ http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/05/06/combatantcivilian... Your ignorance is middly acceptable because US media and other information reporters are biased or coerced into giving bad statistics about the issue: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/targeted-killing/controversy/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-li...
  - yetanotherphd 13y ago
    What I meant was that the death rate for soldiers was higher. Total civilian deaths are higher because there are more civilians. Israel-Palestine is a special case because it is so one sided. I'm not very sympathetic to Israel (did Nelson Mandela recognize the right of the Afrikaner people to exist, and affirm the existence of South Africa as an Afrikaner state? This is what the Israelis are always going on about right?) but that's not really relevant to whether being a soldier is in general more dangerous than being a civilian. Maybe I am addressing a different point to everyone else, but I think it's important given that deaths of soldiers are sometimes considered on a completely different moral plane to deaths of civilians, even though from a utilitarian perspective they are equally important.
    - ivanca 13y ago
      No they are not; military is more likely to kill civilians if they survive; so their "utilitarian value" can be considered a negative.
      - yetanotherphd 13y ago
        so you wish, for example, that more soldiers on both sides had died during WWII?
        ivanca 13y ago
        That's a way too-emotionally charged question for someone pretending to be "utilitarian". But the answer is: No, I wish there weren't any soldiers to begin with. Dead being just the most common way they disappear, plus is always a political assertion the prime causative, so to avoid refilling wars with youngsters it's more effective to stop that.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Statistically it's the people in the military who have it worse. You really ought to read different history books. This is akin to saying "statistically the sky is usually magenta in color".

An argument which can be used by all sides. In the end, it's the civilians who get screwed.

by wreegab 13y ago

An argument which can be used by all sides. In the end, it's the civilians who get screwed.

yetanotherphd 13y ago

Statistically it's the people in the military who have it worse.

ivanca 13y ago
Absolute bullshit, 50:1 is the ratio of civilians casualties in the Israeli conflict. http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/05/06/combatantcivilian-casualties-and-the-moral-hysteriahypocrisy-of-the-west/ http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/05/06/combatantcivilian... Your ignorance is middly acceptable because US media and other information reporters are biased or coerced into giving bad statistics about the issue: http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/targeted-killing/controversy/ http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-li...
- yetanotherphd 13y ago
  What I meant was that the death rate for soldiers was higher. Total civilian deaths are higher because there are more civilians. Israel-Palestine is a special case because it is so one sided. I'm not very sympathetic to Israel (did Nelson Mandela recognize the right of the Afrikaner people to exist, and affirm the existence of South Africa as an Afrikaner state? This is what the Israelis are always going on about right?) but that's not really relevant to whether being a soldier is in general more dangerous than being a civilian. Maybe I am addressing a different point to everyone else, but I think it's important given that deaths of soldiers are sometimes considered on a completely different moral plane to deaths of civilians, even though from a utilitarian perspective they are equally important.
  - ivanca 13y ago
    No they are not; military is more likely to kill civilians if they survive; so their "utilitarian value" can be considered a negative.
    - yetanotherphd 13y ago
      so you wish, for example, that more soldiers on both sides had died during WWII?
      - ivanca 13y ago
        That's a way too-emotionally charged question for someone pretending to be "utilitarian". But the answer is: No, I wish there weren't any soldiers to begin with. Dead being just the most common way they disappear, plus is always a political assertion the prime causative, so to avoid refilling wars with youngsters it's more effective to stop that.
jessaustin 13y ago
Statistically it's the people in the military who have it worse. You really ought to read different history books. This is akin to saying "statistically the sky is usually magenta in color".