4 ms·

"the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth" That is just fundamentally untrue. The notion that all life is sac

by cmdkeen 13y ago

"the most basic rules of human life, that have been taught us since we rose from this Earth" That is just fundamentally untrue. The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. They would rather be members of a professional, trained force that means the number of total dead is minimised to the greatest extent possible. Modern wars by professional soldiers kill very few, both soldiers and non combatants, compared to the wars of conscripts and untrained masses.

fit2rule 13y ago
>The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Since time began, humans have been trying to stop it. So I don't think you're thinking this through .. >Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. Members of the military kill because they are ordered to do so, and no longer have the ability to express their own inherent free will. Nowhere in the history of war has it ever been true that 'to kill a little now means not killing more later' - if it were, the killing would have stopped.
- cmdkeen 13y ago
  Who? You're quoting fancy philosophical terms, so here goes: Aristotle: the sort of war that involves hunting “those human beings who are naturally suited to be ruled but [are] unwilling…[is] by nature just” Plato's Republic had warriors as a vital part of his ideal society. Aquinas and Augustine gave us the Western "Just War" theory though other cultures had covered the idea earlier. Even Cardinal Wolsey's (and the Church's) thinking around perpetual peace was to allow fighting non-Christians. Kant and Bentham are hardly since time immemorial. I'll give you Jesus (only 2000 years), but the God of the Old Testament was rather pro-conflict, and other religions have very pro-conflict tenements. The accepted views of the majority of humanity until the late 20th century (perhaps not even now) is that different genders and races were unequal, that some were fit to rule over others, and that war was an inevitable consequence and participation in it was an honourable, noble and patriotic (once patriotism had emerged as a concept) activity. Who is not thinking this through. Plus the killing has massively reduced - the last decade has been one of the lowest for deaths in conflict in human history.
- giardini 13y ago
  fit2rule:"Nowhere in the history of war has it ever been true that 'to kill a little now means not killing more later' - if it were, the killing would have stopped." Not so. You jihadis have found that, for example in Algeria, by killing off the (relatively small) leadership of centrist and non-radical muslims you can eliminate opposition to radical jihad. Once these people are eliminated, opposition to jihad plummets (people are afraid to speak up) and Taliban-like elements can take over. So indeed _you_ and _yours_ have learned that "killing a little now means not killing more later".

by cmdkeen 13y ago

fit2rule 13y ago

>The notion that all life is sacred and killing for a living is wrong is a very, very modern notion. Since time began, humans have been trying to stop it. So I don't think you're thinking this through .. >Members of the military kill because it needs to happen. Members of the military kill because they are ordered to do so, and no longer have the ability to express their own inherent free will. Nowhere in the history of war has it ever been true that 'to kill a little now means not killing more later' - if it were, the killing would have stopped.

cmdkeen 13y ago
Who? You're quoting fancy philosophical terms, so here goes: Aristotle: the sort of war that involves hunting “those human beings who are naturally suited to be ruled but [are] unwilling…[is] by nature just” Plato's Republic had warriors as a vital part of his ideal society. Aquinas and Augustine gave us the Western "Just War" theory though other cultures had covered the idea earlier. Even Cardinal Wolsey's (and the Church's) thinking around perpetual peace was to allow fighting non-Christians. Kant and Bentham are hardly since time immemorial. I'll give you Jesus (only 2000 years), but the God of the Old Testament was rather pro-conflict, and other religions have very pro-conflict tenements. The accepted views of the majority of humanity until the late 20th century (perhaps not even now) is that different genders and races were unequal, that some were fit to rule over others, and that war was an inevitable consequence and participation in it was an honourable, noble and patriotic (once patriotism had emerged as a concept) activity. Who is not thinking this through. Plus the killing has massively reduced - the last decade has been one of the lowest for deaths in conflict in human history.
giardini 13y ago
fit2rule:"Nowhere in the history of war has it ever been true that 'to kill a little now means not killing more later' - if it were, the killing would have stopped." Not so. You jihadis have found that, for example in Algeria, by killing off the (relatively small) leadership of centrist and non-radical muslims you can eliminate opposition to radical jihad. Once these people are eliminated, opposition to jihad plummets (people are afraid to speak up) and Taliban-like elements can take over. So indeed _you_ and _yours_ have learned that "killing a little now means not killing more later".