Combatant-NonCombatant Distinction

#51
#51
therealUT said:
Then, I will ask it again. Why is the life of an American more valuable than the life of a non-American?
Click to expand...

Good god. You argue just to argue. Of course the life of an American is more important to an American. That is about loyalty to your fellow countrymen. We all know you would take your self proclaimed high road and slaughter 100 Americans if it meant 101 terrorists would be spared, because each human life is inherently valued the same in your ****ed up bull**** fairy tale world that exists only in your head.

I can't believe I let myself be trolled this easily!
 
#52
#52
hog88 said:
I will ask you, as an American, do you not believe this is true? In simple terms those on my team are more valuable to me than those that are not.

I'm sure in the history books across the Muslim world it is written as such. Heck in England in the 80's the American revolution was taught as an illegitamate insurection, it's all perspective. And from my prespective as an American anyone not wearing a uniform in armned opposisison against us is a terrorist and should expect no quarter. Same goes to those who provide material or monitary support.
Click to expand...

As a human, I believe that all humans are equally valuable. Whether or not one is accidentally American, British, Iraqi, or Isaeli makes no difference to the value of their life.
 
#53
#53
therealUT said:
As a human, I believe that all humans are equally valuable. Whether or not one is accidentally American, British, Iraqi, or Isaeli makes no difference to the value of their life.
Click to expand...

So an enemy's life is a valuable to you as an allies?
 
#54
#54
Thrasher865 said:
Good god. You argue just to argue. Of course the life of an American is more important to an American. That is about loyalty to your fellow countrymen. We all know you would take your self proclaimed high road and slaughter 100 Americans if it meant 101 terrorists would be spared, because each human life is inherently valued the same in your ****ed up bull**** fairy tale world that exists only in your head.

I can't believe I let myself be trolled this easily!
Click to expand...

I would not slaughter one person to save seven billion, regardless of nationality. I would kill seven billion to save myself, though.
 
#56
#56
therealUT said:
I would not slaughter one person to save seven billion, regardless of nationality. I would kill seven billion to save myself, though.
Click to expand...

Why is your life more valuable than that of any other single human being, much less 7 billion of them? Other than your self preserving natural instincts, that you have supposedly graduated above as an intellectual?

Moreover, if each life is valued exactly the same, why is it that you would not give up one life of a stranger for 7 billion? You don't make any sense.
 
#58
#58
Thrasher865 said:
Why is your life more valuable than that of any other single human being, much less 7 billion of them? Other than your self preserving natural instincts, that you have supposedly graduated above as an intellectual?

Moreover, if each life is valued exactly the same, why is it that you would not give up one life of a stranger for 7 billion? You don't make any sense.
Click to expand...

My life is more valuable to me because it is self-evident to me that my life contains all the value that can ever be gathered by myself; in Kant's terminology this is "absolute and unconditioned" or infinite value.

I act as if everyone else exists, however, I can not know this as self-evident. By analogy, I conclude that if others exist and they are rational like myself, then they will come to the conclusion that their lives are of infinite value.

Hence, I believe that everyone's life is of infinite value, but I am epistemically certain that mine is. So, the choice to defend my own life is a choice of value combined with certainty. I would expect every other person in the world to make the same judgment; thus, I think that others are justified in killing in self-defense.

However, I am not certain that I can kill to defend another. I can act to rescue them and if, in so doing, I put myself in danger, I can kill to defend myself; this relies on me placing my life in danger, though.
 
#59
#59
hog88 said:
Could be the reason you were a failure as an officer. Can't lead troops without conviction of heart.
Click to expand...

Was not a failure; sorry to disappoint. I also put in my papers to resign my commission the day after I read Kant's Groundwork. At that point, I knew that I did not need to be leading troops in combat anymore; and, I also did not in anyway believe in the mission.
 
#60
#60
therealUT said:
Was not a failure; sorry to disappoint. I also put in my papers to resign my commission the day after I read Kant's Groundwork. At that point, I knew that I did not need to be leading troops in combat anymore; and, I also did not in anyway believe in the mission.
Click to expand...

TRUT, No disrespect, but why would you resign your commission because of something Kant wrote ?
 
#61
#61
You claim to be pretty smart, yet every one of your values is taken from something you read from another self proclaimed "philosopher." I guess you're not smart enough to think for yourself. Instead, you chase this notion of being intellectually superior to everyone else, which is far from the truth.
 
#62
#62
therealUT said:
Was not a failure; sorry to disappoint. I also put in my papers to resign my commission the day after I read Kant's Groundwork. At that point, I knew that I did not need to be leading troops in combat anymore; and, I also did not in anyway believe in the mission.
Click to expand...

Resigning is quiting which equals failure.

Believing in the mission is irrelavent, following your orders and completing your mission was the job you signed up for. Remember this little ditty "Mission, Men, Myself"? It was (just quessing) took college money for.
 
#64
#64
Thrasher865 said:
You claim to be pretty smart, yet every one of your values is taken from something you read from another self proclaimed "philosopher." I guess you're not smart enough to think for yourself. Instead, you chase this notion of being intellectually superior to everyone else, which is far from the truth.
Click to expand...

Things I have read have lead me to reflect and use reason free of prejudices. I do not see it as reasonable to place the value of one's life at anything other than infinite, unless one assumes the existence of an eternal soul (which I do not).
 
#65
#65
hog88 said:
Resigning is quiting which equals failure.

Believing in the mission is irrelavent, following your orders and completing your mission was the job you signed up for. Remember this little ditty "Mission, Men, Myself"? It was (just quessing) took college money for.
Click to expand...

As long as you equate not living by your convictions as success, you are absolutely correct.

I also never stated that I did not fulfill my obligation; in fact, I served well passed my obligation and completed my last deployment. I just completed it in a position in which I would neither be patrolling nor directly supporting combat missions anymore; instead, I spent the final three months of the deployment as the OIC of base closure (this was 2010 and FOBs were shutting down across Iraq).

Submitting paperwork to resign your commission is not synonymous with walking out the door the next day.
 
#66
#66
Thrasher865 said:
You claim to be pretty smart, yet every one of your values is taken from something you read from another self proclaimed "philosopher." I guess you're not smart enough to think for yourself. Instead, you chase this notion of being intellectually superior to everyone else, which is far from the truth.
Click to expand...

I don't think he has ever had an original thought.
 
#67
#67
He claims that us, those that follow social norms and act in realistic/pragmatic ways, are the sheep. However, in reality, he is the one that reads a book and follows what far less have lived by and is somehow more liberated than others. It's quite fascinating how what he deams to be reasoning is actually rationalizing.
 
#68
#68
slh1089 said:
I don't think he has ever had an original thought.
Click to expand...

At least 50,000 years of homo sapiens; currently seven billion persons inhabiting the planet. Do you think you have ever had an original thought (i.e., a thought that no one else has ever had before) that has been worth a damn? I value myself pretty highly, but I also think that most of the thoughts I have had that refer to any type of meta questions, have been previously thought. Some have been written down; some that I have read have given me greater insight or led me to understand and comprehend things more clearly. But, original thought? Negative.
 
#69
#69
therealUT said:
At least 50,000 years of homo sapiens; currently seven billion persons inhabiting the planet. Do you think you have ever had an original thought (i.e., a thought that no one else has ever had before) that has been worth a damn? I value myself pretty highly, but I also think that most of the thoughts I have had that refer to any type of meta questions, have been previously thought. Some have been written down; some that I have read have given me greater insight or led me to understand and comprehend things more clearly. But, original thought? Negative.
Click to expand...

I have most certainly arrived to conclusions without the help of others without prior knowledge of that confusion. If someone else has thought it before then so be it. My non-experience of that persons thought makes that thought original to me.
 
#70
#70
slh1089 said:
I have most certainly arrived to conclusions without the help of others without prior knowledge of that confusion. If someone else has thought it before then so be it. My non-experience of that persons thought makes that thought original to me.
Click to expand...

It is not original per se. Moreover, I would assume that this independent process involved a plethora of aids and conventions that did the bulk of the work constructing your conclusions. I recognize and give credit to specific thinkers who have pointed in certain directions; but I also ensure that the conclusions reached are valid.
 
#71
#71
therealUT said:
With less and less avowedly non-Representative governments left in the world, does the Combatant-NonCombatant distinction (which functions to keep Civilians from being directly targeted) still make sense? Or, should we side with Orwell, who made the following statement:
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of or read "the report from Iron Mountain?" (1966)

It gets no more Orwelian than that.






MG1968 said:
without a doubt, the focus on minimizing civilian casualties has made the US' ROE a lot more dangerous for soldiers on the ground
Click to expand...

More than twice as many members of the US military have been killed in Afghanistan in the 3 1/2 yrs of the BHO presidency than during the 8 yrs of of the GWB presidency.

Could Obama's new ROEs have anything to do with that? Ya think?

33x8xi0.jpg






TennTradition said:
When I say we're not only talking about the combatants, I'm lumping US non-combatants in there as well as foreign. The OP wasn't restricted to foreign civilians where combatants used them as shields or blended in with them.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with asymetrical warfare in which we are now involved is that the enemy doesn't play by nor is it restricted in any way by such rules as we use.

Strictly speaking, the enemy consists of all civilians since they wear no uniform etc and actually prefer to target civilians in the war they are waging against western civilization.

4j86x4.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top