This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new

That's a good point.

There could be a "but" in there somewhere though. I'm sure there was a few buts, but it's been a while and I'm getting too old to remember
 
luutzu said:
That's a good point.

There could be a "but" in there somewhere though. I'm sure there was a few buts, but it's been a while and I'm getting too old to remember
Click to expand...

Here is the but,

But you also have to add the millions of civilians that died during the invasion of France and Germany, those huge numbers I listed above were just the military losses, civilian deaths far outnumbered military deaths.
 

In a conflict like Afganistan, our troops are working more like police officers, searching for gang members.

Is not about going and killing people, it’s about searching out certain people and arresting them, of course in that you run into a lot of people that would rather kill you, so it becomes a kill or capture type thing.

But as I said before, any enemy soldier can always just put there hands up and come in to be questioned, we don’t kill people that aren’t threats.

If you haven’t seen it this is a good documentary. You will see its more like you would imagine a police swat team, than a bunch of “unthinking” rambos.

At the 1.50 mark you will see my old unit the IRR (incident response regiment) later renamed SOER.

 
Value Collector said:
Here is the but,

But you also have to add the millions of civilians that died during the invasion of France and Germany, those huge numbers I listed above were just the military losses, civilian deaths far outnumbered military deaths.
Click to expand...

The situation in Japan at the time was quite different to Hitler's though.

From memory, Japan was willing to surrender before the nukes were dropped. Hitler was willing to drag the entire German people down with him.

So in Germany, they were prepared to fight to the last man, or old men or child. At least that's what the order was, and some did took it.

In Japan, all hope was lost because it's an island being blockaded with no way out and two powers are on its way - the same ones that knocked Nazi Germany out. So they know what's ahead for them.

That and they do not want the Royal Family to be hanged. What with being living Gods and stuff.

That and the generals, and here I'm guessing, see this not as an end but a temporary set back they can, eventually they reckon, find a way to win back the empire.

So if Stalin was to march in, Japan as a historical entity would be gone. Separated and the Emperor and his family will suffer the same fate the Czars did 3 decades ago under the reds.

The analogy of Japan being nuke or else the casualties and suffering will be similar to that of Europe/Germany would make it understanding. But that's if it's true. I remember a couple of historians saying what I just repeated up there - that the circumstances weren't the same with Japan's will to fight to the last man. Not at that late stage anyway.
 

The Alliance of the Willing would do police duty, the Yanks have other jobs though right? As in, they kick azz and chew gum, and they're always out of gum.

I'll watch that doco soon.

Strange how life takes us all over the place. I was going to join the Army back then... the letter never came for the physical. I am guessing my parents got to it.

I played paintball during one of those uni outings. Got shot right in the head about a minute into the first game. Came out of nowhere.

I know it's rubbish compare to what you've been through.. no kidding. Not trying to compare war stories, just it's pretty random and senseless and I'd probably wouldn't live to realise it within hours of the first tour.
 

Whatever, but the similarity between the military and religion is quite obvious to those who have not been indoctrinated in either.
 
SirRumpole said:
Whatever, but the similarity between the military and religion is quite obvious to those who have not been indoctrinated in either.
Click to expand...

Do I sound like some one who has been indoctrinated into being an unthinking killer?

Not sure why you would single out the military, so you think police and fire fighters are indoctrinated like a religion also?
 
Value Collector said:
Not sure why you would single out the military, so you think police and fire fighters are indoctrinated like a religion also?
Click to expand...

To a certain extent they are. They need to be trained to deal with trauma and to become desensitised to it, otherwise they couldn't do their job properly.

And especially in the police force there is an indoctrinated sense of loyalty to their peers over their public duty. There are plenly of instances of police covering up the corruption or unlawful acts of their colleagues .
 

That’s not the same thing, indoctrination is being taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, I can’t say that is how the military works,
 
Value Collector said:
That’s not the same thing, indoctrination is being taught to accept a set of beliefs uncritically, I can’t say that is how the military works,
Click to expand...

Aren't you taught to follow orders without question ?

Don't you have faith in the ability of your commanders that their decisions will always be correct ?

How would you deal with a subordinate who refused to follow your orders on the basis of a moral belief ?
 
Value Collector said:
Do I sound like some one who has been indoctrinated into being an unthinking killer?

Not sure why you would single out the military, so you think police and fire fighters are indoctrinated like a religion also?
Click to expand...

Now we are going to defame coppers and fireries?
 

1. No, You are taught to follow lawful orders, you can certainly refuse an order you think is unlawful.

2. No, you have s reasonable expectation that commanders will do their absolute best to make good decisions, but I would call it faith, and I wouldn’t say anyone believes they will always be corrrect.

3. Can you give me an example of what you mean? We don’t really go around ordering people to act immorally, what sort of immoral order are you talking about.
 
Value Collector said:
3. Can you give me an example of what you mean? We don’t really go around ordering people to act immorally, what sort of immoral order are you talking about.
Click to expand...

You have said it's justified to kill women and children as long as they are "collateral damage". There is a terrorist hiding in a house with civilians and you order a rocket attack on the house. What if the person holding the rocket launcher doesn't want to kill the civilians so he disobeys a direct order. Does he get court martialled for disobedience ?
 
plenty of strikes get aborted to avoid harming an innocent. No one would have a problem with that.

Soldiers aren’t monsters.

Watch this short video, you here a crew about to do a rocket strike abort because believed innocent people enter the rockets danger area.

 

That's good, but I suggest we only see the "good" stuff.

Remember the cover up of the rocket attack on journalists in Iraq.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike

I'm not saying that soldiers are monsters (some may be but the majority are not). I understand that mistakes are sometimes made and that decisions are taken under high pressure at short notice and also that morality sometimes gets blurred.

What I'm really arguing is your assertion that you have a superior morality because of your atheism. I can't see anything in your arguments that support that because secular morality can be used to justify virtually any horror if in someone's opinion it provides some benefit to a certain number of people. There are too many shadows in that argument to say that objective morality has been served.
 

I never said I have superior morality because of atheism.

I said secular morality is superior to theistic morality.

(Secular and atheist are synonyms, for example Australia is a secular country, but maybe only 10% describe them selves as atheist)

The reason secular morality is superior, is because it is not based on absolute rules, rather it is based on logic and reasoning.

If something is proved to be immoral s secular moral system can adjust and adapt much quicker than one based on Devine command and absolute rules.
 

There you go again. Yes God said some good things , we know that, but also did and ordered others to do some vile things.

You continue to be apologetic to these vile actions. Again, think of a rodent infestation. I'm obviously a superior life form, and I have understanding about their effect on the world. I decide to exterminate them since it's better not to have them around. I also destroy their babies.

Humanity is now a rodent infestation.

All commentators agree that this doesn't apply to God, and for good reasons.

Yes, we know the good reason. They only way they can reconcile God committing or ordering others to commit vile acts with their own morality is to say their morality doesn't apply to God. It's the house of cards fear I dealt with before.
 
I loosely follow this thread, it is good to see Value Collector and SirRumple have a pretty in-depth discussion with strongly opposing views and keep it relatively civil. (Not sure if there was previously a slanging match haha)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...