Breakdown In Civil Order

[TomC]

Honestly, I shouldn't have asked this here. I'll start a thread in the near future. I really want to explore this one.

Which one?

Female murderers?
Capital punishment?
Police shootings?
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Honestly, I shouldn't have asked this here. I'll start a thread in the near future. I really want to explore this one.

Please add a link when you do. The question of ethics and capital punishment are always an interesting discussion.

 

[Gospel]

Honestly, I shouldn't have asked this here. I'll start a thread in the near future. I really want to explore this one.

Please add a link when you do. The question of ethics and capital punishment are always an interesting discussion.

You have my word. This may take a while as I'll have to revisit (after dusting off) some old books. But right now I'll say, my argument for the death penalty is linked to the same reason I'm ok with the act of lawfully killing someone to save another person's life.

 

[Jayjay]

Whether there should be a death penalty at all is different from the question of whether there should be death penalty for treason specifically. I think that historically, treason is usually punishable by death because in a war, traitors are extremely harmful and are traditionally executed on the spot.

In stable, peaceful societies, I don't think there is a reason to treat treason as a special class of crime that warrants an extraordinarily harsh punishment.

 

[fromderinside]

I agree. Revoking citizenship and deporting should do the trick. No need to waste bullets on this.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whether there should be a death penalty at all is different from the question of whether there should be death penalty for treason specifically. I think that historically, treason is usually punishable by death because in a war, traitors are extremely harmful and are traditionally executed on the spot.

In stable, peaceful societies, I don't think there is a reason to treat treason as a special class of crime that warrants an extraordinarily harsh punishment.

After wars there are many soldiers trained in effective violence and well exercised in said training.

There are only a few ways to handle soldiers after a war: find out if they fight on principle, for money, for psychopathy, or from coercion. There are too many to lock up, and if it's principle, they're not going to stop fighting. So inevitably you have to kill a bunch. If it is psychopathy, you try them for war crimes (there aren't many usually of those, thankfully). That leaves draftees and check chasers. The check chasers keep their heads down and the draftees do their level best to shoot at nothing and keep a clean conscience.

Really though it's just the fact that there's simply nothing else you can do about that many problematic people.

As I see it you don't do it because you want to or even because it's ethically right though killing generally never is. You do it for the same reason you shoot the person presently attacking your loved ones: the only change you can offer them of their unacceptable course in the moment is death.

 

[Emily Lake]

There are only a few ways to handle soldiers after a war: find out if they fight on principle, for money, for psychopathy, or from coercion. There are too many to lock up, and if it's principle, they're not going to stop fighting. So inevitably you have to kill a bunch. If it is psychopathy, you try them for war crimes (there aren't many usually of those, thankfully). That leaves draftees and check chasers. The check chasers keep their heads down and the draftees do their level best to shoot at nothing and keep a clean conscience.

This leads me to believe that your understanding of military personnel is based on fiction, not on any actual interactions with soldiers of any sort.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are only a few ways to handle soldiers after a war: find out if they fight on principle, for money, for psychopathy, or from coercion. There are too many to lock up, and if it's principle, they're not going to stop fighting. So inevitably you have to kill a bunch. If it is psychopathy, you try them for war crimes (there aren't many usually of those, thankfully). That leaves draftees and check chasers. The check chasers keep their heads down and the draftees do their level best to shoot at nothing and keep a clean conscience.

This leads me to believe that your understanding of military personnel is based on fiction, not on any actual interactions with soldiers of any sort.

This assessment leads me to believe that I should invite Keith over to the thread and we can have fun deconstructing this statement of yours.

 

[bilby]

There are only a few ways to handle soldiers after a war: find out if they fight on principle, for money, for psychopathy, or from coercion. There are too many to lock up, and if it's principle, they're not going to stop fighting. So inevitably you have to kill a bunch. If it is psychopathy, you try them for war crimes (there aren't many usually of those, thankfully). That leaves draftees and check chasers. The check chasers keep their heads down and the draftees do their level best to shoot at nothing and keep a clean conscience.

This leads me to believe that your understanding of military personnel is based on fiction, not on any actual interactions with soldiers of any sort.

What do you think is incorrect about his claim?

What motivations, other than the four he listed, do you think a soldier could have for killing people?

Consider yourself as a newly trained soldier. You have been marched to an ambush location in a war zone, and are now concealed in a foxhole overlooking a road. Along that road comes a marching column of soldiers, who are total strangers to you, and whose only noticeable difference from you is that they're wearing different insignia on their uniforms.

You are ordered to fire on them. Why do you obey that order, and kill a bunch of strangers?

a) Because you like killing people
b) Because you're being paid to do it
c) Because you will be punished if you do not
d) Because you have an ideological objection to the system for which those people are fighting, and you want to kill people who support that system

Is there any other motivation you could have for killing those people?

 

[Jarhyn]

There are only a few ways to handle soldiers after a war: find out if they fight on principle, for money, for psychopathy, or from coercion. There are too many to lock up, and if it's principle, they're not going to stop fighting. So inevitably you have to kill a bunch. If it is psychopathy, you try them for war crimes (there aren't many usually of those, thankfully). That leaves draftees and check chasers. The check chasers keep their heads down and the draftees do their level best to shoot at nothing and keep a clean conscience.

This leads me to believe that your understanding of military personnel is based on fiction, not on any actual interactions with soldiers of any sort.

What do you think is incorrect about his claim?

What motivations, other than the four he listed, do you think a soldier could have for killing people?

Consider yourself as a newly trained soldier. You have been marched to an ambush location in a war zone, and are now concealed in a foxhole overlooking a road. Along that road comes a marching column of soldiers, who are total strangers to you, and whose only noticeable difference from you is that they're wearing different insignia on their uniforms.

You are ordered to fire on them. Why do you obey that order, and kill a bunch of strangers?

a) Because you like killing people
b) Because you're being paid to do it
c) Because you will be punished if you do not
d) Because you have an ideological objection to the system for which those people are fighting, and you want to kill people who support that system

Is there any other motivation you could have for killing those people?

The most fucked up part about this is that's where I'm coming from, and every time I go back there I pay a cost in my own misery to relive it.

And then she has the gall to tell me I haven't lived my own goddamn life.

And I couldn't even be the first to answer the absurdities of her claim because it has to be obvious that it is not just me who can see it!

Though to be fair the "punishment" may be "they are shooting at you and that some are ideological and/or psychopathic.

 

[Gospel]

gonna be a delay on that death penalty thread. Sorry team * mainly Emily. Some things offline. Has change stuff. Can't share details. If however the fuck things unfold allows I'll make that my next post.

 

[Tigers!]

I agree. Revoking citizenship and deporting should do the trick. No need to waste bullets on this.

By definition a traitor betrays the country or nation of which they belong. To where would they be deported?

 

[Trausti]

I agree. Revoking citizenship and deporting should do the trick. No need to waste bullets on this.

By definition a traitor betrays the country or nation of which they belong. To where would they be deported?

Central America. Then when they cross back into the US they’ll be refugees, given public benefits, and sent a mail-in ballot.

 

[laughing dog]

There are only a few ways to handle soldiers after a war: find out if they fight on principle, for money, for psychopathy, or from coercion. There are too many to lock up, and if it's principle, they're not going to stop fighting. So inevitably you have to kill a bunch. If it is psychopathy, you try them for war crimes (there aren't many usually of those, thankfully). That leaves draftees and check chasers. The check chasers keep their heads down and the draftees do their level best to shoot at nothing and keep a clean conscience.

This leads me to believe that your understanding of military personnel is based on fiction, not on any actual interactions with soldiers of any sort.

What do you think is incorrect about his claim?

What motivations, other than the four he listed, do you think a soldier could have for killing people?

Consider yourself as a newly trained soldier. You have been marched to an ambush location in a war zone, and are now concealed in a foxhole overlooking a road. Along that road comes a marching column of soldiers, who are total strangers to you, and whose only noticeable difference from you is that they're wearing different insignia on their uniforms.

You are ordered to fire on them. Why do you obey that order, and kill a bunch of strangers?

a) Because you like killing people
b) Because you're being paid to do it
c) Because you will be punished if you do not
d) Because you have an ideological objection to the system for which those people are fighting, and you want to kill people who support that system

Is there any other motivation you could have for killing those people?

According to a son who served in Afghanistan in the front lines, protecting your comrades is a possible motivation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

According to a son who served in Afghanistan in the front lines, protecting your comrades is a possible motivation.

Wouldn't that be under (c)?
Not a formal courts martial, maybe, but eventually you'll be alone and reliving a comrade's death. You can remember it as 'despite my best efforts' or 'i didn't do enough to stop it.' Avoiding guilt would be avoiding punishment.

 

[Politesse]

According to a son who served in Afghanistan in the front lines, much of the motivation in combat situations is protecting your comrades not any of the 4 reasons you listed.

A curious statement. As though he simply found himself on the front lines suddenly with no idea how or why he got there, but having to respond to that immediate situation in kind.

I am not endorsing bilby's categories, mind; I think the question of killing in battle is much more complicated than the simplified list he presented, and involves both social and psychological impulses that go well beyond "liking killing" or rationally considering the outcomes therof. The amygdala is a funny beast, and military training can be damned influential on how that neurological crisis gets resolved. I think the question Jarhyn has posed is a bit deceptive really, as the story of a war starts well before a soldier finds themselves walking down such a road. Thank you for your son's service; we (the American people) get into far more wars than most of us are actually willing to fight, and it would be hypocritical to deny him respect for putting his body in the way of the bullets we sent flying, in a war we started. But the moral truth of war, especially that war, is messy as hell and I don't think the conclusion is a pretty one.

 

[laughing dog]

According to a son who served in Afghanistan in the front lines, much of the motivation in combat situations is protecting your comrades not any of the 4 reasons you listed.

A curious statement. As though he simply found himself on the front lines suddenly with no idea how or why he got there, but having to respond to that immediate situation in kind.

I am not endorsing bilby's categories, mind; I think the question of killing in battle is much more complicated than the simplified list he presented, and involves both social and psychological impulses that go well beyond "liking killing" or rationally considering the outcomes therof. The amygdala is a funny beast, and military training can be damned influential on how that neurological crisis gets resolved. I think the question Jarhyn has posed is a bit deceptive really, as the story of a war starts well before a soldier finds themselves walking down such a road. Thank you for your son's service; we (the American people) get into far more wars than most of us are actually willing to fight, and it would be hypocritical to deny him respect for putting his body in the way of the bullets we sent flying, in a war we started. But the moral truth of war, especially that war, is messy as hell and I don't think the conclusion is a pretty one.

How curious that you cannot see how your final sentence makes your opening remarks appear gratuituous

 

[Keith&Co.]

a) Because you like killing people
b) Because you're being paid to do it
c) Because you will be punished if you do not
d) Because you have an ideological objection to the system for which those people are fighting, and you want to kill people who support that system

Kind of like reducing the entire bibliography to The Four Basic Plots, but probably pretty close.

George C. Scott's delivery of Patton's speech, "when you put your hand in the puddle of goo that used to be your friend," would be D, i think.
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujQ-nMc0WGE )

The 'ideology' you object to is that they're willing to kill Fritz to achieve their goals. Or that killing Fritz is their goal.



My main motivation was probably A. Not that i liked to KILL, really. But as a technician, i like lights to be green. As a Fire Control Tech, when they set Battle Stations Missile, i liked to get all the MSL AWAY lights green. And i really liked to get all the missiles away in less time than the Fleet average. The better we were in trainer at beating the Fleet times and getting the lights green, the sooner we went home.
And maybe a little D. They really demonized the godless commie bastards who'd love to (insert plot of Red Dawn here, and at least one Rambo movie, two Magnum, PI episodes, The Fourth War, Dr. Strangelove, etc.) at us, and we would object to that.

 

[laughing dog]

According to a son who served in Afghanistan in the front lines, protecting your comrades is a possible motivation.

Wouldn't that be under (c)?
Not a formal courts martial, maybe, but eventually you'll be alone and reliving a comrade's death. You can remember it as 'despite my best efforts' or 'i didn't do enough to stop it.' Avoiding guilt would be avoiding punishment.

That is possible interpretation.
I was stunned when that particular son joined the Army (seemed like a very poor fit), so we discussed his time there very often. He was motivated by the avoidance of harm to his comrades (even the one he didn't really care for) and the promotion of their survival. Regret did not seem to enter into for him.

 

[Politesse]

According to a son who served in Afghanistan in the front lines, much of the motivation in combat situations is protecting your comrades not any of the 4 reasons you listed.

A curious statement. As though he simply found himself on the front lines suddenly with no idea how or why he got there, but having to respond to that immediate situation in kind.

I am not endorsing bilby's categories, mind; I think the question of killing in battle is much more complicated than the simplified list he presented, and involves both social and psychological impulses that go well beyond "liking killing" or rationally considering the outcomes therof. The amygdala is a funny beast, and military training can be damned influential on how that neurological crisis gets resolved. I think the question Jarhyn has posed is a bit deceptive really, as the story of a war starts well before a soldier finds themselves walking down such a road. Thank you for your son's service; we (the American people) get into far more wars than most of us are actually willing to fight, and it would be hypocritical to deny him respect for putting his body in the way of the bullets we sent flying, in a war we started. But the moral truth of war, especially that war, is messy as hell and I don't think the conclusion is a pretty one.

How curious that you cannot see how your final sentence makes your opening remarks appear gratuituous

How do you mean?