I expressed my opinion on the human shield issue on the first page. I consider you to be one of the lowest forms of slime that crawls around this board, and am utterly revolted by the sentiments you have expressed here. You are a person beneath contempt, revolting in the extreme, an embarrassment to your country, to humanity, to the civilized world. and the animal kingdom in general. If there is a place in all of creation worse than hell, I am sure God created it with people like you in mind, and I hope you find your way there, the sooner, the better. Does that address you sufficiently? Normally I’d open a pit thread in your dubious honor, but sadly I don’t have the time right now to give you the justice you so richly deserve. So I’ll just leave it at that.
Well, I’ll take that as evidence that you have no rebuttal to anything that I’ve said.
Rhum Runner: You “don’t have time” to open a Pit thread, but you do have time to type out flames in GD?
In the future, if you so much as call someone else a “silly goose” in this forum, you will find that you will have plenty of free time, because however much time you spend posting on these boards will be spent doing something else. Got it?
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Rhum Runner said:
So instead you just decided to flame him right here in Great Debates and ignore the rules? Well, bully for you!
What’s really interesting is I recently warned somebody for a comparatively mild insult aimed at you. But you loaded up both guns and fired all your ammo here. I have to wonder what the hell you were thinking.
Let me tell you what you should be thinking in the future: “If I want to stay on the SDMB, I’d better not do this again.”
Got it? Good.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Let me clarify something. I am not expressing a wish for American soldiers to die. I don’t want anyone to die. I think that the death of any soldier (regardless of nationality) is bad. I think that the death of any child is worse. That’s all I’m trying to say here. So I don’t buy into tribalism. So sue me.
Moderator’s Note: And Hail Ants, that goes for you, too.
Maybe it was over the top to say a thousand American soldiers, so I’ll just revise it to say that, in a vaccuum, I think that the death of child in war is worse than the life of a soldier, and their respective nationalites are irrelevant. Frankly, though, I don’t think it would have even cause a stir if I had said that it was better for [insert number here] Iraqi soldiers to die than for one American child (and I believe that too).
I meant death of a soldier, not "life.
No, I’m saying that my personal connection to something has an impact on my actions even if objectively that means nothing.
IOW, I am willing to put more effort into making sure that I have things then I am into making sure that others have what they need. Does this mean that I think I am more worthy of others? No, it means that I personally value my well being more than I value that of others - to me. Extending this further, I value the well being of my family over that of others. Again, this is not because I feel that in an objective sense their well being is more valuable than that of others - it’s just more valuable to me personally.
This distinction is crucial in defining one’s obligations to others and one’s actions regarding others. If I were to tell my family that I’ve decided that I will give 70% of my income to charity reducing us all to dire poverty, because the charity recipients are poorer yet, I would be doing the wrong thing. Because though in an absolute sense the charity recipients might need the money more, my family’s claim on the money is greater, because of my connection to them.
Similarly, if there was a life threatening situation and I could rescue myself and my family or some random stranger, I would pick us rather than the random stranger. Not because of a determination that our lives are more important than that of the random stranger, but because our lives are more important to us than the random stranger’s is to us, and this defines our obligations.
A person’s country is a form of very loose family. A person has more obligation to his countryman than he does to a foreigner, by simple virtue of the fact that they share in the common goals and effort of contributing towards the running of a common society. The US government has more of a responsibility to help out US citizens than it does to help out citizens of other countries. This is because it represents the US citizens, who have more of responsibility toward their fellow citizens than they do toward citizens of other countries. This does not mean that US citizens are inherently more valuable than citizens of other countries, it just means that they have more of a connection towards us, and more of a claim on us.
Although you gave your child as an example earlier I find it hard to believe that you would really just as rather have your own child killed as someone else’s child. Frankly I would feel sorry for your child if you felt that way, as it would indicate a serious deficiency in your connection to the child, and in the care that you should have for them. On a lesser scale, if you would just as soon have your countrymen killed as people from other countries it indicates a deficiency in your connection to your countrymen.
One aspect of group activity, whether a family, a country or a mafia group, is some sense of loyalty to other members of the group. This includes the expectation that others will value your needs - all else being equal - above those of non-members. If you are willing to accept the benefits of other group members’ efforts on behalf of the group but are unwilling to accept that a bond exists which requires your loyalty, you will have betrayed your peers, and incur no small amount of resentment. In this instance, the members of the US army are not just Americans but they are people who have put their lives on the line to defend the country, which is of no small benefit to you. Although you may disagree with their actions in this particular case, you would (presumably) agree that the US is better off because we happen to be relatively secure as a nation. So you are accepting the efforts and sacrifices of other group members but refuse to accept that you have any connection to them.
I am aware that there are people like yourself out there - all sorts of well meaning people spied for the Russians based on reasoning remarkably similar to yours. But I and others think it is morally wrong, and you incur no small amount of resentment (as indicated here) as well as tarnish the larger liberal cause by its association with people like you (as noted above).
I think it was over the top. What I was trying to get at was your calculus (or algebra, more likely). Let’s assume one innocent and X killers intent on killing the innocent. How many would X have to be before you’d prefer for the child to die than for X killers to die? I think X could be a thousand, or ten thousand, or infinite: you’d always sacrifice the killers and save the innocent.
On the other hand, if the child is in the way of a just war (not specifically this war, say) and the soldiers are waging the war, then how would you work it out? I think if the war is just, then you prefer for the innocent to die than even one soldier in the just cause.
I’d put them up there with bugs that fly into electric bug zappers.
Diogenes the Cynic, the opinions you have expressed here are sick. I for one will never respect anything you have to say on these boards again.
Debaser, please tell me exactly waht I said that was “sick.”
I don’t buy this at all. All human life is equal. All human life has a connection to me.
I never said that. I said every child is equal to my child, regardless of what piece of dirt they were born on.
I don’t want my countrymen killing innocent people. If that makes me “deficient” so be it.
So if one of your family members wanted to become a mass murderer you would support him?
This is the rub of the matter. I don’t believe that the action in Iraq has anything whatever to do with “protecting” me. Iraq has done nothing to the US. We are the aggressors here. We are the attackers. We are not the victims. I am not in any danger from Iraq. If anything the invasion of Iraq will put me more danger by aggravating anti-American hostility and increasing the likelihood of domestic terrorism.
Please be specific. What, exactly, is “morally wrong” about my position?
And what if the cause is not just? What then?
I wonder where these peace-lovers were when Saddam was just going about business as usual, killing and brutalizing his own people? And I’m not even talking about the Kurds.
On the other hand, if the child is in the way of a just war (not specifically this war, say) and the soldiers are waging the war, then how would you work it out? I think if the war is just, then you prefer for the innocent to die than even one soldier in the just cause.
And what if the cause is not just? What then?
Good Q. Then you’re in a gray area… you need to examine your balance of innocent life vs. soldiers in an unjust war. If you can convince yourself that the soldiers are merely murderers, go ahead and claim 1000 are not worth the innocent life. If the soldiers were drafted into the army, I think it’s a hard argument. It’s also pretty hard if the soldiers volunteered because of financial hardship.
In any event, once soldiers, loads of free will is suspended: my understanding is that soliders have a responsibility to disobey orders that violate the rules of war, like killing prisoner. On the other hand, it’s a judgement call, and if they get it wrong, they get court-martialled. My point being that if you actually have 1000 humans on the one hand, and 1 human on the other, the degrees of guilt or innocence of each is pretty hard to weigh. If the goal of the 1000 is follow orders consonant with international law, it’s pretty harsh to think of as murderers.
[quote]
smiling bandit
Saddam’s “own people” are precisely who the human shields are going to protect. They don’t support Saddam (although GeeDub’s daddy did). I think it’s absurd to argue that we have to attack the Iraqi people in order to save them from Saddam.
Ooh. Peace-lovers? Where? Let me get my shotgun.
Is there something wrong with loving peace?
You’re right. I’ve already admitted that my first statement was over the top. (although I never called the soldiers “murderers.”)
Look, how many invading Iraqi soldiers would any of us be willing to kill to protect our own children. How is that situation different if the scenario is reversed?
In an emergency, would you save your family ahead of others? Should you?
You are not deficient for not wanting your countrymen to kill innocent people. You are deficient for not caring any more about your countrymen than about others.
If by support him you mean help him in his mass murders, of course not. But if you mean would I care more about him than another mass murderer, of course yes.
No, that’s NOT the rub of the matter. I specifically said: “Although you may disagree with their actions in this particular case, you would (presumably) agree that the US is better off because we happen to be relatively secure as a nation.”
I could have sworn that I typed out a rather lengthy post detailing quite specifically why your position is morally wrong. No need to add anything at this point.