[QUOTE=Princhester]
It makes as much sense as asking me, a person who has said that participation in Iraq as a US soldier is immoral, what percentage of US soldiers in Iraq have done anything immoral. It seems you want me to give *my * views on what percentage of soldiers in Iraq have done something that would fail *your * rather narrower test of immorality, a test you have not even bothered to particularise.
In other words, asking me this question makes no fucking sense.
[/QUOTE]
I think you typed this poorly. You no doubt meant to type: “asking me this question makes me uncomfortable because it reveals the poor thinking that my position is based on.”
Your welcome. Don’t mention it.
All I’m really doing here is defing terms in the debate. When we say someone is immoral, we have an idea of some disgusting thing that person has done: raped, stole, killed without justification, cheated, etc. You want to apply the label of immoral to people without having anything on the list apply. I’m asking you to define how you’re using the term. What, specifically, have they done that is immoral? You answer “b-b-but they voluntarily joined an immoral war”. But that is not a fact, it is an opinion. And if you are talking with peolpe who share that opinion you have a low threshold of proof. But in a more open forum the burden for your case is increased.
Now we can have a purely hypothetical discussion about soldiers joining up to fight in War X, which is 100% immoral, and ask if those soldiers are immoral. But that is not what the OP was asking. He was talking about our real world. I suggest you reread it.
[QUOTE=Princhester]
Furthermore, this thread is about whether soldiers are themselves culpable *given * the premise that the current Iraq war is an outrage. That’s what everyone else in thread is discussing. If you want to have a discussion about whether Iraq is in fact an outrage, if you want to argue that it is not: fine. Go play somewhere else. It’s not a discussion I am currently having.
[/QUOTE]
You Funnyman! Are there any other things that you’d like to suggest that I do that I won’t be doing? And if you don’t want to have the discussion, don’t. Scratch your ass. See, that’s you not having the discussion you don’t want to have. Typing the post to me, not as much.
And that was cute of you, using “an outrage” instead of “is immoral”. There is more agreement on the former, but then you can switch back to the stronger word again in conclusion to label soldiers as immoral. Tricky as the dickens you are. B+ for effort. F for arguing honorably.
Oh, and the defintion of coward is someone who displays cowardly behavior. Helpful, huh?
[QUOTE=Princhester]
Now fuck off and leave the thread to those actually capable of understanding the discussion, there’s a good boy.
[/QUOTE]
Heavens! You seem a little miffed. I guess it true what they say, never corner a rat. Even though you caused it yourself, I understand your frustration. You simply want to state:
- The war is immoral
- Soldiers are voluntary participants in the war
- Therefore the soldiers are immoral
Sorry, Princess, that’s not how this works. I’ve stated that there were two aspects to this and that I am interested in discussiing them both. In discussing #2, I’ve been willing to grant #1. But that doesn’t mean #1 is off the table. Not by a long shot. It is perfectly acceptable for one to challenge a premise, especially when it is repeatedly given as the only support for said immorality.
Now, surely you know that in war that soldiers sometimes commit “acts” that most people would characterize as immoral. If I point to Person A and say not only is he a soldier, but an immoral one, the implication is that he either tortured, raped, ran a black market operation with medicine, etc. Now in reality he acted honorably during the entire war—except for what: signing up. No, no, Princess, the only way the act of signing up would automatically qualify as an immoral act is is there was agreement on the immorality of the war. There isn’t. You wantiing to so cheaply slap the label of immoral on people without them having done anything that people would normally qualify as immoral is in itself an immoral act. Congratulations! Now let me pin your medal onto your forehead.
Signing a piece of paper, taking an oath and then going where your told is not an immoral act. If you are sent to serve in Alaska, joining up it is not immoral. If you are sent to serve in Iraq, joiniing up is not an immoral act. A person is only fairly labeld as immoral if while in Alaska or Iraq he commits an actual immoral act. Why you cannot muster the decency to assume people moral until they prove otherwise is baffling. And telling.
Now why don’t you do the honorable thing for a change and argue in good faith. More important, before you so readily attempt to slap a label of immorality on people wholesale, remember that your talkiing about individuals, and that no person deserves such a label unless you can point to a specific act they’ve committed that is, in fact, immoral.
Seems like a small thing to grant people. Guess it’s too much for you, eh Princess?