# Sevastopol, Der Trihs, round 2 motherfuckers! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 4, 2006, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959 "2006-02-04T04:32:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/41 "2006-02-04T16:18:21Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I didn’t say that they did. To gain citizenship via military service you _did_ have to be a member of the military though. Something that Der Trihs could never be even if he wanted to, once he took the ASVAB and the result came back, “Dumb as Shit” they’d happily send him on his way or perhaps call social services and tell them that he needed a case worker. No, you had to join the Federal Service. You _might_ be assigned to military duty, but most likely not. **Der Trihs** would have to be accepted because, as the doctor giving Rico his physical explains, “Why, we _never_ fail anyone. The law doesn’t permit us to.” Now whether his eventual job was counting paper clips on Titan is a different question. Sorry for the mini-lecture. 🙂 As to your main point of earning citizenship, in general, I could agree with you. The devil is in the details though, and I think it would be impossible for a method to be developed that was not susceptible to corruption. It’s far simpler and fairer to just let all of us participate and let the idiots identify themselves. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/42 "2006-02-04T16:19:13Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > It would also immediately raise the intelligence of the electorate as the poor are almost universally less intelligent than the wealthy. If this is true how can you afford the membership fees here? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/43 "2006-02-04T16:20:02Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > No, I’m not referring to any “I don’t care about the troops because I’m anti-war” arguments or the like, I’m talking about pointed comments that refer to military members in general (which includes me) or more pointed comments such as the ones we saw from **mswas** where I am referred to as a criminal (“equivalent to a terrorist” was the exact quote, I believe). > > That’s quite acceptable to the powers that be around here, but as I said previously if I were to refer to a “protected class” in such generalities I would have been shown the door a long time ago. Well, c’mon. There’s a serious difference between calling all black people criminals and calling all US military folks criminals. Folks in the military are defined by their actions and their choices, not by their race. I believe there’s a legitimate philosophical position that condemns soldiers for their choices. There’s not a legitimate philosophical position that condemns black people for their chromosomes. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/44 "2006-02-04T16:33:28Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > There’s a serious difference between calling all black people criminals and calling all US military folks criminals. Is there? > [@](#): > > Folks in the military are defined by their actions and their choices, not by their race. As are black people. If a black guy murders someone in Los Angeles tomorrow, is it legitimate to therefore conclude that all black people are murderers and they should all be killed because they deserve it? The answer to that is of course no, but it’s OK when some douchebags torture people at Abu Ghraib to say that all military people are abusive and deserve to die at the hands of the insurgents? On the SDMB, it is. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/45 "2006-02-04T16:34:10Z")
> [@Frank](#): > > No, you had to join the Federal Service. You _might_ be assigned to military duty, but most likely not. **Der Trihs** would have to be accepted because, as the doctor giving Rico his physical explains, “Why, we _never_ fail anyone. The law doesn’t permit us to.” Now whether his eventual job was counting paper clips on Titan is a different question. I wasn’t saying Der Trihs would have failed in Heinlein’s world, I was talking about the current United States, as evidenced by my mention of the ASVAB. I had to read Starship Troopers back when I was at West Point, I seem to remember that Rico specifically intended to join the military branch of service, not that he was assigned there randomly. I’d have to read the book again before I’ll be willing to accept what you’re saying in that regard, and since I don’t own it that may not be for some time ;). ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/46 "2006-02-04T16:37:11Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Well, c’mon. There’s a serious difference between calling all black people criminals and calling all US military folks criminals. Folks in the military are defined by their actions and their choices, not by their race. I believe there’s a legitimate philosophical position that condemns soldiers for their choices. There’s not a legitimate philosophical position that condemns black people for their chromosomes. > > Daniel No legitimate philosophical position can condemn an entire class of people for their choices. Your acts to generalize military service, the reasons people perform it, and even the aspects of said service are evidence of a simple mind. Or at least evidence of one trying to simplify something simply to justify great personal distaste for the military. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/47 "2006-02-04T16:38:43Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Well, c’mon. There’s a serious difference between calling all black people criminals and calling all US military folks criminals. Folks in the military are defined by their actions and their choices, not by their race. I believe there’s a legitimate philosophical position that condemns soldiers for their choices. There’s not a legitimate philosophical position that condemns black people for their chromosomes. > > Daniel Oh, and yes, _individual soldiers_ can be condemned for their choices. Like the choice to abuse prisoners, or the choice to wantonly kill civilians. But there is no legitimate philosophy that can condemn _all_ soldiers in such a manner. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/48 "2006-02-04T16:48:37Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > Is there? Of course. > [@](#): > > As are black people. > > If a black guy murders someone in Los Angeles tomorrow, is it legitimate to therefore conclude that all black people are murderers and they should all be killed because they deserve it? You severely misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s okay to generalize–that, since some American soldiers torture prisoners, all do. I am saying that a legitimate position says that choosing to join the US military is an unethical choice, and that anyone who makes this choice is behaving unethically. Being a soldier is being a choice. Being black is not. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > No legitimate philosophical position can condemn an entire class of people for their choices. Martin, that’s just idiotic. May I condemn all murderers for their choices? All cheaters? All terrorists? In all these cases, I’m condemning an entire class of people for their choices. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/49 "2006-02-04T17:20:03Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > 1. People like Der Trihs have been abused throughout childhood to the point that they can no longer function as proper members of society. I know that I would cheer on if some unnamed malignant force was to brutally murder him and everyone like him, so I guess I can’t blame him for feeling the same way about people like me. What the fuck? Am I the only person that noticed this? First **Der Thris** said some pretty stupid things, things which even many of the lefty posters have denounced. But the penalty for that is a pit thread, not “brutal murder” at the hands of “some unnamed malignant force,” whatever _that_ means. Are you seriously saying people should be killed for their opinions? Secondly I doubt if you have knowledge about **Der Thris’** childhood. I’m not sure how you can say with certainty that he has been abused. But, thirdly, let’s assume he was abused throughout childhood, abused so badly that he cannot function as a “proper member of society,” whatever that means. There are such people in the world, though again neither I nor, I’m guessing, you have any idea if **Der Thris** is among their number. You would seriously cheer if such people were brutally murdered??! Wow. I was going to write something involving Nazis, but I think I’ll just let your words speak for themselves. damn. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/50 "2006-02-04T17:31:28Z")
You know Larry, I do not think to many people read much of ol marty blather. How else do you explaine this little gem of his slipping by without comment? > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > the poor are almost universally less intelligent than the wealthy ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/51 "2006-02-04T17:34:59Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > [hijack] Sorry to say, but, no, they are not. [/hijack] Thanks for the link to that story. Actually, i was aware of those incidents; my aim was more to make a rhetorical point in reply to **Hung Mung** , who was painting America’s involvement in Iraq as nothing but by-the-book benevolence. > [@Hung Mung](#): > > I’m not defending torture and I’m definitely not going to defend the actions of the guards at Abu Ghraib. Combat and torture are not the same thing. > > If you check out the Zimbardo study on prisons it’ll shed some interesting light on how quickly that kind of situation can escalate. Again, I’m not defending Abu Ghraib, but I don’t think people should be shocked that it happened. Those folks weren’t trained to handle that situation and it got way, way out of hand. Why is it that when crap like this happens, we’re always asked to accept that it’s some sort of radically different or unusual situation that “they just weren’t prepared for,” and that this in no way reflects on the military as an institution? I thought part of the whole credo of the armed forces was that are, in fact, trained and prepared to deal with unusual situations. Exactly how many times does shit like this have to happen before we begin to accept that it is, in fact, part of an institutional and cultural problem among a substantial minority of those who serve? When the military does something good and laudable and courageous, we’re always asked to accept that this is typical, that it reflects the institution as a whole; why not when it does something bad? The same applies to domestic authorities like the FBI, police forces, prison guards. Every time something bad happens, the “one bad apple” argument is trotted out by defenders of authority, with the result that the institutional culture and inertia that allows abuse of authority to thrive is never really addressed. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/52 "2006-02-04T17:39:42Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I’m not saying it’s okay to generalize–that, since some American soldiers torture prisoners, all do. I am saying that a legitimate position says that choosing to join the US military is an unethical choice, and that anyone who makes this choice is behaving unethically. Being a soldier is being a choice. Being black is not. Exactly. The moment you sign up to join the military, you implicitly accept that you may, at some time, have to kill another person for no other reason than a guy with stripes on his arms tells you to. For anyone who is opposed to this sort of thing, from a pacifist or some other worldview, it’s logical to believe that joining the military is, in and of itself, an immoral act. Others might disagree with that, but it’s a moral position that is NOT the same as a generalization from the act of one to the acts of all. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/53 "2006-02-04T17:40:34Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > I had to read Starship Troopers back when I was at West Point, I seem to remember that Rico specifically intended to join the military branch of service, not that he was assigned there randomly. No, you’re right, he did volunteer for the infantry. My point was simply that service in general was required to become a citizen, not specifically military service. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/54 "2006-02-04T17:48:55Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Thanks Finn. Consider ignorance fought. No prob, it’s my pleasure. > [@mhendo](#): > > Thanks for the link to that story. Again, no problem at all. I still have most of these links from a recent cite fight where I was being accused of being a traitor to my country because I read the news. (Well, strictly speaking it was that I’m a traitor because I read the news, and then repeat what I’ve read.) I think, however, that the final answer lies somewhere between total responsibility for all soldiers, and blaiming only ‘a few bad apples’. I do not think it’s fair to blame all soldiers for the actions of some, but at the same time, there have been some organizations and top-down fuckups which were pretty outrageous. Camp Mercury, for instance, is a posterchild for much greater oversight of our detention facilities. Torture was sanctioned and covered up by every level of command, from the enlisted men to the officers to the doctors at the camp who falsified reports. [ > [@](#): > > The new allegations center around systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees by men of the 82nd Airborne at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base located near Fallujah, the scene of a major uprising against the U.S. occupation in April 2004, according to sources familiar with the report and accounts given by the Captain, who is in his mid-20s, to Senate staff. Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public. Other alleged abuses described in the Human Rights report occurred at Camp Tiger, near Iraq’s border with Syria, and previously in Afghanistan. In addition, the report details what the Captain says was his unsuccessful effort over 17 months to get the attention of military superiors. ]([http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html)) [ > [@](#): > > The Human Rights Watch report—as well as accounts given to Senate staff—describe officers as aware of the abuse but routinely ignoring or covering it up. ]([http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html)) [ > [@](#): > > The Captain is quoted in the report describing how military intelligence personnel at Camp Mercury directed enlisted men to conduct daily beatings of prisoners prior to questioning; to subject detainees to strenuous forced exercises to the point of unconsciousness; and to expose them to extremes of heat and cold—all methods designed to produce greater cooperation with interrogators. Non-uniformed personnel—apparently working for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to the soldiers—also interrogated prisoners. The interrogators were out of view but not out of earshot of the soldiers, who overheard what they came to believe was abuse. ]([http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html)) [ > [@](#): > > Prisoners were designated as PUCs (pronounced “pucks”)—or “persons under control.” A regular pastime at Camp Mercury, the report says, involved off-duty soldiers gathering at PUC tents, where prisoners were held, and working off their frustrations in activities known as “F\_\_\_\_a PUC” (beating the prisoner) and “Smoke a PUC” (forced physical exertion, sometimes to the point of collapse). Broken limbs and similar painful injuries would be treated with analgesics, the soldiers claim, as medical staff would fill out paperwork stating the injuries occurred during capture. ]([http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html)) [ > [@](#): > > Support for some of the allegations of abuse come from a sergeant of the 82nd Airborne who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch quotes him as saying that, "To ‘F\_\_\_\_ a PUC’ means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To ‘smoke’ someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day. Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement. ]([http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html)) [ > [@](#): > > The Human Rights Watch report describes the Captain, in particular, as deeply frustrated by his attempts to report the abuse to his own superiors, who repeatedly instructed him to keep quiet, to ignore what he’d seen and to consider the implications for his career. ]([http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1108972,00.html)) There or, of coruse, other cites, including other military physicians who lied and falsified their reports. They can be provided upon request, but perhaps we should let this hijack die now? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/55 "2006-02-04T17:53:27Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Exactly. > > The moment you sign up to join the military, you implicitly accept that you may, at some time, have to kill another person for no other reason than a guy with stripes on his arms tells you to. For anyone who is opposed to this sort of thing, from a pacifist or some other worldview, it’s logical to believe that joining the military is, in and of itself, an immoral act. And that’s perfectly acceptable. But does this view then allow you to state explicitly that soldiers should die because they deserve it? That view is immoral as well, and therefore it is the ultimate demonstration of hypocrisy. > [@](#): > > Others might disagree with that, but it’s a moral position that is NOT the same as a generalization from the act of one to the acts of all. Bull. “All soldiers are immoral” is just as irresponsible as any other generalization. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/56 "2006-02-04T17:54:39Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > They can be provided upon request, but perhaps we should let this hijack die now? There are at least three separate conversations taking place here. Which one is the hijack? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/57 "2006-02-04T18:08:50Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > It’s a reference to a character in the webcomic Schlock Mercenary, as it happen. Ah. [It makes sense now.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlock_Mercenary_characters#Lieutenant_John_Der_Trihs) > [@](#): > > Der Trihs’ name is “Red Shirt” spelled backwards, a reference to the red-shirted and highly-expendable security personnel from the original Star Trek series. … he has no particular competence or value … the real reason for his incompetence was that when he went into Spec Ops, he volunteered for an elite intel unit, and the military’s surgeons attempted to “upgrade” his brain. When the operation failed, the “Borthwog Torturer eating part of his brain” story was implated into his memory as a cover. But self-aware, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/58 "2006-02-04T18:13:05Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Martin, that’s just idiotic. May I condemn all murderers for their choices? All cheaters? All terrorists? In all these cases, I’m condemning an entire class of people for their choices. > > Daniel You can, but it wouldn’t be a legitimate philosophy. You have no idea what motivated the murder, maybe it was something you would consider justified. You have no idea what motivated the cheating. Or the terrorism, is all terrorism definitely bad? Ever read Ellison’s “Repent, Harlequin!”? The protaganist could definitely be considered a terrorist in the context of that society, yet he was fighting against a society ran by a vaguely defined absolute despot who executed people for cumulative tardiness. And the problem is, “the military” isn’t even comparable to such classes as murderers, cheaters, or terrorists, because it is much less well-defined. All murderers have murdered and all cheaters have cheated, but I can’t think of a single thing you could generalize about individuals in the military. Except maybe, the wearing of a uniform. Some college educated, some are not. Some are MDs, some are not. Some have killed, most have not. Some have seen combat, most have not. Some join to support a specific war, the overwhelming majority have not. Some have never left the United States, some wouldn’t know how to kill someone with a weapon any better than your average video game player. You said, “There’s a serious difference between calling all black people criminals and calling all US military folks criminals. Folks in the military are defined by their actions and their choices, not by their race.” Alright, so explain to me how that makes calling all US military folks criminals any more valid. What choices define members of the U.S. military that are shared by ALL members of the military? Even the non-combatants and the technicians. The only universal choices made by folks in the military is the choice to serve, is that choice by its very nature condemnable? If such a choice is condemnable, how do the people who live under the protection of a military avoid being hypocrites? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/59 "2006-02-04T18:19:53Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > What the fuck? Am I the only person that noticed this? > > First **Der Thris** said some pretty stupid things, things which even many of the lefty posters have denounced. But the penalty for that is a pit thread, not “brutal murder” at the hands of “some unnamed malignant force,” whatever _that_ means. I never said that was the penalty for his actions, nor would I wish that upon him. I was simply saying, that just as he takes glee in the death of soldiers, I would take glee in the deaths of people who take joy in the death of soldiers. > [@](#): > > Are you seriously saying people should be killed for their opinions? Nope, never said that. > [@](#): > > Secondly I doubt if you have knowledge about **Der Thris’** childhood. I’m not sure how you can say with certainty that he has been abused. He’s given us glimpses. His constant whining about how he was “religiously indoctrinated” as a child. It’s the behavior of someone who is extremely resentful towards their childhood and views it as abusive. He’s also condemned the school system because he was (probably justly) bullied in it. Anyways, I can’t say it with certainty, I guess it was just wishful thinking. > [@](#): > > But, thirdly, let’s assume he was abused throughout childhood, abused so badly that he cannot function as a “proper member of society,” whatever that means. There are such people in the world, though again neither I nor, I’m guessing, you have any idea if **Der Thris** is among their number. You would seriously cheer if such people were brutally murdered??! If such people’s neurotic disposition lead them to take certain stances, like for example taking pleasure in the death of soldiers, yes I would cheer and throw a party if people like that in general met untimely and extremely painful and brutal deaths. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959/60 "2006-02-04T18:42:59Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I am saying that a legitimate position says that choosing to join the US military is an unethical choice, and that anyone who makes this choice is behaving unethically. Being a soldier is being a choice. Being black is not. The only way to believe that joining the military is in itself an unethical choice is if you believe that your nation should not have a military at all. Does anyone believe that? Is there a country on the planet that has absolutely no military? Because if you agree that a military is an important tool for state sovereignity, then it’s not unethical to join it. And once you’ve joined it, you are obligated to carry out the legal commands of your superiors. I also wonder if those who believe it’s unethical to join the military limit their belief to only the U.S. military? I wonder if they believe it’s unethical to join, say, the military wing of Hezbollah or Hamas? Or to become U.N. blue helmets? Or to be in the Canadian military, doing peacekeeping duties around the world? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sevastopol-der-trihs-round-2-motherfuckers/342959.md?page=4)