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.
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.
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?
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 ;).
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
](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?
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.
Bull. “All soldiers are immoral” is just as irresponsible as any other generalization.
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?
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.
Nope, never said that.
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.
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.
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?
