Hinkle may have joined the army in 2005 for any number of reasons. He may, indeed, have been a gun-toting racist with delusions of American imperialism. That’s entirely possible. He may also have seen that things were bad in Iraq, and thought he could help make things better. That’s naive, but it’s hardly a moral evil. He may even have believed that he genuinely thought going to war in Iraq would help prevent terrorist attacks in the US. Which is flat-out stupid, but there’s a bit of a difference between stupid and evil.
That’s all just about his moral culpability. Should he have gone over there? No, no one should have gone over there. Does his choice to enlist make him deserving of being crippled for the rest of his life, as you have implied? No, and that sentiment is far more evil than his wrong-headed decision to join the military at this time and place. As a result of his choice, does his family deserve to lose their home? Does his wife deserve to lose her job because she needs to take care of her husband fulltime? Do his kids deserve to be deprived of their father? Do the lot of them deserve to live in poverty, unable to get out of the crushing debt incurred by his enormous medical bills? According to your asinine, “cry me a river” post, that’s exactly what they deserve. And that’s why your a miserable piece of shit, MrDibble.
And speaking as someone who wants us to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible, do me a favor and shut the fuck up about the war. Assholes like you are not helping.
None of which are relevant to me. It’s simple - willingly help Evil do its work, a little blame rubs off on you.
I don’t think they deserve any of those things. No-one does.
I think the question you should ask, is “do they deserve our sympathy”?. There, my answer is a flat-out no. He went willingly, what happened to him stems from his own choices. I’d have a bit more sympathy if he was a conscript.
You can interpret it any way you want to. Doesn’t worry me.
Because I think all your Iraqi-occupying troops are complicit in wrongdoing? Because I have no sympathy for someone who chose his own path?
I save my sympathy for innocent victims. And I sleep just fine at night, too.
Make me. Prove to me my moral stance is wrong. Then I’ll shut up. Until then, not really arsed what you think.
Not if you’re not aware that what you’re doing is evil.
That’s not what you said in your first post here. “Reap, meet Sow,” remember? What is that, but a declaration that he deserves what happened to him in Iraq?
“They” meaning his family? His children don’t deserve any sympathy for what happened to their father? For losing their house? For living in poverty? No sympathy for any of that? And only a bit if he had been in Iraq against his will?
And you call this a moral stance?
Already done. Someday, you may even be mature enough to understand what I’ve said to you here. But you will, I hope, excuse me if I do not hold my breath.
Other people have already sufficiently proven far more eloquently than I could how much of a bigoted, ignorant dumbfuck you are, why should I also go through the unnecessary and futile effort of trying to get through your thick skull how utterly stupid your opinion is?
Ignorance is not a valid excuse for immoral actions. Every moral actor has the responsibility to ensure the rightness of their actions. Only little children and the mentally handicapped get a pass. Everyone else doesn’t.
Was that sentence soon after the one about “blood money”? Why, yes it was. So what do you think I was referring to?
Once again - show where I have said anything about taking delight in his injuries. Keep trying to light that strawman, it just might smoulder one of these days.
You’re right, you’re right - they deserve sympathy for one thing - for having a dumb father who put his ideology or faith in his evil government above his family.
Well, yes - even conscripts get to sit down on the ground and say “Hell no, I won’t go!”. You don’t shoot people who refuse orders outside direct combat anymore, do you?
It’s entirely sound to me. You certainly haven’t shown me any flaws.
Sorry, but no.
You have failed to show that helping evil do its work is blame-free. I’ve already attacked your one pathetic attempt at a defence above. “I didn’t know” doesn’t fly when it comes to moral responsibility.
Helllooo??? Is there an echo in here? Try to keep up, m’kay?
What rules would those be? The only rule I’ve advanced is that willingly helping a wrongful action is morally wrong.
Since I have the physical scars to show I opposed the wrongful actions in South Africa, you just look like an ignorant prick to me. And a very slow one.
Gee, look, another Me-too like Steve MB who’s under the mistaken impression Miller was the Big Dog that did all the heavy lifting, so it was safe to nip at my ankles. How cute, he’s yapping - it’s almost like he had something to say. What, Boy? You want to go out? Or you’ll piddle your blankie? OK, out you … oh no, too late! Bad doggie! Bad puppy!
Look who decided to come back. It’d be better if he actually addressed any of my points rather than flinging his own poo, but at least he’s a familiar face. Hello, Moto.
The problem is, Dibble, aside from being a hijacking jackass, is that you have reduced a complex moral issue into a simple one. That has been pointed out to you.
Is giving any support at all morally evil? If you purchase goods form a company that pays taxes in the US, are you morally bankrupt? Some of that money goes to fund the military. Is a doctor who patches up a soldier so he can fight again morally bankrupt? A mother who sends here serviceman son a care package from home? All off these actions contribute to the ability of the USA to wage war.
Are you absolutely sure that you have done nothing to help the USA wage war in Iraq? Nothing at all?
“You’re either with us or against us” is exactly the logic Bush uses. Strange bedfellows, eh?
I disagree that it’s complex. Guy willingly joined an army of occupation. He got wounded. This is in the OP - I don’t see the hijack - I’ve kept on topic, unlike say, Mr. Moto with his apartheid sidestep. Just because I don’t agree with everyone’s “Rah! Rah! I can haz support for teh troopz!” bullshit doesn’t make it a hijack. Post threads like this in MPSIMS if you want a sympathy fest without dissent.
Depends what you mean by “support” - support for the US in general, no. Support that is largely for the Iraq effort, yes.
I’d argue that no, it wouldn’t be morally unsound, unless said company is mainly and directly involved with the war effort.
No. Doctors have their own code, and it’s sound - they treat everyone.
No.
Not directly.
Anything I may have negligibly done to contribute (like the taxes on my membership fees, Moto) is far outweighed by my contributions towards stopping said war or its effects, including, but not limited to, physical protesting here in Cape Town and monetary contributions to both MoveOn and Amnesty.
My conscience is clear.
Good thing that’s not the logic I used. I judged Hinkle by his own actions, not by his membership in any group. It’s the only way to make sound moral evaluations, IMO.
None of that is relevant to me. It’s simple - willingly help Evil do its work, a little blame rubs off on you. You were a part of South African society during apartheid, which means you helped support apartheid. That’s all I need to know to make a moral judgement about you.
I guess no one knows the meaning of the word “willingly” anymore. But hey, if you can’t assail the actual argument, by all means, go off on whatever straw-filled tangent you think convinces the peanut gallery. I’m sure they’ll be back to say how wonderfully you schooled me. To me, you using Mr. Moto’s dumb analogy just makes you look even more pathetic. You were actually arguing well (if losing), and now you fall back on this nonsensical crap.
If this weak sauce is the calibre of true US opposition to your Iraq adventure, as you so loftily claimed to be, no wonder Bush rode rough-shod all over you pussies.
Ummmm…No, fuck you and the horse that rode you. Cunt.
DeBeers is based in South Africa. Since Mr. Dibble is a “house husband” according to his profile he surely benefits from the taxes the largest industry in S.A. pays. Or at least the economy, how else can he afford not to work? That unemployed bastard’s hands are awash in blood diamonds. It’s morally repugnant. He chooses to live there. He didn’t have to stay there. But since blood diamonds are evil, he is morally unjustified. Anyone that says otherwise obviously does not understand that a moral actor is not only judged by his actions, but by his inaction in the face of Evil. By failing to stop the diamond trade, and indeed, profiting off of it, Mr. Dibble is complicit and therefore an unrighteous actor. I would not shed a tear for him if he couldn’t find healthcare after his scrotum was eaten by hyenas.