Resolutions

[Zakyath]

really? how many people? relative to say.. people who die outside of a war? how about compared to the chance of killing another in a car accident as opposed to shooting them in a war? now add in gang violence, drugs, and all the other ways people kill each other, and tell me what difference does joining the army do in terms of people dying/getting killed, are you 10% more likely to kill a person in your lifetime if you join the army? 20%? or would you just say 100% since joining the army = killing a minimum of 1 person?

and my point still stands, why bother waiting until the soldier is fatally wounded, why not just kill off the entire army if you think they deserve to die for being soldiers? or is it better to kill off the entire army only when there is a war going on and people dying?

You're really twisting and turning my words here. I don't see how it's relevant if people die anyhow; it's not OK to kill people.

And I don't think the soldiers deserve to die. I think they have no right to invade a country and kill people.

 

[Varine]

New scenario: you're walking around in your home country. Times are turbulent, things are changing, people are uncomfortable. Then, out of no where, BANG! Your roommate has a gun to your head! But you're in your house. When the police come, is it okay for them to kill your crazy roommate if that means they save you? Or should they not work for an opportunity to kill, and hope for the best through diplomacy?

 

[Zakyath]

New scenario

Well, the first alternative would be diplomacy. If that doesn't seem to work, I'd rather see them take him out.

But let's compare this scenario to the war. Just as the US Army initiates a dangerous situation by invading a foreign country, my roomate initiates a dangerous situation by putting a gun to my head. They both had a choice not to. Neither I nor the inhabitants of the invaded country had any say. The initatiors has full responsibility for what might happen, in both cases.

They initiators also puts themselves in a dangerous situation, which means that they are responsible for whatever may happen to them as well. If you put a gun against someone's head, you have to expect to be taken down if not co-operating when the cops show up. My so called friend in this scenario, is therefore responsible for his own death. So are those who go to war by their own volition.

Are you following my reason?

 

[Varine]

Yes, and subsequently confirming my hypothesis.

 

[Zakyath]

Please share your hypothesis

 

[Varine]

I can't, it's in development still.

 

[Zakyath]

Well, take your time then, I guess.

 

[Slapshot136]

I don't see how it's relevant if people die anyhow; it's not OK to kill people.

isn't not saving a person that you CAN save equivalent to killing a person? while at the same time, saving the life of a soldier means being involved in the killing of another, as the soldier is going to fight in a war (since that's all soldiers do according to you), and war = killing people

and people dying of natural causes sure, you can exclude those - but car accidents and gang violence are NOT natural causes, and neither are war fatalities - so I ask again, what is the ratio between the two? is a soldier really more likely to kill another person just because they are in the army?

 

[Accname]

Wow, i am out of this discussion. Not being online for 2 days and its 2 new pages.... Not gonna read this.

 

[FireCat]

Not being online for 2 days.

Eh? I saw you.... Liar!

 

[Accname]

Eh? I saw you.... Liar!

For what? Like 10 seconds?

 

[FireCat]

But you was

 

[Varine]

Wow, i am out of this discussion. Not being online for 2 days and its 2 new pages.... Not gonna read this.

It's not worth it. It's a conversation akin to Firecat.

 

[thewrongvine]

So... how bout them resolutions?

 

[Slapshot136]

So... how bout them resolutions?

I resolve to settle this debate by the time the year is over

 

[Varine]

Okay that makes three of us with resolutions. Little late, but oh well. I think this is progress guys, let's keep it up!

 

[Zakyath]

I resolve to settle this debate by the time the year is over

it's going to be a loooong year. I'll reply to your post tomorrow.

 

[Varine]

He has an exam. He needs hi sleep.

 

[Zakyath]

isn't not saving a person that you CAN save equivalent to killing a person?

That depends on the situation. If you want to play russian roulette, you know the risks. I don't have to jump in front of the barrel when you fire, just to not be guilty for you death.

while at the same time, saving the life of a soldier means being involved in the killing of another, as the soldier is going to fight in a war (since that's all soldiers do according to you), and war = killing people

I'm sorry if I haven't expressed myself clearly, but that is not what I've been trying to say. War means the death of many who didn't want to participate in the war. And with that, I do NOT mean that soldiers only kill, or that killing is all that soldiers want. I'll repeat what I mean so no more confusing about this will arise: War means the death of many who didn't want to participate in the war.

I have no objections to being in the military and not going to war.

and people dying of natural causes sure, you can exclude those - but car accidents and gang violence are NOT natural causes, and neither are war fatalities - so I ask again, what is the ratio between the two? is a soldier really more likely to kill another person just because they are in the army?

When you enter traffic you assume a risk. Apples and oranges. And I don't see how the fact that people die because of gang violence would justify people dying because of war. For the record, I don't approve of gang violence either.

 

[Slapshot136]

When you enter traffic you assume a risk. Apples and oranges. And I don't see how the fact that people die because of gang violence would justify people dying because of war. For the record, I don't approve of gang violence either.

question, what is your position on military operations vs gangs, drug raids, etc.?

When you enter traffic you assume a risk.

and that risk is somehow different than the risk a country takes when it enters a war? the only difference I see is who decides whether or not to take that course of action in cases where the government is a non-democracy

War means the death of many who didn't want to participate in the war.

how exactly do you differentiate a medic in the army who "didn't want to participate" in the war vs a civilian who manufactures guns for the war? or cars, matches, clothes, food, radio's, etc.?