366 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

Okay, that is seriously disturbing.

Rly do i have mention what soldiers do and for what they are paid?

[Former_Fiend]

Rly do i have mention what soldiers do and for what they are paid?

 

I'm not entirely sure you understand the definition of the word "murder".

[TheKomandorShepard]

I'm not entirely sure you understand the definition of the word "murder".

Well i do but in the end it is killing someone just that is isn't aproved by government and i don't see how goverment approval makes you prettier besides that you get free pass to kill.

[Samahl]

Well i do but in the end it is killing someone just that is isn't aproved by government and i don't see how goverment approval makes you prettier besides that you get free pass to kill.

 

In order for soldiers to kill people, they have to be trained not to empathize with the people they're killing. Most people implicitly empathize with others, and have to repress it in some fashion in order to deliberately cause harm.

[Ynqve]

*enters thread, sees the subject of discussion*

Spoiler

*leaves thread*

[Former_Fiend]

In order for soldiers to kill people, they have to be trained not to empathize with the people they're killing. Most people implicitly empathize with others, and have to repress it in some fashion in order to deliberately cause harm.

 

Indeed, it's military policy(in the US, at least) to discharge anyone who takes to the killing part too easily.

[TheKomandorShepard]

What Former said.

 

You stated in your previous post and I quote, "If i could get away with it (i.e. murder) and had benefit in it don't see a problem."

 

There is a difference between fighting for one's country and committing violence against another person just for the hell of it.

 

Anyways, I can tell from your horrible command of the English language that you are probably ten years old, so I will just chalk this up to you being young and immature.

And what is difference? Would you be more happy if you were killed by soldier that serve his country , god or other organisation than just to be killed by mercenary that does that for money?

 

Besides where i said that i would just commit murder for the hell of it when i said i would do that for benefit?

 

Well if you think that im 10 year old it is your call but i know truth you don't.

 

 

In order for soldiers to kill people, they have to be trained not to empathize with the people they're killing. Most people implicitly empathize with others, and have to repress it in some fashion in order to deliberately cause harm.

I would argue peoples constantly cause harm to others of course there is matter of regret...

[Former_Fiend]

And what is difference? Would you be more happy if you were killed by soldier that serve his country , god or other organisation than just to be killed by mercenary that does that for money?

 

Besides where i said that i would just commit murder for the hell of it when i said i would do that for benefit?

 

Well if you think that im 10 year old it is your call but i know truth you don't.

 

 

I would argue peoples constantly cause harm to others of course there is matter of regret...

 

I could explain the differences to you, but I'm sure they'd go right over your head.

 

At any rate, I'm just going to sit back and wait for this thread to get closed.

[Das Tentakel]

In order for soldiers to kill people, they have to be trained not to empathize with the people they're killing. Most people implicitly empathize with others, and have to repress it in some fashion in order to deliberately cause harm.

It's a bit more complex than that. Untrained people can and will kill, for a variety of reasons. But in order to get a large number of people able and willing to kill all at the same time, you do need to train them to overcome instinctive barriers to interpersonal violence. In modern western societies that is done during military training, in more traditional societies they have other methods.
Moreover, there is always a system of rewards (ranging from medals to booty and elevation to noble status) and punishments (from shaming to execution)in place.
For some otherwise ordinary people, sufficient rewards are probably enough; others do need the training and the threat of punishment.
Perhaps KomandorShepard belongs to the first category?
 

Indeed, it's military policy(in the US, at least) to discharge anyone who takes to the killing part too easily.

That's a control issue and understandable because of the specific cultural context of modern western armies. We like our soldiers to be highly disciplined and not more violent than necessary or beyond what mission parameters allow.
Other armies, past and present, have less problems with that.

[TheKomandorShepard]

I could explain the differences to you, but I'm sure they'd go right over your head.

 

At any rate, I'm just going to sit back and wait for this thread to get closed.

There are differences i already explained one that with one goverment if fine with second not rly.But practically now you are arguing that you are better than guy that killed for money because you killed for god/country/organization i would say it is rather self-righteous.

 

Well there is no reason to close it as far no one is hostile and if they don't want this discussion they can say it and i will end that conversation.  

[Former_Fiend]

There are differences i already explained one that with one goverment if fine with second not rly.But practically now you argue that you are better than guy that killed for money because you killed for god/country/organization i would say it is rather self-righteous.

 

Well there is no reason to close it as far no one is hostile and if they don't want this discussion they can say it and i will end that conversation.  

 

In combat there is an understanding on both sides that they're going to try and kill each other. Both are fighting for a cause greater than themselves; whether that cause is justified, that's a matter of debate for the historians. But there is a mutual acknowledgement that the two sides have come to an impasse that cannot be overcome by means other than physical force, and that the two sides will do whatever is necessary to over come each other, including killing. 

 

Taking a life outside of a combat situation for selfish gain is entirely different from taking a life in a combat situation to further the military campaign. This is about context. Saying the two are the same because it's the same physical act is like saying that there's no difference between a man and a woman having consensual sex and a man raping a woman. They've both performed the same physical act; putting their penis inside the woman's vagina, but the context of the situation is entirely different. 

[TheKomandorShepard]

In combat there is an understanding on both sides that they're going to try and kill each other. Both are fighting for a cause greater than themselves; whether that cause is justified, that's a matter of debate for the historians. But there is a mutual acknowledgement that the two sides have come to an impasse that cannot be overcome by means other than physical force, and that the two sides will do whatever is necessary to over come each other, including killing. 

 

Taking a life outside of a combat situation for selfish gain is entirely different from taking a life in a combat situation to further the military campaign. This is about context. Saying the two are the same because it's the same physical act is like saying that there's no difference between a man and a woman having consensual sex and a man raping a woman. They've both performed the same physical act; putting their penis inside the woman's vagina, but the context of the situation is entirely different. 

I would argue you pretty much try paint it nice and glorious avoiding that it is not so simple and pretty in real life hah i would argue that peoples in war want die or even fight at best both governments want war at worst only 1 side want war.And no one want to die it is you or me situation and who will get benefit.

 

You can talk about higher causes but in the end it is all about benefit with that difference war bring more harm to other side (and your) than simple murder.

For who rapist or victim same i could say about war but who is victim?
        

[Former_Fiend]

I would argue you pretty much try paint it nice and glorious avoiding that it is not so simple and pretty in real life hah i would argue that peoples in war want die or even fight at best both governments want war at worst only 1 side want war.And no one want to die it is you or me situation and who will get benefit.

 

You can talk about higher causes but in the end it is all about benefit with that difference war bring more harm to other side (and your) than simple murder.

For who rapist or victim same i could say about war but who is victim?
        

 

It isn't pretty. It isn't nice. And it isn't glorious. It's brutal, and it's ugly, and it's horrifying. 

 

But when one soldier kills another soldier in combat, it isn't murder.

[TheKomandorShepard]

It isn't pretty. It isn't nice. And it isn't glorious. It's brutal, and it's ugly, and it's horrifying. 

 

But when one soldier kills another soldier in combat, it isn't murder.

Of course i never said it was murder but as i said it was difference was that murder is a crime here it isn't.

[KainD]

It isn't pretty. It isn't nice. And it isn't glorious. It's brutal, and it's ugly, and it's horrifying.

But when one soldier kills another soldier in combat, it isn't murder.

Its not horrifying, its natural.

Killing is killing no matter the context, its always the same.

Edit: here's the definition. Murder is unlawful killing.

[Feybrad]

Wow, and I thought I would act like a Sociopath on the Internet...

[Samahl]

It's a bit more complex than that. Untrained people can and will kill, for a variety of reasons. But in order to get a large number of people able and willing to kill all at the same time, you do need to train them to overcome instinctive barriers to interpersonal violence. In modern western societies that is done during military training, in more traditional societies they have other methods.
Moreover, there is always a system of rewards (ranging from medals to booty and elevation to noble status) and punishments (from shaming to execution)in place.
For some otherwise ordinary people, sufficient rewards are probably enough; others do need the training and the threat of punishment.
Perhaps KomandorShepard belongs to the first category?

 

This doesn't change the fact that they have to repress their capacity to empathize with their victims. The fact that they are doing it on their own doesn't mean they do it any less than those who were trained for it.

[Former_Fiend]

Its not horrifying, its natural.

Killing is killing no matter the context, its always the same.

Edit: here's the definition. Murder is unlawful killing.

 

 

Have you ever killed anyone, KainD? Have you ever seen someone die right in front of you?

[KainD]

This doesn't change the fact that they have to repress their capacity to empathize with their victims. The fact that they are doing it on their own doesn't mean they do it any less than those who were trained for it.

I don't understand how the mere understanding of how the victim feels is supposed to stop the action. Why repress? Some people just don't care.

If I hate someone and want to kill them, that doesn't mean that I don't understand that they are a human just like me, or that I don't understand the pain they will go through.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Have you ever killed anyone, KainD? Have you ever seen someone die right in front of you?

Well even if he was sociopath that keeps bodies in his basement i rather doubt he would admit it...

[KainD]

Have you ever killed anyone, KainD? Have you ever seen someone die right in front of you?

I've never killed a human. I've seem people die, yes.

[Master Warder Z_]

Have you ever killed anyone, KainD? Have you ever seen someone die right in front of you?

 

Have you? 

[Zatche]

I don't understand how the mere understanding of how the victim feels is supposed to stop the action. Why repress? Some people just don't care.

If I hate someone and want to kill them, that doesn't mean that I don't understand that they are a human just like me, or that I don't understand the pain they will go through.

 

I don't really see the point in arguing with you. You're not going to read these posts, suddenly start feeling empathy towards other people, and grow a moral compass. But, maybe I can explain what it's like for the rest of us.

 

It's not just understanding how the victim feels. Empathy tends to have a connotation towards sharing how the victim would feel. Non-psychopaths would not want to inflict pain on another person, because they would, in a way, feel that pain as well. That is why most people find war horrifying. And that is why most people have morals that coincide with the "Golden Rule." The reason why some non-psychopaths do end up killing other people is that it can be overridden by hate, by repression, by viewing groups of people as "others."

 

To you, empathy probably sounds like a bad thing, a weakness. But it is also why we enjoy helping each other. We can share in each others' joy as well as pain. I wouldn't have any other way.

[KainD]

The reason why some non-psychopaths do end up killing other people is that it can be overridden by hate, by repression, by viewing groups of people as "others."

 

I do feel for other people, I have close friends and family members that I care about, that doesn't include every single random person. If it's not a person close to me, I couldn't care less about how they feel, they are all ''others'', and obviously if I want to hurt someone it is because I hate them.