[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 40 KB, 465x348, e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3837690 No.3837690 [Reply] [Original]

Why is it for most killing a individual out of self defense worse then killing someone while in the military on a battlefield?

>> No.3837700

>Why is it for most killing a individual out of self defense worse then killing someone while in the military on a battlefield?
It's not. What are you referring to? And what do you mean by "worse"?

>> No.3837696

Who says it was worse? What are your sources behind this claim?

If it's just because more people do kill on the battlefield, that's simply because they've been through the training and propaganda.

>> No.3837702

>ITT: OP makes shit up

>> No.3837707 [DELETED] 
File: 22 KB, 310x310, wonka.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3837707

>>3837702
welcome to /sci/
please enjoy your stay

>> No.3837717

No, no I see it.

Cause you don't go on trial every time you kill someone on a battlefield right?

For some reason war gets a pass in a lot of ways. Even the christfags forget about "though shall not kill" when it comes to supporting our troops.

>> No.3837721

>>3837717
thou*

>> No.3837724

>2011
>Killing people

Hasn't Picard taught you faggots anything?

>> No.3837727
File: 31 KB, 524x600, Toothpaste Commercial.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3837727

>>3837724
Fuck off baldy.

>> No.3837733

>>3837717
> Even the christfags forget about "thou shall not kill" when it comes to supporting our troops.
It's not hypocrisy - it's a non-pacifist understanding of "thou shall not kill".

>>3837724
The Klingons laugh at your pacifism. Prepare to die.

>> No.3837740

>>3837727
>>3837724

I saw a thing on TV once for Next Gen. I think it was for Gene Roddenberry's funeral or something.

It had all the TNG and TOS actors (that were still alive) up on stage. The two groups were segregated. The Next Gen guys were all wearing suits and shit, while the TOS guys were wearing leather jackets and shit (at least 'Sulu' and Shatner were). The TNG group looked really nervous and out of place, while the TOS guys were just all chill with their hands in their pockets and shit.

While watching them give their speeches, all I could think was Patrick Stewart going up to shake Shatner's hand, and Shatner pulling it away at the last section and saying

>TUNNEL SNAKES RULE

and then the TOS actors beaming away immediately after.

>> No.3837749

If you are in the army you kinda had it coming and it was your own choice to take this risk (given that you live in a country where military service isn't compulsory). If you're a civilian you just had bad luck. That's the difference.

>> No.3837758

>>3837749
Defending against an agressor (in war) is just the nation-level equivalent of defending against an agressor (in a home invasion).

>> No.3837766

>>3837740
A Tribute to Gene Roddenberry - Season 5 special features of TNG.

I know my special features.

>> No.3837769

>>3837749
The fuck? Having an army is a complete necessity so you don't get steamrolled by another country.

>> No.3837783

>>3837696
> Who says it was worse?

OP means "for most LIBERALS", who are mentally ill.

Most Liberals just talk to other Liberals, and so form a sort of "echo chamber" where their mentally-ill ideas just bounce back and forth within a limited forum of like-minded fuckers and take on the appearance of fully vetted truth.

>> No.3837790

if you're ordered to do it. responsibility lies with the commander.

>> No.3837793

>>3837758
>>3837769
How the fuck can you even interpret my post as that I'm against having a national defence or something? There were no such implications whatsoever.
I'm just trying to rationally answer OP's question on an individual level.

>> No.3837812

>>3837793
Your post seemed to suggest that serving in an army is less morally justified if you can opt out.

Is choosing to defend yourself in a home invasion less morally justified, because you can choose to do nothing?

>> No.3837821

>>3837758
and if your nation is the agressor?

>> No.3837826

>>3837769
Costa Rica doesn't have an army.

>> No.3837832

>>3837812
No wait, disregard that. I myself misinterpreted OP's post. I was talking about getting killed. Not killing.
Oh well.

>> No.3837840

>>3837826
They're lucky to be in a position that makes this viable.

South Korea, for instance, can't do this.

>> No.3837844

>>3837812

the whole point is the situation today is caused by the actions of yesterday.

its like saying the geneva convention somehow justifies war,
when any idealist head in the clouds day dreamer knows there should be no war in the first place.

the world cant take a step back though.. ignorance and pride compel only the charge.
so at an individual level.. you just stop the fuel for the war..
its the most effective exit strategy.. less bodies equates to less war.

it does not equate to less defenses..

>> No.3837848

Because so many of the people who claim self-defense killed when their lives weren't really in danger.

"Mother fuckers in my house, shoot him in the back!" Turns out to be a drunk who wandered into your house by accident or a completely unarmed robber the would of run that second he got caught.

>> No.3837862

>>3837848
>completely unarmed robber
Fuck him.

You're right about the drunk though.

>> No.3837858

>>3837844
> the situation today is caused by the actions of yesterday.
Would you argue that the US "deserved" to be bombed at Pearl Harbor?

>its the most effective exit strategy.. less bodies equates to less war.
Not necessarily. Sometimes the best way to limit losses is to win quickly and decisively. And often losing is not an option. Some things are worth fighting for.

>> No.3837895

>>3837858

i did not know of the events that lead up to pearl harbor.

let me ask you something.. does having a nuclear deterrent promote or reduce the threat of war.

its a case of entry strategy in my eyes.. anyway if its not communism its something else.

understand.

..and you thought propaganda posters were a thing of the past.

>> No.3837903

Killing is killing. Bombs explode, buildings fall, empires get conquered. We make arbitrary laws and exceptions to give a sense of order in a chaotic world.

>> No.3837904

>>3837895
>does having a nuclear deterrent promote or reduce the threat of war.
Reduce. MAD works, if second strike ability is preserved.

>> No.3837909

>>3837903
It's not arbitrary. What humans want is the basis. We're trying to stabilize and optimize the pursuit of what humans want.

>> No.3837918

>>3837848

How do you make a difference between a drunk man, a robber, a raper, a killer?

Better him than me so I don't care what his plan were.

>> No.3837924

>>3837918
Oops, the drunk was your son.

Not saying you don't or shouldn't have the right, but you need to be careful.

>> No.3837939

>>3837848
> Turns out to be a drunk who wandered into your house by accident or a completely unarmed robber the would of run that second he got caught.

Can't say much for the drunk, except that drunks tend to not be threatening. But the robber scenario you speak of is laughable and pathetic, which means you're Liberal. How do you know he's unarmed? How do you know his intentions? And what does it matter that he'll run when fully approached? HE'S A FUCKING BURGLAR AND WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SEIZE HIM AND BRING HIM BEFORE A COURT OF LAW. If he resists that, then he'll have to face the physical consequences of being fired on.

At any rate, go tell a group of police that they have to make ABSOLUTELY SURE that the guys they are aiming their guns at are armed or not, before firing. The police will laugh it up and toss your stupid Liberal fuckass out. No cop has to take the risk that the guy has a weapon hidden on him, which can be produced and swung or aimed at any time. And neither does any defender in his own home.

>> No.3837941

>>3837909

Not arbitrary in regards to what? Human needs? Who is the authority on what human needs are? Every entity from individal to corporation to nation to civilization has conflicting and contrary definition of needs. What entity takes precedent and how is that decided? Through arbitration.

>> No.3837955

>>3837924

>Implying I shoot everything that make a sound between 10pm and 6am.

>> No.3837960

>>3837924
> Not saying you don't or shouldn't have the right, but you need to be careful.

Absolutely. Those who use force in self defense are ALWAYS responsible for their actions, meaning by default you have to be careful. Who said otherwise? OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, L-I-B-E-R-A-L-S.

>> No.3837961

Killing is always killing. I don't think you one should have any more right to kill someone just because it's on a battlefield. You just don't have as much of an option there, but it's in no way less wrong.

>> No.3837969

>>3837941
>Who is the authority on what human needs are?
Humans.

>Every entity from individal to corporation to nation to civilization has conflicting and contrary definition of needs.
Not the most basic ones. And only individuals count. Nations only have value to the degree that their individuals have value.

I'm not saying we don't have disagreements. But "what humans want" has a lot of common ground, if we talk about primary desires, and not our preferred theories on how to obtain them.

>> No.3837973

>>3837961
>Right and wrong

Who are you or anyone else to decide that for me?

>> No.3837974

>>3837955
> Implying I shoot everything that make a sound between 10pm and 6am.

The problem is that Liberals actually believe that. They believe that self-defense in the home involves some uncaring and rightwing fucker who just blasts away at any sound he hears in the dark. Liberals are mentally ill.

>> No.3837986

>>3837961
Bullshit. That's some silly absolutist thinking. Going into someone's home and murdering them is not morally equivalent to killing the guy who's invading your home with apparent intent to kill you.

>> No.3838021

Another important factoid here is that the Liberals are so terrorized by effective self-defense, because they know full well that the current wave of /\/iggers and 5pics would be demoralized when so many of them die from home invasions. Liberals want the nation overrun with shitskins.

>> No.3838031

>>3837969

Yes, certaintly, but in regards to the original question (OP's question), I would have to argue that the needs of individuals to bigger constructs (e.g. nations) are necessarily different. Nations go to war to defend interests of the nation, and the nation has defined properties that are emergent in nature. At what point does x amount of individuals become the nation? It's arbitrary. The entity of nation then emerges a property that none of the individuals inherently contained on their own. If I explained clearly enough, you can now see that the individual killing for self-defense is essentially and exclusively different from the nation killing for the sake of war, and that is because the construct of "nation" has properties that supersede what any given individual in that nation is, on his/her own.

>> No.3838048

>>3837904

so russia and china pose less of a threat to the world.

and have less of a threat posed against them.

its internally that they may not be sound..
"for the people"

i guess war might be justified in freeing them from government.. but not if it makes no distinction from government and people.

im thinking changing attitudes towards muslims and islam as case in point.

the propaganda posters are back on the streets.

>> No.3838058

>>3837939
>>3837918
Personally, I wouldn't kill someone unless I clearly knew my life was in danger. You don't know their intentions, but I don't immediately assume they want to kill or rape me just start blasting before investigating. Usually they just want money. I would rather be robbed than shoot a man, but I guess that is the difference being a right wing nut job and liberal like myself.

>> No.3838182

Because you can't regulate war in the same way as you can regulate a criminal case. You need to monopolize violence so that you have superior force to suppress the resistance of the part you accuse. Think of war crimes, you can scream "foul" but unless you are on the winning side there will have little to no effect. Own war crimes files under collateral, enemy war crime get prosecuted.

>> No.3838197
File: 201 KB, 397x407, Costanza4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3838197

>>3837740
What a pointless story.

>> No.3838200
File: 9 KB, 278x309, 1274542670944.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3838200

>>3837740
>2011
>Watching Stargate

>> No.3838728

>>3838031
> for the sake of war
I'm not sure what you mean by this.

>> No.3840942

>>3837939
Except that police do have believe that the person they are aiming at has a gun before firing. Firing at an unarmed man is a super big deal for cops.