Live data from Hacker News

How We Learned to Kill

nytimes.com

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you volunteer ... you have a special moral responsibility for what happens during a war. A responsibility for your actions, or everything that happens during the war? What if your voluntary enlistment was due to false information, or steady conditioning by the state since childhood? Does intent play no role? Do you extend that line of thinking to the justice system where manslaughter and murder are treated dif…

You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it. I'm a conscientious objector because of that, not because I'm a pacifist (far from it). Reduced to the simplest of arguments: if everybody thought that way the only people that would end up pushing for a fight would be the politicians but they never ever want to get their hands dirty, problem solved. Don't be someone else's tool. As for the 'righteousn…

> You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it.

That is pretty unrealistic. I agree with you about ignoring intent, but I also recognize the fact that at present this sort of philosophy would not work in a world dominated by states.

> ... the only people that would end up pushing for a fight would be the politicians ...

Or defense contractors. In a world where the majority of people believe in ghosts, it is not likely that things will work out in the way you think they would. I'm pretty confident that the US would start exercising its legal authority in drafting military aged males. I can already hear you saying "But they'd refuse!", but that would require you to ignore history.

> I'm not sure if we lived in the same world at the time but from a legal perspective...

I'm guessing not, because you seem to have forgotten all the games played with UN weapons inspectors and violation of no fly zones.

> That's not entirely true either. Flag worshipping...

Actually, the same logic that dismantles the moral authority of the state's power to wage war, dismantles the moral authority of every other state power. So obviously this sort of moral analysis is not occurring regularly, because the world is full of states. I have no doubt that there are a lot of countries full of people who are less predisposed to military expeditions than Americans, but my point is that it isn't due to deep moral reflection.

> That made all the difference in getting him re-elected in the first place, critical thinking does not enter into it.

And yet you are expecting widespread moral reflection from the very same people.

> I've decided that the buck stops with me.

That is great and all, but not every effective in terms of systemic change. If you really want war to go away, then you need to get rid of the state. That is the reason I got involved with development in the bitcoin ecosystem several years ago, popularization would likely deal a killing stroke to the state.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a bastardisation of loyalty though. Yes, people volunteer, because they are expected to. It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know that you can dislike people in general, but still recognize positive qualities right? Here is another example: Sergeant Major Bradley Kasal. This guy used his own body as a bullet stop to protect his Marines, nobody expects that. > What about sp…

"It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about." That's no way to have a discussion. You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. You should probably stick to speaking to your loyal colleges who has everything figured out.

> That's no way to have a discussion.

Says the person who just said that millions of people's understanding of loyalty, myself included, is a "bastardisation" of the word.

> You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment.

I think we understand each other now.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about." That's no way to have a discussion. You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. You should probably stick to speaking to your loyal colleges who has everything figured out.

> That's no way to have a discussion. Says the person who just said that millions of people's understanding of loyalty, myself included, is a "bastardisation" of the word. > You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. I think we understand each other now.

"I think we understand each other now."

Please explain to me how the US military isn't breaking their loyalty to their soldiers when more people die of suicide than was killed in action, when soldiers requesting psychological assistance (which is hard to do by itself) after carrying the bloody children left behind by a gunship just to hear that they should "suck it up" or when the soldiers with blisters from chemical weapons aren't believed their damages are real in a war that was supposedly about finding those kinds o weapons.

As long as the miliary's loyalty doesn't also encompass those scenarios, how is it not a bastardisation of the word?

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a bastardisation of loyalty though. Yes, people volunteer, because they are expected to. It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know that you can dislike people in general, but still recognize positive qualities right? Here is another example: Sergeant Major Bradley Kasal. This guy used his own body as a bullet stop to protect his Marines, nobody expects that. > What about sp…

"It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about." That's no way to have a discussion. You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. You should probably stick to speaking to your loyal colleges who has everything figured out.

"That's no way to have a discussion."

Settle @goodnight, the rules here are pretty simple: play nice, be civil & objective. As a newbie you might not understand this on HN.

It's also not a good idea to try and piss-off Marines.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It is pretty clear that you have no idea what you're talking about." That's no way to have a discussion. You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. You should probably stick to speaking to your loyal colleges who has everything figured out.

"That's no way to have a discussion." Settle @goodnight, the rules here are pretty simple: play nice, be civil & objective. As a newbie you might not understand this on HN. It's also not a good idea to try and piss-off Marines.

I'm not a newbie, this isn't my first account. In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things. I'm also quite sure that the Marines can speak for themselves.

I'm being fairly civil, I don't appreciate people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially when they in their previous statements have recognized their own bias in the form of "psychological conditioning".

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's no way to have a discussion. Says the person who just said that millions of people's understanding of loyalty, myself included, is a "bastardisation" of the word. > You clearly didn't either read or understand my previous comment. I think we understand each other now.

"I think we understand each other now." Please explain to me how the US military isn't breaking their loyalty to their soldiers when more people die of suicide than was killed in action, when soldiers requesting psychological assistance (which is hard to do by itself) after carrying the bloody children left behind by a gunship just to hear that they should "suck it up" or when the soldiers with blisters from chemical…

> No, I don't understand you since you have no arguments.

Seems pretty clear to me:

1. You say that Captain Kudo's loyalty to his Marines is "mostly a cliché"

2. I disagree and provide personal examples (which isn't really necessary, because examples of loyalty among soldiers are pretty well known)

3. You say that I don't know what loyalty really is

> As long as the miliary's loyalty doesn't also encompass those scenarios, how is it not a bastardisation of the word?

Your definition of loyalty seems to require the meeting of impossible goals. The military would not be able to meet its obligations and also fully protect all soldiers. PTSD is an unavoidable reality that comes with the job, and the military has really made massive improvements in handling it in the last decade. There are plenty of examples that demonstrate failures, but that is true of every system that has ever existed.

Maybe you should provide an example of loyalty that meets your lofty definition of unfaltering perfection.

> Or maybe I should understand you by your lack of arguments?

Or the more obvious answer: We aren't going to come to agreement on anything because we can't agree on a definition for "loyalty".

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it. I'm a conscientious objector because of that, not because I'm a pacifist (far from it). Reduced to the simplest of arguments: if everybody thought that way the only people that would end up pushing for a fight would be the politicians but they never ever want to get their hands dirty, problem solved. Don't be someone else's tool. As for the 'righteousn…

> You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it. That is pretty unrealistic. I agree with you about ignoring intent, but I also recognize the fact that at present this sort of philosophy would not work in a world dominated by states. > ... the only people that would end up pushing for a fight would be the politicians ... Or defense contractors. In a world where the majority of people believe in gho…

Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state.

As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy to live it without ever having to say that I allowed myself to be used whatever the consequences, and yes, I would refuse.

Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons, the circle of concern/circle of influence nicely overlaps if you simply say 'I refuse'.

That's where you exert maximum pressure. Developing bitcoin to stop wars is about as relevant as invading Iraq was as a response to 9/11.

As for the no-fly zones and the UN weapon inspectors:

(1) the no-fly zone was a unilateral arrangement, how do you think the US would respond if some entity declared a no-fly zone over the US?

(2) the UN weapons inspectors were in agreement that Saddam did not possess a credible threat of WMDs.

It's all just dumb wars over resources no more, no less.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's no way to have a discussion." Settle @goodnight, the rules here are pretty simple: play nice, be civil & objective. As a newbie you might not understand this on HN. It's also not a good idea to try and piss-off Marines.

I'm not a newbie, this isn't my first account. In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things. I'm also quite sure that the Marines can speak for themselves. I'm being fairly civil, I don't appreciate people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially when they in their previous statements have r…

> In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things.

He is probably cautioning you against antagonizing Marines, because we'll resort to telling jokes about the Army, and quoting Eleanor Roosevelt. Nobody wants that.

> Especially when they in their previous statements have recognized their own bias...

Hmm, who to trust between two individuals - one who recognizes his own biases, or the other without such introspection?

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't really push that sort of responsibility up. You own it. That is pretty unrealistic. I agree with you about ignoring intent, but I also recognize the fact that at present this sort of philosophy would not work in a world dominated by states. > ... the only people that would end up pushing for a fight would be the politicians ... Or defense contractors. In a world where the majority of people believe in gho…

Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state. As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy to live it without ever having to say that I allowed myself to be used whatever the consequences, and yes, I would refuse. Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons, the circle of concern/circle of influence nicely overlaps if you simply say 'I refuse'. Tha…

> Bitcoin has nothing to do with waging war or the end of the state.

Cash is just as important in war as bodies to throw into the meat grinder. If the state loses its control over the money supply, it isn't going to be able to finance war... or exert much influence otherwise.

> As for me being unrealistic: it's my life, I'll be happy...

Cool, I thought you were interested in solving a problem outside of yourself - carry on.

> Defense contractors can't wage war without people willing to operate the weapons...

There will always be people to operate the weapons, offer more money or tell them that their god demands it.

> As for the no-fly zones and the UN weapon inspectors:

Yeah, I'm not going to argue about facts - first result in google: http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspe...

> It's all just dumb wars over resources no more, no less.

Agreed, but the original point was about legal justification, not actual agenda.

Re: How We Learned to Kill

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's no way to have a discussion." Settle @goodnight, the rules here are pretty simple: play nice, be civil & objective. As a newbie you might not understand this on HN. It's also not a good idea to try and piss-off Marines.

I'm not a newbie, this isn't my first account. In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things. I'm also quite sure that the Marines can speak for themselves. I'm being fairly civil, I don't appreciate people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Especially when they in their previous statements have r…

"I'm not a newbie, this isn't my first account."

What uid range?

"In the spirit of civility you might want to spell out why it's not a good idea to "try and piss-off a Marine" instead of resorting to implying things."

Because as soon as they mention their profession, they stand out. Because they stand out it makes them a target. A lightening-rod to anyone who is looking to rant and let off steam about their POV, Ad-nauseam. @woodman has clearly answered your points. Marine & service men & women just want to be treated like everyone else, no more, no less. Polite, tactful, restrained, but won't back down. This is called bearing.

Don't piss-off a Marine. A lesson from Sgt. Shamar Thomas USMC ~ https://youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys

I ask about your uid range because your continued tit-tat, isn't indicative of a long time user. You can do better.

Post reply on HN