Philosophy Now Forum

John K wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:One you have done that then you will have a right to talk about it.

Right to talk about it? Granted by who? You? How about you go pack sand. Comprende?

What you said was " Too bad he (and Marx) didn't read their Schopenhauer; or if they did, they didn't understand it."

Somehow you KNOW that Schop had read Marx, but you also KNOW that Marx and Lenin did not , or failed to understand Schop.


You are an idiot for saying that and have not shown that you have any understanding of any of these persons

Being in the military shouldn't be any different than being a civilian. At any time, you should be able to say, "Take this job and shove it!" Of course, that would make wars a lot more expensive, and governments might have to think twice before starting one.

Since this is applied ethics:

I come from a country that did, when I was that age, have draft to the military. And it was also not too hard to do "weapon-free service" if you insisted on it.
And the fact is, that everyone in my lower-middle-class neighbourhood, a mediocre suburb of Stockholm, did their 7, 10 or 15 months, carrying weapons. Myself included.
Whereas the male friends of my wife, who came from the university town, sons of academics, nearly all choosed to do "weapon free".

Do I think that the moral standards of the people from the University town, many of them my personal friends now, were higher than those of my old friends?
Nope. Everyone just followed the social norm that the neighbourhood prescribed. I have seen no clue that the latter group should care more about life than the former as I have fraternized with them over the years. The only difference is that the academic kids where politically leftish and it was still flower-power chic to trade the sword for the plowbill.

Did I enjoy shooting at metal images of men that automatically fell down if they got hit. Yeah, cool. Once in a while, sure, I did wonder, "what the h*ll am I doing"? But we were 20 years old or so, and this was the way you were supposed to go. That simple.

bobevenson wrote:Being in the military shouldn't be any different than being a civilian. At any time, you should be able to say, "Take this job and shove it!" Of course, that would make wars a lot more expensive, and governments might have to think twice before starting one.

how well would a military that takes this approach fare against a military that does not?

Ansiktsburk wrote:Since this is applied ethics:

I come from a country that did, when I was that age, have draft to the military. And it was also not too hard to do "weapon-free service" if you insisted on it.
And the fact is, that everyone in my lower-middle-class neighbourhood, a mediocre suburb of Stockholm, did their 7, 10 or 15 months, carrying weapons. Myself included.
Whereas the male friends of my wife, who came from the university town, sons of academics, nearly all choosed to do "weapon free".

Do I think that the moral standards of the people from the University town, many of them my personal friends now, were higher than those of my old friends?
Nope. Everyone just followed the social norm that the neighbourhood prescribed. I have seen no clue that the latter group should care more about life than the former as I have fraternized with them over the years. The only difference is that the academic kids where politically leftish and it was still flower-power chic to trade the sword for the plowbill.

Did I enjoy shooting at metal images of men that automatically fell down if they got hit. Yeah, cool. Once in a while, sure, I did wonder, "what the h*ll am I doing"? But we were 20 years old or so, and this was the way you were supposed to go. That simple.

That is the way that society normalises its practices, get them in young, make it fun.
In some ways it is a good move to allow some form of service to the state, and the non-weapon option signals an even handed attitude that value is given to public service without killing.
Ideally the service might include something useful, such as environmental projects or monument renovation?
I wonder if the non-weapon guys got the piss taken out of them?
Did women have to do the same service?

As far as the thread question goes, it is not actually relevant as National Service was not 'voluntary', but interesting non the less.

Kayla wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Being in the military shouldn't be any different than being a civilian. At any time, you should be able to say, "Take this job and shove it!" Of course, that would make wars a lot more expensive, and governments might have to think twice before starting one.

how well would a military that takes this approach fare against a military that does not?

When the going gets tough, you just have to pay them more, that's all. Money talks, honey.

bobevenson wrote:When the going gets tough, you just have to pay them more, that's all. Money talks, honey.

LOL? What a fairytale!

Man does have one redeeming quality, in hunting there is a great deal of emphasis on a quick clean kill, and avoiding a wounded animal dying slowly.

Hunting is a redeeming quality? How about a great deal of emphasis on going vegetarian instead?

HexHammer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:When the going gets tough, you just have to pay them more, that's all. Money talks, honey.

LOL? What a fairytale!

You can get soldiers to risk their lives at the right price, but people back home on some beach don't want to pay it.

bobevenson wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

bobevenson wrote:When the going gets tough, you just have to pay them more, that's all. Money talks, honey.

LOL? What a fairytale!

You can get soldiers to risk their lives at the right price, but people back home on some beach don't want to pay it.

Yes, some, but they have to be very stupid or very desperate for money, normally not even double wages can make any go risk their good health or life for some silly money.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about, no goverment would ever pay soldiers such huge wages.
Get real.

HexHammer wrote:
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, no goverment would ever pay soldiers such huge wages.

That's the point, my friend, you reduce both government tyranny and wars.

bobevenson wrote:

HexHammer wrote:
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, no goverment would ever pay soldiers such huge wages.

That's the point, my friend, you reduce both government tyranny and wars.

It matters not how many times you use "friend" in your posts. You have no friends here.
You are just a sad little man, with delusions of grandeur.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

HexHammer wrote:
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, no goverment would ever pay soldiers such huge wages.

That's the point, my friend, you reduce both government tyranny and wars.

It matters not how many times you use "friend" in your posts. You have no friends here.
You are just a sad little man, with delusions of grandeur.

Listen, my friend, and you are my friend, and don't say you're not my friend, because nobody tells me who my friends are, since you don't have the ability to address my argument, you resort to your singular ability of slinging mud.

Here is a new reference that is relevant to the topic of this thread.

Be sure to check this out, watch and listen to the videos, get the book for your local library and your college or university library:

http://paulkchappell.com/

This young fellow, an ex-soldier, is good
He teaches how to wage 'peaceful revolution.'

Let us know your impressions after you hear his sound arguments.... Okay?

I checked out the website, but it was just selling stuff. Why don't you just summarize what he has to say?