Comment by scotty79
2 years ago
Of course. Some of them.
Not everone who joins the army is a volunteer killer. Some people just want to help. Treat wounds. Recover wounded. Scare the enemy away. Some tentatively accept that some people might die in the process. People tend to accept that in war people die. They are more like armed robbers who'd love to have their goals met without killing anyone but some are accepting that someone might die in the process. But fraction of people are killers. They participate in the process in order to kill. Those are the most deficient ones. They are present in every place where people die, on both sides.
Some fraction signing up so they can gun someone down, sure, those people have bad motives and should be found and excluded.
But being willing to say "I'd kill to protect X if there is no other option" is not that.
Someone who becomes a surgeon so that he can kill a patient now and then and get away with it obviously has something wrong. Someone who becomes a surgeon and now and then causes a patient to die unintentionally (even if they intended to do the surgery, knowing it could result in death) is not the same.
Are you a pacifist who thinks that it is never OK to take a life, no matter the circumstances? In that case I understand what you think, even if that is not my way of thinking.
If you are not a pacifist, then I don't understand how you think a peaceful society should act when an aggressive neighbor tries to kill all of them?
I think it's ok to take life if it's your own life or help someone to take their own if there are good reasons for it.
I don't know how a peaceful society should act if neigbour tries to kill them. I think if that's the case, they made a lot of mistakes already, if they reached that point.
Probably the only thing to do is gather your killers and send them to kill and tell everybody it's ok this time. And most likely just die regardless of what you decided to do. If this society somehow survives it's way ahead because they not only repelled foreign killers but culled their own. That's pretty much was the result of WW2. Europe was destined for prosperity after it no matter who won. Just because higher fraction of killers than normal people died.
> I don't know how a peaceful society should act if neigbour tries to kill them. I think if that's the case, they made a lot of mistakes already, if they reached that point.
There are literally thousands of examples throughout history of smaller ethnic groups that were completely wiped out by their bigger and more aggressive neighbors.
Do you think these small groups were provoking their neighbors? Why? Did they all have a death wish?
How do you appease someone who is determined to take over your territory while getting rid of your people? What does the compromise look like?
> Europe was destined for prosperity after it no matter who won.
Wow. If the Germans would have won, they would have cleansed large parts of Europe. Do you call that "prosperity"?
Same thing with Stalin. If he had gotten a free rein across Europe, I don't imagine there would have been many Scandinavians left today, for instance. The few left would live somewhere in Siberia.
5 replies →
This is such a naive point of view. Imagine seeing somebody getting assaulted, genocided, murdered in front of your eyes and then closing your eyes for the sake of 'peace,' or the idea of it that you have in mind anyway.
You should tell the Polish people in 1940s that they should only treat wounds and not fight back.
I'm Polish. How much good do you think killing Germans did for Polish people in 1940?
Compare to France and other western European countries that immediately retreated, lost one battle and peacefully folded and stayed down till the end.