[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Military Furries' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Tuesday, December 24th, 2013|
Twas the night before Christmas ....... USMC
This isn't my poem, but I think on this night it should be passed around to help us remember everyone who is out there on deployment and away from their homes and loved ones.
IT WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS
HE LIVED ALL ALONE, IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE. I HAD
COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE, AND TO SEE JUST WHO IN THIS HOME
I LOOKED ALL ABOUT, A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE, NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS, NOT EVEN
A TREE. NO STOCKING BY MANTLE, JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND, ON THE WALL HUNG
PICTURES OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.
WITH MEDALS AND BADGES, AWARDS OF ALL KINDS, A SOBER THOUGHT CAME THROUGH MY
MIND. FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT, IT WAS DARK AND DREARY, I FOUND THE HOME
OF A UNITED STATES MARINE, ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY. THE MARINE LAY SLEEPING, SILENT,
ALONE, CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.
THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE, THE ROOM IN SUCH DISORDER, NOT HOW I PICTURED A UNITED
WAS THIS THE HERO OF WHOM I'D JUST READ? CURLED UP ON A PONCHO, THE FLOOR FOR
I REALIZED THE FAMILIES THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT, OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE
MARINES WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT. SOON ROUND THE WORLD, THE CHILDREN WOULD
PLAY, AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.
THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR, BECAUSE OF THE MARINES, LIKE
THE ONE LYING HERE. I COULDN'T HELP WONDER HOW MANY LAY ALONE, ON A COLD
CHRISTMAS EVE IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME. THE VERY THOUGHT BROUGHT A TEAR TO MY
EYE, I DROPPED TO MY KNEES AND STARTED TO CRY.
THE MARINE AWAKENED AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE, "SANTA DON'T CRY, THIS LIFE IS
MY CHOICE; I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM, I DON'T ASK FOR MORE, MY LIFE IS MY GOD, MY
COUNTRY, MY CORPS." THE MARINE ROLLED OVER AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP, I COULDN'T
CONTROL IT, I CONTINUED TO WEEP.
I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS, SO SILENT AND STILL AND WE BOTH SHIVERED FROM THE COLD
NIGHT'S CHILL. I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT, THIS GUARDIAN
OF HONOR SO WILLING TO FIGHT. THEN THE MARINE ROLLED OVER, WITH A VOICE SOFT
AND PURE, WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA, IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE." ONE
LOOK AT MY WATCH, AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT. "MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND, AND TO
ALL A GOOD NIGHT."
|Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013|
MILFur Wikifur page (additions, confirmations, fraud check)
Hi, I'm one of the colleagues (Admins) at Wikifur, and one of the pages I keep updated is the MILFur entry (http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/MILFurs
This is a two-fold query/request/suggestion: If you are a MIL Fur, and you wish to list your service as one, you are more than welcome to add your entry to the article (without violating the DOD OPSEC
Two: We have caught a couple... chaps admitting that some of the entries are fake. If anybody can confirm the entries (do not worry about the ones with the "YES" word under the "confirmed" box), it will be greatly appreciated.
That's is all. As you were, and thanks. =)
|Monday, December 3rd, 2012|
|Saturday, November 10th, 2012|
237 years of blood, sweat, tears and kicking ass.... OORAH!!!
Well folks it's November 10th yet again, and that means its the birthday of something very special to me.
So as you go about your daily routines please take a second and think about Marines who are stationed or deployed all over the world, and wish them a happy birthday . My beloved Corps is 237 years old today, and one thing that I have always loved about my Corps is the sense of history and the brotherhood that ties all Marines, past, present and future together.
So join me as I lift a glass in honor of my fellow jar heads.
Here's to the those who were, those who are and those who will be
Here's to the scarlet and gold, the USMC
Semper-Fi Devil Dogs
Fyr Current Mood: contemplative
|Thursday, September 27th, 2012|
Just some thoughts
Hi there I am just a civilian.I am looking at the military from the outside as a civilian in just wanted other peoples opinions. I have a question but I wanted to hear from people actually in the military not just hearing from civilian politicians on CNN.
I got a question here. So its been a year since our president Barack Obama ended the " Don't ask don't tell" policy. I remember the "special interest groups" and certain politicians that did not want gays and lesbians openly serving in the military said it would "weaken" our military and also cause "distractions". Since the policy ended at least as a civilian watching the news I have not heard of one problem not even ONE since allowing openly gays in the military.
What have the rest of you seen or experenced?
|Saturday, September 15th, 2012|
Update on things...
I graduated BCT in July, now stationed in Ft Sam Houston for Whiskey training. I've gotten my EMT certification and have about 6 weeks left until I graduate. After that, I am slated to be stationed at Ft Campbell in the 101st with an expected overseas deployment very soon thereafter.
Ive been meaning to update you guys but I haven't really used live journal in any regularity since 2007, I'm mainly on Twitter and FA. If you want to talk to me or keep in touch just look me up there, my screen name is BrutusDBernard. Current Mood: accomplished
|Sunday, April 15th, 2012|
Navy Horror Story
Okay, true story.
I was in the US Navy, and my ship, the USS Reuben James, had pulled into port in Lumut, Malaysia. It was sometime around January/February, which is when the Giant Malaysian Honeybees will swarm and move from their summer/fall hives to their winter/spring hives.
We were due to get underway the next day, shortly before noon, so the engineers were all up and working through the night, making sure everything was ready to go. The diesels were running, the blowers were operating, and everything was running smoothly. So the watchstanders would spare each other out, and the relieved watch would hit the messdecks for some coffee, midrats and the Late Night Movie.
Well, just before dawn, a swarm of Malaysian bees took off to find a new home. They have to move fast, because if they're out and about any longer than noon, they'll overheat and die. So the scouts had found a nice, dark, sheltered spot for the hive to roost for the day. The swarm settled in, and all was well with the world.
"Helen...Helen......Helen..." THUNDERCLAP "I've missed you Trevor..." Trevor screams (The movie ends and the engineers all head to their duty stations to prepare to start the gas turbine engines.)
It's about an hour after dawn. Everyone has had breakfast, we're all getting ready to get underway. The command is given, and 8000 PSI of start-air flows through the turbines, getting things started. The blades of the turbines start to turn, and a few moments later, fuel starts to spray.
Suddenly, in their dark, safe and secure cave, the hive experiences something disturbing. Air begins to rush in to the cave entrance. The bees flash in alarm, and several bees get sucked off the group.
The turbines puff, and there's a short break in the suction as the fuel catches, and then they take off. The break in suction is enough to let half the swarm of bees take off and make a break for the mouth of the cave, which has suddenly turned out to be the air intakes for the gas turbine engines. Half the hive makes it, the other half....does not. And that half contained the Queen.
The engines are now getting up to full, startup speed, and they're getting hot? A small portion of bees manage to survive, but most get toasted, and a mixture of mostly dead bees starts to pour out of the ventilation ports inside the engine room.
All over a host of sleep-deprived, caffeinated engineers who've just got back from watching their favorite horror movie.
In Central Control Station, Cheng and the DCA hear someone scream over the 5MC, "Bees! There's fucking BEES all over Aux 2!" Someone in Aux-1 calls out the same on the Bitch Box, that bees are pouring out of the ventilation shafts. "HOLY SHIT," someone yells. "IT'S CANDYMAN! THE FUCKING CANDYMAN IS IN HERE!"
In the end, once everyone stopped freaking out, the bees all ended up dying once the day got hot. The survivors overheated and flopped down on the deck of the O2, all around the stacks and CIWS platform, and my antenna mounts. They would puke up their load of honey before dying, which attracted Giant Asian Wasps by the dozens. By the time we got underway, the tiny corpses had all been picked up and carried off by the wasps.
The engineers put "Candyman" on the shelf for the rest of the deployment. Current Mood: cheerful
|Friday, January 20th, 2012|
Convoy Ops with a twist
Here's a little YouTube clip that's good for a laugh. Granted, it may bring back some not so pleasant memories for some of us but still worth a look I think.http://youtu.be/KyDHaKtROZo
Somehow I think the fellows that did this have been there.
|Sunday, December 25th, 2011|
To all those sheep dogs who can't be home this Christmas, and to those that will never go home again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTXhZ4uR6rs Current Mood: thankful
|Thursday, December 15th, 2011|
|Thursday, November 10th, 2011|
Uncommon valor was a common virtue.
The Continental Congress 10 November 1775, Philadelphia passed a resolution (written by future president John Adams) that, “Two battalions of Marines be raised consisting of one colonel, two lieutenant colonels, two majors and other officers as usual in other regiments, that they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken that no person be appointed to office or enlisted into said battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea, when required. That they be enlisted and commissioned for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies, unless dismissed by order of Congress. That they be distinguished by the names of the first & second battalions of American Marines, and that they be considered a part of the number, which the Continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of.”
Happy 236th birthday Devil Dogs.
|Tuesday, October 25th, 2011|
TDY on Halloween?
I'll be TDY to Keesler AFB with my class starting on Halloween day. Horrible timing for my favorite holiday, but I'm not gonna let it get me down. Is anyone stationed at Keesler or are nearby that know of any shindigs happening that night, or any furry get together to go out and scare the bejesus out of kids? I probably won't have enough room in my luggage for a fursuit (though I'm going to damn well try), but I'd be more than happy to be a handler for any fursuitin' happenings.
|Monday, August 15th, 2011|
I am currently studying for my ASVAB. I go to MEPS for both my physical and my ASVAB in two weeks time. I am unprecedentedly nervous. Any tips that can be offered will be greatly welcome. I want to go into the service as an Engineer. Current Mood: nervous
|Thursday, July 14th, 2011|
|Friday, July 1st, 2011|
SCUMBAG ALERT: Now man the cleaning gear locker!
“You hear those cops coming? They’re not going to help you. My daddy is a cop in this town, and nothing is going to happen to me. You fucking niggers are going to jail.”
Two hours after attacking the Bontas, Josh Janiszewski of Fernley wrote, “Just laid the fists and boots to some 6′ 5” tongan dude. what you got on little guys?” at 3:13 p.m. When asked if they gave them hell, Josh responded. “Oh we did. That’s for sure!” at 3:48 p.m. “Amen,” said Jacob Cassell at 4:07 p.m.
The family needs help. The victim of the beating was jailed for six days and denied medical treatment.There's a petition to push the governor of Nevada to help the victims and prosecute the assailants.
Things seem to be moving in the right direction, but it could use some help.
Fernley, Nev. -- For the first time federal and local law enforcement agencies are investigating the alleged beating of a Native American in Fernley, which happened more than a month ago.
Lyon County Sheriff's Office and the FBI decided to investigate the alleged hate crime only after KRNV-TV viewers protested and emailed to demand an answer for the victims.
The two main protagonists are US Army. I'm sharing this here, since I know there are quite a few folks who have experience in dealing with scumbags on a professional level, and know the right way to do things.
Here's what I've found, but ( be careful with what info you find. There are MANY names out there, but what I've found in here is legit.Collapse ) Current Mood: calm
|Wednesday, April 20th, 2011|
Last year, in December I met with a local Army recruiter, I was at 240lbs, WAY over the weight limit. For the past 4 months, I have been dieting and exercising with the help of some awesome friends. This week, I met with him again at 193lbs. On May 3rd I take the ASVAB, shortly after that, I head to MEPS for my physical. I came here looking for a little bit of support, my decision to join the Armed forces has been a hard one. I have lost friends over my decision, either because they are anti-government or see the military as a waste of time. I hope to meet some new people here and find some more military folks to talk to.
Brutus Current Mood: calm
|Monday, April 11th, 2011|
Purity of Arms: combatants as voluntary actors in a social contract
One of the arguments made by pacifists against war is that killing is always wrong, and this may be supported by the presence of our instinctual desire to live. Yet, for many reasons that are their own, people often show this assessment to be in error. They are willing to die, and kill others, for ideals they value more than their own lives: freedom, autonomy, dignity, the lives or well being of others, their families, money, and other goods too numerous to list here. At the same time we see in more developed countries (at the least) a desire to reduce if not outright eliminate the instances of non-combatant casualties both intentional and unintentional. What follows is description of willing combatants and unwilling non-combatants, which justifies the former fighting each other while keeping the latter from intentional harm, all hypothesized as part of an elaborate social contract that will put war in a societal perspective.
COMBAT AS A SOCIAL CONTRACT
In many wars, the combatants on both sides have volunteered. This is the case of any American soldier since the Vietnam War and the end of the draft, warlords, partisans, and also the Taliban and other insurgents. Many nations make military service a required part of their larger national social contract, but I will attempt in this essay to only deal with wars wherein both sides are presumed to have come to the battlefield of their own volition (as much as it is possible given our biological and social frameworks).
It can hardly be said that people go into war without expecting danger. To anyone with common sense, all warfare involves the risk of death, or permanent or temporary injury, to say nothing of other hardships such as exposure to the elements, fear, boredom, and hunger (depending on how effective and reliable your logistics train is). At the same time, implicit in participation in warfare is the fact that you will either directly or indirectly be responsible for inflicting these depredations and risks on those of the opposing side.
Since both the risk of death and the infliction of death on the opposite force are assumed and known by both sides, who volunteer to join the war anyway for various causes, they can be seen in a way as conditions in an implied social contract. This social contract is entered into with the full consent of both opposing parties involved.* The conditions of the contract would be that each side will do its best to bring about the defeat of the other by ways up to and including killing each other and destroying their equipment. This contract can also be given a written form: the laws of war, the Geneva convention, and other documents adhered to by the American military (and many others) all spell out the conditions of behavior, and in effect set the conditions of the contract between two belligerents. Even before that, you have instances like ancient China where the warrior code between gentlemen on chariots is thought to have influenced Confucius. Thus, complaints that the Geneva Convention "limits our military" are misplaced: to limit our military is precisely the point. Genocide and atrocity need not be part of war (and in fact as counter insurgency has shown, are a fine way to lose it).
DEONTOLOGY AND COLLATERAL DAMAGE
So we can show that killing other combatants in wartime is acceptable from the standpoint of both parties accepting the explicit and implicit risk of such, and thus entering into a sort of contract with each other wherein they expect to possibly kill and be killed. So long as they are aware of the risks and willing to accept them for ideals they value more, we cannot fault them for performing their duties even at the costs of their lives. Societies have recognized this, and allow in certain cases such as war and police activity for killing to be sanctioned.
But what of noncombatants who did not volunteer for such risk of death? This is where modern military laws and ethics comes into play again. For one, the expressly codified contracts our nation has entered into forbid the intentional killing of noncombatants. But what of collateral damage, wherein noncombatants are killed during the course of two combatants duking it out? International law also has something to say about this: briefly put, collateral damage is acceptable if the military necessity was enough, and if all steps were taken to reasonably ensure that no noncombatants would be killed. Certain places like museums and hospitals are also off limits. So again we see war as a social interaction being governed explicitly to limit the fighting to the belligerent parties. War is for warriors.
There is also a philosophical allowance for unintentional noncombatant deaths during the course of fighting a combatant who agrees to the risks. Namely, deontology: the ethics of duty, a meta-ethical system that focuses on the intent of an action rather than the consequences...in other words, it is concerned with means and not ends. From this perspective, targeting combatants with all reasonable precautions against collateral damage taken, would mean you would be absolved of such deaths. The key word here is reasonable: leveling a whole city to take out one insurgent is hardly fitting of that term, but a stray bullet or a blast effect that collapses a wall that kills someone during the course of attacking an enemy stronghold, is.
A similarity might be drawn between the classic "train switching" dilemma: suppose you have a train approaching five workers on a track who cannot escape and are sure to be killed. You can switch the tracks so the train avoids the men, but in doing so the train will hit a sixth man instead. In studies, most people will opt to switch the tracks (showing how most people deep down inside admit that some things are worth losing a life over)...but why? From a consequentialist (ends justify the means) perspective, one simply weighs the loss of one against the loss of five and chooses the lesser of two evils. However, from a deontological perspective (ends do not justify the means), the switching is justified because the intent is to save the five men, by switching the tracks so the train avoids them...whether the sixth man was present or not does not matter...since you would have switched the tracks anyway. Your intent was never to kill the sixth man.
However, if the only way you could save the five men by pushing a sixth man into the path of the train yourself, most people would not do it for the same reason: you are actually killing someone intentionally. The only other solution might be to throw yourself into the train's path...which again is what brings us full circle to the truism that some people are willing to sacrifice their own lives for others, as abhorrent as their corpse may look afterwards. In modern war, we have done our hardest to ensure that only those so willing actually do undertake that risk.
(* This is also a good argument against the use of child soldiers.)
Why I am not an absolute pacifist
First, I am defining 'absolute pacifism' (called 'pacifism' here for sake of brevity) as the conviction that war is NEVER justified in any case. This means that to an absolute pacifist, live is so sacred that there is no 'just war', not even WWII, and that military force is always a bad thing. I will summarize my views in a series of points, which should be referred to in any actual rebuttal or comment. These points, and the explanation of them, are by no means exhaustive, and they will likely be added to during the course of any discussion that ensues.
First, I want to make a point about pacifism in the absolute sense: I do not deny that there can, and should be, nonviolent solutions to human conflict. I am also not supporting militarism - that war is always the answer - either. However, for absolute and total pacifism to not fail, it must be true in all cases. Hence any example that can show its ineffectiveness or inappropriateness should be enough to demolish it. This does not mean people cannot champion peace, as there are many flavors of pacifism. Arguably, soldiers are pacifists of a sort since they must bear the brunt of any war and hence desire to fight it only as a last recourse.
Point 1: Absolute pacifism is contradictory
Pacifism is against any killing of any human being. However, there have been throughout history many wars and military actions undertaken to defend human life from an existing force that was engaging in killing, or defending a nation from outside invasion. These include WWII, Bosnia and Kosovo, the Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan, Vietnam invading Cambodia to stop the Khmer Rouge, the war to forcibly remove dictator Idi Amin, and likely many more in the future. It is undeniable that the defeated sides on these conflicts were engaging in activities that resulted in the deaths of noncombatant people and even the attempted extermination of entire demographics. For the conflicts to not have begun would have consigned even more people to such a fate.
Hence, absolute pacifism, in claiming to protect life, would stand by and allow life to be snuffed out. This is an inherent contradiction. Now, some pacifists may say that killing someone, and killing someone about to kill another is just as bad. But in either case you will end up with a dead body, so the situation cannot be resolved to their liking at all...at the most either action would be morally equivalent, and thus a war to defend one's nation or another would be just as justified as standing by and letting the tanks roll though.
However, to someone who advocates judicious use of force, the latter situation is preferable since otherwise the killer would simply move on to the next victim and kill more - as was demonstrated whenever a nation or group refused to intervene in the face of such. Even police are allowed to kill to uphold social order and defend others so that the criminal may be stopped - and really, just wars are simply a nation or nations acting as policemen on an international level.
This can be applied to dissent as well: pacifists have the luxury of speaking out for their ideals only because they live in a system that allows them to do so. Many of the 'just wars' were undertaken against dictators and forces who would deny that very right. In fact, without fighting oppression, pacifism might not even exist as a major philosophy.
Point 2: Absolute pacifism confuses 'abhorrent' with 'evil'
This builds on the previous point: that sometimes you must take life in order to prevent other life from being taken unjustly. Pacifism asserts that taking a life is always abhorrent and therefore wrong. However, they lack any demonstration that abhorrent always equals wrong in any normative sense. We can arguably show that we do many things we would rather not do, even strongly, but because we have to. Now, only a sociopath would gleefully enjoy killing: even soldiers kill only because they have to, such as in defense or to attack a belligerent force, and even then any intentional killing of noncombatants will be punished in any modern military, including ours. But if the enemy can be induced to surrender, then that is always considered preferable.
But I digress: if we can demonstrate, as I feel I did with Point 1, that killing may be necessary, then the fact it is abhorrent is moot. For to allow a belligerent to lay waste to your nation or another would arguably be just as abhorrent, yet with the added detriment of having the belligerent in an arguably greater position to continue its actions.
Going deeper, there is no evidence that "killing" is always "murder". In both, a life is ended, but the reasons and context vary widely for reasons described above. Many pacifists even admit this themselves: they are often supportive of abortion rights, and voluntary euthanasia...but in both cases a biological life form is ended. As to abortion, the pacifist could say that it may have been needed to save the mother's life, and was done with her consent. The pacifist might also claim that in the latter, the key was that it was voluntary. But both run into problems in the case of volunteer militaries: why is it okay for someone to deliberately take their own life to avoid suffering, or to end a pregnancy to avoid dying, but not for a soldier to join the military with the understanding he MAY die in war, to prevent suffering and death on behalf of others? Particularly when the enemy forces also joined of their own volition?
Pacifists might concede that for two sides to kill each other is all right if they do it on their own, but might claim that collateral damage is just as evil as any other form of killing. However, this fails the test of intent: collateral damage by its very nature is done without the intention of killing civilians, and in fact the Hague has strict rules on the military necessity of ANY attack, weighed against the potential in collateral damage, to place it in the realm of legal protection.
Even more, modern military strategy and technology strives to limit collateral damage as much as it can, so that to day only 2% of American attacks in Afghanistan result in collateral damage, and we have restricted our rules of engagement to lower that even further. It may be that one day we just set phasers to 'stun' and no one in war gets killed...but it would still be violent conflict and we simply are not there yet in a technological sense...but we are getting there (i.e. area denial sound weapons, sublethal munitions, etc.)
Point 3: Absolute pacifism is ineffective.
Yes, MLK and Ghandi. No, it still doesn't matter: remember, I need only to show countervailing examples that pacifism can be ineffective to attack its absolute form.
Before WWII, many Jewish leaders tried to avoid conflict with the Nazis, hoping that if they left them alone and minded their own business they would not earn the wrath of the authorities. The rest is history. Likewise, the Tiennamen Square massacre, the Soviet attacks in Czechoslovakia, and even the recent attacks by Ghadafi on the soon-to-be-rebels show how corrupt, totalitarian regimes will be unswayed by peaceful attempts to communicate. Pacifism will certainly work in a community where everyone wants to get along, but for those individuals and groups who have made up their mind through whatever means, it will not. It's alot like the 'free market' in that respect - something that pacifists also tend to (rightfully) disagree with precisely because the 'free market' also only works in theory if everyone plays on the same level and with the same amount of information.
Steven Pinker's "A history of violence" chronicles how humans have actually been less likely to kill each other, and how despite the apparent plethora of conflicts, warfare is less frequent and less deadly, especially to civilians, than it has been in the past. This has all been a constant arc despite the fact that wars have been going on. If the pacifist was correct and war truly did exacerbate conflict (i.e. make things worse) we would be seeing an opposite trend.
In addition, even many nonviolent solutions to conflict have effectiveness only with the inherent threat of force. A carrier battlegroup parked outside a belligerent nation calms things mainly because of the massive destruction it can bring. Even surrender appeals work because they promise swift and blinding violence if their words are not heeded. Shun Tzu said that to defeat an enemy without attacking is the acme of skill...but let us not forget that such psychological methods have to have the psychological teeth of violence behind them.
Point 4: Absolute pacifism's underlying assumptions cannot be proven.
Pacifism starts with the premise that human life is too valuable to ever suffer even one individual to be killed. However, there is no actual proof of this: certainly, there is no proof that human life has any objective value beyond our conviction that it is so. But from whence does this come? No doubt, a pacifist might say it is instinctual, that people have a desire to live. On the surface, this seems correct, but in reality things become more nuanced. For one, it commits the naturalistic fallacy (you cannot derive ought from is).
Even more, there are many instances of people valuing things more than their own life, from both in a biological and a psychological standpoint. People seem willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect others, or else a sense of their own dignity, or their freedom, or even a project, without even thinking about it. They also appear in many cases to put themselves in harm's way to ensure such things for others, or even kill for such. Maslow's hierarchy of needs demonstrates that the basic physiological needs (that sustain life) become secondary to human relationships and self actualization. Can you really ask a mother to not kill someone who is going to kill her child? Or a nation to ignore any compassion for the pleas of its own countrymen or others being crushed under the heel of a murderous oppressor? While the pacifist may insist that some people do value life above all else, that simply means that human priorities are often different and even contradictory between individuals. To ask any human to adopt a single set of priorities makes you hit a brick wall of the very instincts and drives you are trying to play to.
I must reiterate: I am not against trying every nonviolent tool in the box before going to war, only that I think that sometimes, war is necessary. Not by choice mind you, but life rarely offers us a choice in everything.
|Sunday, March 6th, 2011|