The Original Internet Political Quiz.

[Farmageddon]

sapphi_snake said:

@Farmageddon:

My point is that what people can do is not as important for deciding between having or not having an army as what people actually will do.

How can you determine what a person will do before he/she does it? You really can't. As long as something is a possibility, there's hope.

I can't determine hat a person will do, but I can be pretty sure how people work. There's a higher chance the world won't be here tomorrw than there is that everyone will just wake up behaving like they would in your perfect world.

I was watching MiB yesterday and K says something which is pertinent here. "A person can be smart. People are dumb".

I'm telling you, yes, you should do something. But you should plan your actions based on the world they will be made on, not the world you hope them to eventually achieve.

But that's counter-productive , and in the end will lead to nothing. Anyways, it's not like I have some big master plan to change the world (and I most likely won't be able to come up with one). If anything, I'll at least try to be how I see people should be, and not become corrupted by what people are.

No it's not, it's actually the best shot at making something work. Would you travel to the artic with summer clothes?

And I'm not saying you should be "corrupted by other people", only that you can't really expect people as a whole to suddenly start working differently over night and you can't really make a good decision expecting that, as it wont be an informed one.

Sure, nothing to disagree there. But sometimes ypu do have to deal with fire, you don't always have (or know you have) a better option.

In the case of war people (on either sides) choose the worst one. And as khasz pointed out, not all people who agree with war consider it to be a necessity.

I'm not arguing what's the best option, but telling you that many times most people don't even see an option. Sure, some other people or in some cirtuntances many people don't care if there's an option. That was my point earlier, you have to assume this as part of the world today, because it is. This people will do it when there's a big cost for them. Imagine if there was no cost. Imagine if you're the free target.

Point is most people there ARE being martyrs. At least they believe so. And questioning orders and demanding complete information would actually go against the cause they see as right or necessary, even though they'd sure rather not have to be there. So in their minds they forfeit their individuality for the "greater good".

Questioning orders would go against the cause they see right provided they ever saw it as being right in the first place (which wouold not be the case if there's a mandatory draft). Also, not having access to complete information could lead to them representing a cause different from the one they think they're repressenting. In the end it all comes down to manipulation and ignorance, which would hardly make soldiers martyrs. And no "greater good" that requires one to lose his/her individuality can be called that way. If peopel need to be reduced to sheep who follow blindly, that is only because if they were conscious and aware they'd discover that this "greater good" is neither "great" nor "good".

Mandatory draft has nothing to do with it. Here in Brazil for exemple we have mandatory drafts and still just about everyone who's actually selected to serve wants to. It may not be the same in other places with that, and sure, if the war keeps going and people keep dying we'd eventually be called, but still that doesn't mean someone who didn't want to serve won't feel like it's the right thing to do given the situation we'd be on. Say someone invades your country and starts killing people and shit like that. You'd be angry. Most angry people want payback, they feel they're entitled. Are they right? Doesn't really matter. They wouldn't normally want to serve but now they wanna fight. They feel they have a valid cause.

But ones shot at living (and his conrads') is pretty much tied to being effective in the battlefield, and taking rders is a big part of that. That's a pretty good cause too, don't you think?

Also, what about independency wars? People gave up their individualitys in order to achieve "freedom". Obeying in the army is just a means to an end.

Anyway, the real assholes are the higher up guys, not the average soldier. Being a martyr is giving your life for a cause you believe in. Doesn't matter if the cause is right or wrong or if it even really exists, the "movement" you make is the same either way, and it's just as hard to do and as "noble".