quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

For those of you that have not been in the military. It goes something like this. Right or wrong you follow orders or you might end up dead.

I was in the USAF post Vietnam so the concept of "unlawful orders" might have gotten more play than for those who served earlier. Also, I was in the Air Force.

quote:

So what your saying is the Secretary of Defense and Im sure the president Bush at the time <signed off of it> tells you it's OK to torture ppl you are gonna refuse that lawful order???

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

You signed a contract to defend your country. You knew full well that you might be asked to lay down your life. But when it comes right down to it.... Yer like naaa Ill refuse the order.
Back in the nam some "friendly fire" would surly come your way

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

well first you would have to define torture. My best guess is putting a leash around someones neck hardly qualifies. If you would rather do 5 to 10 in the federal pen for refusing to put a leash around some dudes neck... You rock on. As you might have guessed I disagree with your logic and priorities.

Personally I think your just talking smack as you never know how you might react after seeing a couple of your friends killed or wounded. Put a leash around em my ass I'd vaporize em in a minute. But that's just me as I protect those that I care for. But you say naaa Ill do time in prison. To my way of thinking you are a coward.

You signed a contract to defend your country. You knew full well that you might be asked to lay down your life. But when it comes right down to it.... Yer like naaa Ill refuse the order.
Back in the nam some "friendly fire" would surly come your way

BadOne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Casteele

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

well first you would have to define torture. My best guess is putting a leash around someones neck hardly qualifies. If you would rather do 5 to 10 in the federal pen for refusing to put a leash around some dudes neck... You rock on. As you might have guessed I disagree with your logic and priorities.

Personally I think your just talking smack as you never know how you might react after seeing a couple of your friends killed or wounded. Put a leash around em my ass I'd vaporize em in a minute. But that's just me as I protect those that I care for. But you say naaa Ill do time in prison. To my way of thinking you are a coward.

You signed a contract to defend your country. You knew full well that you might be asked to lay down your life. But when it comes right down to it.... Yer like naaa Ill refuse the order.
Back in the nam some "friendly fire" would surly come your way

BadOne

This doesn't make sense to me. I have not served in the military, and certainly have not been involved in any wars, but it does seem to me that there is a world of difference between shooting at anything that moves when there's gunfire and shelling going on all around you, and shooting a prisoner or civilian just because you felt like it and hated them in an otherwise secure and peaceful environment.

By what I read you saying to justify yourself, any Vietnamese person reading this is also perfectly justified to come to your home right now and put a bullet in your head, simply because you may have killed some of their friends during wartime. Does something about that kind of logic not strike you as wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wheldrake

quote:

ORIGINAL: SailingBum

You signed a contract to defend your country. You knew full well that you might be asked to lay down your life. But when it comes right down to it.... Yer like naaa Ill refuse the order.
Back in the nam some "friendly fire" would surly come your way

And are you in favour of that way of doing things? If nothing else, being involved in Vietnam didn't work out so well for the US military. I wouldn't hold up that campaign as an example of how a military force should operate.

With that said, I don't think it's realistic to expect soldiers to always behave like Mother Teresa when they have a hated enemy in their power. Warfare is always going to involve a certain amount of brutality. But there's a middle ground between trying to prevent every tiny violation of the Geneva Conventions and expecting soldiers to just shut up and follow orders when some out-of-control commanding officer starts acting like Vlad the Impaler.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

I interpreted "otherwise secure and peaceful environment" to mean mean my example of Abu Ghraib vs in the bush in Vietnam.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

I therefore present you with this question, for debate: What is it, in our community, that allows us to engage in such behaviors, without descending into the same depths of barbarism? Do you credit the hypothetical code of honor that dominati and submissives are expected to cling to? Would you instead say that it is our self-awareness of the greater ramifications of the act? Is it simply that we police ourselves, and anyone who goes too far risks ostracism and censure from the greater community at large?

To some extent, yes, we are social animals and we require a certain degree of social approval, anybody who says different is seeking approval for being so independent - there are exceptions, psychopaths, etc., bu the average healthy human tends to observe some limits, it's really not binary, like most things it's a curve: on one end, you have extremes of conformity to some hypothetical standard of ideal behavior, "other directed", and really, these are the people you have to watch for the most part, because of their strict reliance on external controls, they tend to develop fewer internal controls, and will often do damn near anything an authority figure tells them to do, even extreme acts of violence up to and including genocide - google up Depleted Uranium Munitions to see the price of "patriotism", extreme centripetalism is often indistinguishable from psychopathy, as the Milgram experiment demonstrated.

On the other end of course you have non-conformity, "free thinking", which often includes a healthy dose of free thinking about sexuality, and it's every bit as traditional as any abstract ideal of "high culture", most of which was created by free thinkers to begin with - in order to create anything at all you have do something that has never been done, imitation is all well and good, but if nobody did anything but imitate, we'd still be swinging from the trees.

If cruelty is the norm, then cruelty can be expected, but it doesn't tend to last - even the excesses of Rome didn't extend far beyond the wall of Rome, although the legacy of that is still with us in less concentrated forms, and there is some suspicion that lead poisoning played some role even in the excess or Romans, i.e., brain damage.

But from a strictly evolutionary point of view, anything that drastically reduces the fitness of a given individual or group of individuals, has a cumulative negative effect on group fitness, and that sort of culture is inherently self limiting: i.e., it will tend to be less competitive, and will either fade out or be displaced by healthier cultures.

Having said that, there is nothing particularly unhealthy about wiiwd, ceterus parbus, sex is central to existence, practically every thing we do is about sex, the way we act, dress, etc., tha tgoes for everybody, vanilla or kinky, vanilla is just a way of advertising your hypothetical breeding potential - kinky just cuts out the middle man of conformity, and explores the conundrums of sexuality itself without all the hand wringing and waiting for god to smite you with lightning bolts.

If it's crippling you up or rendering you or someone else unfit to function economically, then might possibly have a problem, but that can go for a lot of things besides sex - otherwise, it is to be expected that despite the occasional intellectual forays into what "extreme" really means, for the most part, internal controls tend to mirror external ones, they just aren't as rigid, being that justice and ethical behavior is a dynamic, not a static thing, every situation is different, and even the legal system itself has evolved to reflect this: from a set of ironclad rules to set of more general principles that take address the spirit of the law, not just the letter.

It's not really the kink, it's the cruelty, the lack of empathy, and that affects everything, not just sex: it's a popular misconception that stems from Augustinian theology that sexual indulgence lead to a general moral decline, and that is notable given the constant attempts to redefine western culture as "Christian" (it's as Celtic as it is Christian), when in fact even the bible notes that the love of money, Mamonism, is a much more seriously corrupting influence, and even in Catholicism, lust is merely a venial sin, while pride is a mortal one.

So, guilt being the standard tool to enforce conformity to some abstract value system, of all things to feel guilty about, what you do with your hot little ass is really pretty low on the list if you're prioritizing things properly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I think that emotionally caring about the person on the other end of the leash really changes things as well.

quote:

The test group was of extremely liberal, antiestablishment college students.