i am not making up anything as I go along, you have not discounted one piece of debate with anything tangiable, you pose nonsensical questions, misdirect attention, and hope no one n otices your lack of real arguement about the subject.
Plenty of vietnam vets wanted to kill people, vietnam soldiers were thought off as odd or weird for not collecting to trophies of fallen vietnamese, like ears, etc. Theres plennnty of evidence that many people wanted to fight and even to kill in both wars, enough that we both know that psychological casualities were rampant among even those who wanted to kill.
Not to mention that even normal people conscripted into war get caught up into bloodlusts, doing things they never thought they were capable of. People honest enough to talk about their war-experiences often talk about briefly enjoying the carnage and slaughter, (which is kind of contradictory to the psychological damage it imposes and that soldiers need to protect themselves from) but its true.
Anyway, once again you ignore that people like nazi’s and other genocidal groups often feel ‘forced’ into it, MANY of them are. A huge percent of butcherings/war murders that go on, happen because the murderer feels pushed into it. even if they are a monster.
No its the act of killing and attempting to kill people, civilians in warzones who live with the fear of death constantly do not report statistical psychological damage like the soldiers. WRONG AGAIN. (the most dangerous animal, a book about warfare)
I’ve already cited studies and theres studies to cite for that^ too.
Stop pretending you’ve read up on the subject, you have no justification to point out to me that killing isn’t everything that causes psychological damage.
I never said it did.
It is what is responsible for showing the MASSIVE differences between civilian and soldier psychological damage in warzones.
So 1. Other things do cause psychological damage, 2. Not nearly as much as the actual act of murder, we have statistics for civilians and soldiers, you’re wrong and never should have suggested otherwise, which you did, even if not directly.
I posted statistics and gave the name of the person envolved, I’ve explained US military statements about psychological damage, and how they needed to change programs, I explainedd psychological damage rates in different wars, all these statistics are verifiable, your lazy and don’t care.
It’s not up to me to make your case for you, Cyrene. Your stats didn’t support your case, for reasons I have already stated. Your name-calling doesn’t help your credibilty any, either. Have a nice life.
They support the case for the very reason that universally/globally many people feel they are forced into war, into slaughter into whatever, either for ideaological reasons or direct fear of disobeying orders/sticking out in a hostile environment. If you think many of these genocidal freaks aren’t ‘drafted’ as in, they don’t have a choice, or were abducted as child soldiers, or fear sticking out in an extreme culture of hate.
Your point is fucking ridiculous on the face of it, and its also 100% unsupportable. Both by looking at MANY of the statements of soldiers who did go to ww2, and for example, that fact that a vietnam soldier was CONSIDERED ODD for NOT TALKING TROPHIES FROM KILLED vietnamese in MANY MANY groups of soldiers. Many soldiers enjoy what they’re doing at the time, many soldiers REPORT IT after the war.
You talk as if these people’s personal quotes after war don’t exist, you act as if there weren’t many many many accounts in the vietnam war of soldiers enjoying doing fucked up things to vietnamese.
Cyrene, my charming friend - All morality, in every instance, is arranged with concentric circles - a range of ingroups and outgroups - or at least two groups. The “right” is not directly and affirmatively determined by individual predilictions - in fact, these predilictions are at least as often proscribed as precribed. So, no collections of stats showing human preferences is any sort of determining factor - in morality, that is. We may relish cold-blooded killing or we may not - moral dicta do not necessarily follow (affirmatively) from personal preferences. They ignore them. That is their purpose.
So, since morality is prescriptive, we are free to use such statistics as we wish - to support or undermine any given moral position, as we see fit. So your stats mean nothing here, as far as morality.
As psychology, they simply aren’t conclusive. In fact, in their latest incarnation, they are incoherent. Which is it? People don’t want to kill, or people do? You state that many soldiers enjoy soldiering. Which seems to say that many enjoy killing.
I can’t discern which point you are trying to make.
I agree that many soldiers enjoy being soldiers. Many don’t. You have yet to show that one group is psychotic and that one is not. If anything, you have made the point that they are all both. Or neither. Or something.
Rationalist morality holds that men are rational, and that morality is rational, and so the immoral are irrational, and therefore lack humanity, at least to some degree. Is this your point? Be careful, my friend - rationalist morality is very easy to refute.
Yeah whatever Faust, your points have NOTHING to do with ANYTHING.
People have inherent mental mechanisms that bring about empathy for humans, crossculturally, globally, people deal with more psychological stress after killing. This doesn’t apply to civilians in the same zones who don’t have to kill. Any war you want, vietnam, ww2, korean war, whatever. Ingroups and outgroups are essential, people don’t kill ingroups in the same way they do outgroups, THE OUTGROUP KILLING OF HUUMANS CROSS CULTURALY UNIVERSALLY PRODUCES MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE then animal killing.
The stats mean humans become psychologically damaged after killing or during killing, even if they enjoy it and want to kill the people at different times. Theres an abhorance of killing humans that doesn’t go towards animals universally. THATS WHY ITS RELEVANT.
THE ISSUE OF MORALITY IS WHETHER PEOPLE UNIVERSALLY VALUE HUMAN SUFFERING ABOVE ANIMAL SUFFERING, the statistics showing people getting psychologically FUCKED UP from warfare doesn’t happen to people in the animal slaughter busines.
THATS HOW ITS CONNECTED.
Both.
People abhor killing and get psychologically damaged by it.
People can use cognitive flips, psychiatric conditions, dehumanization, dehumanization TO DEAL, OR GET OVER that abhorance of kiling humans, HOWEVER WE HAVE TO ENGAGE IN THESE COGNITIVE FLIPS, propaganda, and TOTAL PSYCHOLOGICAL BREAKDOWN for doing it.
The US army reports that people reach complete psychiatric and psychological breakdown after 70-80days of combat. THAT IS ALL SOLDIERS BREAKDOWN, except for the people who lack basic human empathy to begin with. These soldiers may enjoy killing people when the person is in the SCOPE, but they fucking pay for it afterwords, and maybe even right there.
The point IS BOTH AND ITS SUPER COMPLICATED, but you’re too lazy to DO ANY RESEARCH, not even the ten minutes to confirm the original statistics.
The things soldiers do and enjoy in war, is not what we would consider ‘sane’ in society. The fact that they enjoy shooting someone’s brains all over the floor, the fact that they enjoy mindless carnage, and if you think FOR A SECOND, that this is some small minority you are wrong. Many many many soldiers enjoy or get ‘caught up in’ the slaughter, even if they HATE being soldiers.
Are they insane? no, they are normal people in situations where their ancestors would have survived more often for enjoying it. Humans have a long insane history of war, thats probably why people enjoy and get caught up in bloodlust.
Because of all the other evolutionary reasons to protect ingroups and etc. It psychological damages people.
N o, thats not my fucking point and we both know it.
My point is that people have universal cognitive mechanisms that are species typical, like many stomach/liver/whatever functions are universal, they are adaptations of complexity that get spread species typical (any adaptation of any complexity that promotes survival becomes species typical). We have mental architecture that is species typical, valuing the suffering of other humans above animals IS PART OF THAT ARCHITECTURE.
Because humans have a rich history of cooperation AND WAR, killing other humans brings on massive psychological damage, because war was beneficial to our ancestors, people can engage in cognitive tricks, flips, illusions, drugs, psychiatric conditions, TO DEAL WITH KILLING PEOPLE and to EVEN ENJOY IT.
The same thing that makes humans capable of such massive slaughter is the same thing that makes them capable of deciding ingroups/outgroups, FOLKBIOLOGY.
Which I already told you to research because you don’t have a chance of even coming close to what I am trying to convey otherwise. But you’re lazy and you’d rather take my debate off the train tracks and hope no one notices.
No, you’re wrong, and have tried to support the unsupportable this whole time, while doing absolutely nothing to add to this conversation.
The psychological assessment of soldiers and mental breakdown frrom trying to kill other people is WELL STUDIED, these people feel no more ‘forced’ into it, then PLENTY OF THE PEOPLE THEY fought. Plenty of nazi’s were forced to be nazi’s, plenty of genocidal freaks were ‘forced’ or ‘compelled’ to be genocidal freaks. Sorry it doesn’t hold ANY FUCKING WATER.
If it can’t psychological apply to US soldiers, it can’t psychologically apply to ANYONE, ANYWHERE. How convient for you.
“None of the statistics concerning psychology in warfare are meaningful because people are forced or compelled into war against their will”.
And don’t come back here and claim i’m contradicting myself because i’m not. Biological kinds and essences IS the nature of in and outgroups. ITS THE DOMAIN OF FOLK-FUCKING-BIOLOGY.
Whether you want to go to vietnam or don’t; “I can’t wait to kill some vietnamese scum” or “Omg i can’t believe i’m being forced into an evil war” does NOT neccesarrily or even vaugely give an idea of the type of psychological damage that the person will experience after the dead is done, once, twice, three times, fourtimes.
Whether you wanted to do it or not the issue of that on psychology is fucking neglible. When you just slaughtered a human and had to watch their face while it happened, whether you wanted to do it before hand, whether your enjoying it RIGHT THEN, is meaningless.
Infact, since all soldiers breakdown after 70-80 combat days (except psychopaths, at like 2%) and most people that want to kill other soldiers don’t fall into this two %. You could make the arguement that wanting to kill someone, that volunteering to do it, WOULD PSYCHOLOGICALLY FUCK SOMEONE UP MORE, after the deed.
All the psychological data on consistant warfare shows a SIGNIFICANT psychology casuality rate/disorder producing rate. ALL the data, I dare you to find double-blind scientific evidence to show that psychological damage doesn’t consistantly happen in warfare.
THEN I INVITE YOU TO FIND ANY COMPARABLE RATES IN FARMERS OR SLAUGHTER-HOUSE WORKERS, (Anyone who doesn’t think the animal is the incarnation of a god).
you can’t and you won’t because you lost. Give it up faust, its pathetic to watch.
Dude - I have now read several studies about combat stress whatever they call that now - the letters. None have, so far, pointed to the act of killing as a major direct factor in combat stress. all I’m asking for is a couple of links that support your thesis. i just can’t find the material. Google is letting me down.
There’s a lot of stress, yes. But I can’t find where it’s linked to killing other people, certainly not primarily.
Ouch. Say Sat, was your photo enhanced with photoshop? You simply can’t be that pretty.
Animals are cute and fluffy and bring out our protective instinct…it’s really that easy. I mean, when you see a furry, petite creature, you have to melt inside. To top that off, seeing one in pain is horrific. People usually feel the same about babies because they’re tiny and cute, and women because they’re smaller framed and not as strong.
What is common sense is that the protective instinct envoked for animals is a byproduct of human emapthy evolutionary mechanisms, which is exactly why almost everyone has a harder time killing a kitten or a lamb compared to a lobster,roach or whatever.
BECAUSE IT HAS A DEFINED FACE.
its also ‘common sense’ that this same instinct is envoked MUCH more strongly and consistantly for other humans.
The job of explanation was done fine, many many many times over, when it didn’t need to be because its obvious at the face of it that he’s wrong. Secondly, the comment about ‘common sense’ is indecent considering his betrayal/abandonment of it from his first post in this thread.
…I don’t care? I already asked you guys to stop slinging shit, and I’m asking again. If you two can’t have a mature conversation that doesn’t include insulting each other, maybe you should stop trying to have the conversation.