Total Posts:167|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dying for your country is insane -- ANZAC Day

EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc), your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses. WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:41:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
WW1 was not a fight of good against evil, though, so I agree that it was totally pointless.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:46:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.
Interesting way to put it. There is no denying that many people are infatuated with the supposed glory of war. But I think you're possibly trivializing people who are willing to submit themselves to superficial problems like pain for the greater purpose of protecting others.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.
Once again, they were to do these things because they put their minds over their own problems to making sure their concept of good survives.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.


"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:49:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:46:37 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.
Interesting way to put it. There is no denying that many people are infatuated with the supposed glory of war. But I think you're possibly trivializing people who are willing to submit themselves to superficial problems like pain for the greater purpose of protecting others.

I'm not at all trivialising it. I'm saying that it's horrific *and* that they are brainwashed. It is a stupid decision based on stupid emotions.


Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.
Once again, they were to do these things because they put their minds over their own problems to making sure their concept of good survives.

"Their concept of good" - What about the people they are fighting? Are they "evil" for having a different worldview? This is so incredibly myopic and showcases the stupidity of submitting yourself to these horrors.


So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.


"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:52:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc), your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses. WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:09:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

Evil side: if we win, we're gonna genocide you.
Good side: we are defending ourselves against people who wanna genocide us and after we win we'll inflict fairly mild punishment upon them.

your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

Post-war Germany and Japan didn't have it all so bad. They certainly have it better than we would've had it if they won.

WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.

You need to define "insane" then.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:11:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Also, take post-war Iraq. Think what you will about the invasion, but afterwards U.S. troops stayed in the country (and, as a result, risked their lives) to ensure stability and allow the war-torn nation to be able to rebuild. This was certainly worthwhile, was it not?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:19:35 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:11:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Also, take post-war Iraq. Think what you will about the invasion, but afterwards U.S. troops stayed in the country (and, as a result, risked their lives) to ensure stability and allow the war-torn nation to be able to rebuild. This was certainly worthwhile, was it not?

They are putting away their selfish desires to avoid pain and put the protection of those who are innocent and prosecuted and vulnerable above it.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:20:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:09:09 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

Evil side: if we win, we're gonna genocide you.
Good side: we are defending ourselves against people who wanna genocide us and after we win we'll inflict fairly mild punishment upon them.

Do you honestly believe that nations fit into such lovely little definitions?


your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

Post-war Germany and Japan didn't have it all so bad. They certainly have it better than we would've had it if they won.

You can only hypothesise.


WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.

You need to define "insane" then.

Defying what would made sense in the neo-cortex, if we accounted for our emotions, too, *rather than* thinking purely with our feelings.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:21:24 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:19:35 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:11:13 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Also, take post-war Iraq. Think what you will about the invasion, but afterwards U.S. troops stayed in the country (and, as a result, risked their lives) to ensure stability and allow the war-torn nation to be able to rebuild. This was certainly worthwhile, was it not?

They are putting away their selfish desires to avoid pain and put the protection of those who are innocent and prosecuted and vulnerable above it.

Because they know that no one else has either the bravery, the will for justice, or even the care or ability to do what's necessary.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:25:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:20:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:09:09 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

Evil side: if we win, we're gonna genocide you.
Good side: we are defending ourselves against people who wanna genocide us and after we win we'll inflict fairly mild punishment upon them.

Do you honestly believe that nations fit into such lovely little definitions?
Yes. Case in point, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Islamic Terrorists. You are completely ignoring history...


your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

Post-war Germany and Japan didn't have it all so bad. They certainly have it better than we would've had it if they won.

You can only hypothesize.



WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.

You need to define "insane" then.

Defying what would made sense in the neo-cortex, if we accounted for our emotions, too, *rather than* thinking purely with our feelings.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:41:01 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:25:59 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:20:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:09:09 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

Evil side: if we win, we're gonna genocide you.
Good side: we are defending ourselves against people who wanna genocide us and after we win we'll inflict fairly mild punishment upon them.

Do you honestly believe that nations fit into such lovely little definitions?
Yes. Case in point, North Korea, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Islamic Terrorists. You are completely ignoring history...

"Evil", really? Are you religious? I could understand if you said something like, "I don't like how they treat their women", or, "they killed people who shouldn't have been killed," but evil?



your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

Post-war Germany and Japan didn't have it all so bad. They certainly have it better than we would've had it if they won.

You can only hypothesize.



WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.

You need to define "insane" then.

Defying what would made sense in the neo-cortex, if we accounted for our emotions, too, *rather than* thinking purely with our feelings.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 2:03:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 1:20:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:09:09 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

Evil side: if we win, we're gonna genocide you.
Good side: we are defending ourselves against people who wanna genocide us and after we win we'll inflict fairly mild punishment upon them.

Do you honestly believe that nations fit into such lovely little definitions?

Do you honestly believe that Nazi Germany was going to treat the countries it conquered nicely? Would ancient Assyria?


your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

Post-war Germany and Japan didn't have it all so bad. They certainly have it better than we would've had it if they won.

You can only hypothesise.

No, it's a historical fact that Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire committed mass murder against the peoples they conquered. Have you never bleeping head of the Holocaust?


WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.

You need to define "insane" then.

Defying what would made sense in the neo-cortex, if we accounted for our emotions, too, *rather than* thinking purely with our feelings.

So "insane" is acting in a manner inconsistent with sheer logic.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 2:09:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 2:03:21 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:20:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:09:09 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

Evil side: if we win, we're gonna genocide you.
Good side: we are defending ourselves against people who wanna genocide us and after we win we'll inflict fairly mild punishment upon them.

Do you honestly believe that nations fit into such lovely little definitions?

Do you honestly believe that Nazi Germany was going to treat the countries it conquered nicely? Would ancient Assyria?

Of course not, but nor does any country that conquers. Can you show me one country that conquered another and treated it "nicely?" I guaruntee you that whilst it might seem prima facie that it is being treated nicely, there is probably a lot going on under the surface.



your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

Post-war Germany and Japan didn't have it all so bad. They certainly have it better than we would've had it if they won.

You can only hypothesise.

No, it's a historical fact that Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire committed mass murder against the peoples they conquered. Have you never bleeping head of the Holocaust?

I'm not convinced that the Holocaust happened the way the publicly accepted narrative tells me. Just to be clear: I'm not saying that I'm sure it did not happen, nor am I saying that no one died.



WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.

You need to define "insane" then.

Defying what would made sense in the neo-cortex, if we accounted for our emotions, too, *rather than* thinking purely with our feelings.

So "insane" is acting in a manner inconsistent with sheer logic.

Yes.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 3:02:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 2:09:30 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 2:03:21 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:20:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:09:09 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

Evil side: if we win, we're gonna genocide you.
Good side: we are defending ourselves against people who wanna genocide us and after we win we'll inflict fairly mild punishment upon them.

Do you honestly believe that nations fit into such lovely little definitions?

Do you honestly believe that Nazi Germany was going to treat the countries it conquered nicely? Would ancient Assyria?

Of course not, but nor does any country that conquers. Can you show me one country that conquered another and treated it "nicely?" I guaruntee you that whilst it might seem prima facie that it is being treated nicely, there is probably a lot going on under the surface.



your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

Post-war Germany and Japan didn't have it all so bad. They certainly have it better than we would've had it if they won.

You can only hypothesise.

No, it's a historical fact that Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire committed mass murder against the peoples they conquered. Have you never bleeping head of the Holocaust?

I'm not convinced that the Holocaust happened the way the publicly accepted narrative tells me. Just to be clear: I'm not saying that I'm sure it did not happen, nor am I saying that no one died.



WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.

You need to define "insane" then.

Defying what would made sense in the neo-cortex, if we accounted for our emotions, too, *rather than* thinking purely with our feelings.

So "insane" is acting in a manner inconsistent with sheer logic.

Yes.

The main variable is why an army is used. If an army is just used for conquest because you want land or resources, that's not honourable. If your army is used for defence against an attacking nation, that's a good use for an army. In WWII the Allied Powers acted against Germany both to defend themselves and to liberate the peoples of Eastern Europe.
To understand Nazi Germany, you must understand the Nazi ideology.
Here's what Hitler wanted:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
There's only so many resources in the world, so he wanted to use all of the resources of the conquered land on the population of German peoples and none on non-German peoples (which would, of course, entail killing them all). Hitler literally wanted to kill all non-Germans in the Greater Germanic Reich. This included all Slavic peoples (i.e. Poles, Russians, Czechoslovaks, etc). Hitler was able to kill millions but having to devote vast resources and manpower to the war effort obviously limited how many people could be exterminated at any given time. Bottom line: had Hitler not been defeated, the Czechoslovaks, Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Poles would've become extinct (with the exception of populations living outside of their native lands).
The Allied soldiers of WW2 fought to save lives. Even the conquest of Germany was accomplished in order to stop them from killing anyone else (and, obviously, the occupation of West Germany didn't last very long). So all things considered, the Allied soldiers of WW2 died for a worthwhile cause, even though this did not benefit them. It is the perfect example of a "just war" in comparison to "raarrg let's fight and whoever loses gets genocided!"
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 7:51:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

First of all, Machiavelli never said that. It's not his style at all, and it's always unsourced (there are a LOT of misattributed Machiavelli quotes floating around.)

Dying for one's country isn't insane. War is a part of life, and the costs of losing a war are a lot worse than the costs of winning a war for any given society. Since the country which fights best (which often involves superior numbers) wins the war, anyone who isn't a solipsist can see that fighting improves the chance of their society succeeding. For this reason, a person who fights in a war is almost always acting in their own rational self-interest (examples to the contrary would be chattel slaves in the South during the civil war, or the Copts during the Islamic invasion of Egypt) The only way that fighting for one's country could be justifiably painted as widely 'insane' is if one viewed war as an unnatural state, and I don't know how anyone could hold that belief without being entirely ignorant of both history and biology.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:10:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 7:51:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

First of all, Machiavelli never said that. It's not his style at all, and it's always unsourced (there are a LOT of misattributed Machiavelli quotes floating around.)

Whoah okay!! I'm wrong. It's just an honest mistake! No need to make me feel stupid.......


Dying for one's country isn't insane. War is a part of life, and the costs of losing a war are a lot worse than the costs of winning a war for any given society.

Yes, for "society", not necessarily the individual (you can see where I'm going with this).

Since the country which fights best (which often involves superior numbers) wins the war, anyone who isn't a solipsist can see that fighting improves the chance of their society succeeding.

"Their society?" They don't *own* the society. It's an imagined community which everyone believes to exist. No one owns it, lol.

For this reason, a person who fights in a war is almost always acting in their own rational self-interest (examples to the contrary would be chattel slaves in the South during the civil war, or the Copts during the Islamic invasion of Egypt)

Really? Ever heard of leaving the country? Or how about not fighting? "Self-interest" to get blown-up -- silliest thing I read today.

The only way that fighting for one's country could be justifiably painted as widely 'insane' is if one viewed war as an unnatural state, and I don't know how anyone could hold that belief without being entirely ignorant of both history and biology.

I agree with you that war is natural. I don't agree that I should be fighting.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:17:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 3:02:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 2:09:30 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 2:03:21 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:20:55 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 1:09:09 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:46:49 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 12:40:19 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Not necessarily. Risking death for your country is an act of self-sacrifice which a person may have varying motivations for. For instance, whenever your country is facing a foreign threat, especially a foreign threat which can be considered genuinely evil (I.e. Nazi Germany, the Japanese Empire, etc),

See, this is the problem. What makes something "evil?" It's not a concrete term. It's laced with presumptions which extend from your worldview, the worldview often given to you by your government and society. Coincidence?

Evil side: if we win, we're gonna genocide you.
Good side: we are defending ourselves against people who wanna genocide us and after we win we'll inflict fairly mild punishment upon them.

Do you honestly believe that nations fit into such lovely little definitions?

Do you honestly believe that Nazi Germany was going to treat the countries it conquered nicely? Would ancient Assyria?

Of course not, but nor does any country that conquers. Can you show me one country that conquered another and treated it "nicely?" I guaruntee you that whilst it might seem prima facie that it is being treated nicely, there is probably a lot going on under the surface.



your sacrifice helps secure the future of your fellow countrymen, who may suffer a terrible fate if your side loses.

Who cares? If we win, then the people we are fighting suffer a terrible fate.

Post-war Germany and Japan didn't have it all so bad. They certainly have it better than we would've had it if they won.

You can only hypothesise.

No, it's a historical fact that Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire committed mass murder against the peoples they conquered. Have you never bleeping head of the Holocaust?

I'm not convinced that the Holocaust happened the way the publicly accepted narrative tells me. Just to be clear: I'm not saying that I'm sure it did not happen, nor am I saying that no one died.



WWII is the most obvious example of a war between good and evil; the bravery of every Allied soldier helped fight against an eastern Europe where only Germans are allowed to live and an East Asia under Japanese tyranny.
I agree that risking death does not benefit the person dying, but it may benefit other people, and the person who dies may consider it worth it for this reason. By your logic, a parent dying to protect his or her child is insane.

When you realise that a child protecting his/her child is basically biological urges at play, it is insane. Same applies to dying for other people.

You need to define "insane" then.

Defying what would made sense in the neo-cortex, if we accounted for our emotions, too, *rather than* thinking purely with our feelings.

So "insane" is acting in a manner inconsistent with sheer logic.

Yes.

The main variable is why an army is used. If an army is just used for conquest because you want land or resources, that's not honourable.

Um who cares about honour in war? Seriously?! Sounds like slave-morality.

If your army is used for defence against an attacking nation, that's a good use for an army. In WWII the Allied Powers acted against Germany both to defend themselves and to liberate the peoples of Eastern Europe.

I'm no history buff, but don't you think that perspective could come into this? Also the victor's story of what went down *and* why? Only the alive tell stories.

To understand Nazi Germany, you must understand the Nazi ideology.
Here's what Hitler wanted:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Wikipedia? Really? It's a start, but for something as complicated and debatable as history, I'm not sure it's a good start.

There's only so many resources in the world, so he wanted to use all of the resources of the conquered land on the population of German peoples and none on non-German peoples (which would, of course, entail killing them all). Hitler literally wanted to kill all non-Germans in the Greater Germanic Reich. This included all Slavic peoples (i.e. Poles, Russians, Czechoslovaks, etc). Hitler was able to kill millions but having to devote vast resources and manpower to the war effort obviously limited how many people could be exterminated at any given time. Bottom line: had Hitler not been defeated, the Czechoslovaks, Belarusians, Ukrainians, and Poles would've become extinct (with the exception of populations living outside of their native lands).

I don't know...

The Allied soldiers of WW2 fought to save lives. Even the conquest of Germany was accomplished in order to stop them from killing anyone else (and, obviously, the occupation of West Germany didn't last very long). So all things considered, the Allied soldiers of WW2 died for a worthwhile cause, even though this did not benefit them. It is the perfect example of a "just war" in comparison to "raarrg let's fight and whoever loses gets genocided!"

This story seems so one-sided. I really don't know if it's true.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
TrumpTriumph
Posts: 165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:20:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:10:29 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:51:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Dying for one's country isn't insane. War is a part of life, and the costs of losing a war are a lot worse than the costs of winning a war for any given society.

Yes, for "society", not necessarily the individual (you can see where I'm going with this).

For this reason, a person who fights in a war is almost always acting in their own rational self-interest (examples to the contrary would be chattel slaves in the South during the civil war, or the Copts during the Islamic invasion of Egypt)

Really? Ever heard of leaving the country? Or how about not fighting? "Self-interest" to get blown-up -- silliest thing I read today.

What exactly is wrong with valuing the well-being of society over one's own self-interests? Some people are able to make that choice. If you personally place paramount interest on your own self-interests, that's fine, but there's no rational argument to be made that your priorities are inherently "better" or "worse" than their priorities. If your country ever gets into a war, you better hope that there is a significant number of people who don't share your priorities, lol.
#TrumpTriumph2016
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 12:55:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Australian here.
I can tell you for a fact, the vast majority of people have no understanding of WW1 and why A&NZ soldiers got pointlessly slaughtered on the beaches of Turkey during a war that started out between Austria and Serbia. We get a long weekend, the media gets to glorify war more than usual for a few days and lots of people have a BBQ and get drunk. I spent it playing Rome: Total War, which was fantastic.
I would say though, that our culture is pretty anti-war.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 1:27:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:55:14 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Australian here.
I can tell you for a fact, the vast majority of people have no understanding of WW1 and why A&NZ soldiers got pointlessly slaughtered on the beaches of Turkey during a war that started out between Austria and Serbia. We get a long weekend, the media gets to glorify war more than usual for a few days and lots of people have a BBQ and get drunk. I spent it playing Rome: Total War, which was fantastic.
I would say though, that our culture is pretty anti-war.
Not to get off topic, but do you have Medieval 2 Total War as well?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 5:27:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:10:29 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:51:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

First of all, Machiavelli never said that. It's not his style at all, and it's always unsourced (there are a LOT of misattributed Machiavelli quotes floating around.)

Whoah okay!! I'm wrong. It's just an honest mistake! No need to make me feel stupid.......

Just correcting an error. That shouldn't make you feel stupid; nobody is omniscient.

Dying for one's country isn't insane. War is a part of life, and the costs of losing a war are a lot worse than the costs of winning a war for any given society.

Yes, for "society", not necessarily the individual (you can see where I'm going with this).

No, I can't.

Since the country which fights best (which often involves superior numbers) wins the war, anyone who isn't a solipsist can see that fighting improves the chance of their society succeeding.

"Their society?" They don't *own* the society. It's an imagined community which everyone believes to exist. No one owns it, lol.

'Abstraction' and 'imaginary' aren't synonyms. Societies exist because humans in large groups behave predictably.

For this reason, a person who fights in a war is almost always acting in their own rational self-interest (examples to the contrary would be chattel slaves in the South during the civil war, or the Copts during the Islamic invasion of Egypt)

Really? Ever heard of leaving the country? Or how about not fighting? "Self-interest" to get blown-up -- silliest thing I read today.

The ridiculous assumption here is that moving to another country would avoid war. The only countries which don't have to fight wars are those which exist under the protective umbrella of a larger alliance, or very small countries with positions of stark neutrality, which have very strict immigration laws and very high costs of living (Switzerland). The former can still be called on in times of war, and will still suffer if the alliance fails, and the latter has an extensive standing militia which is expected to fight to the death if the borders are breached.

The only way that fighting for one's country could be justifiably painted as widely 'insane' is if one viewed war as an unnatural state, and I don't know how anyone could hold that belief without being entirely ignorant of both history and biology.

I agree with you that war is natural. I don't agree that I should be fighting.

If everyone felt that way, then your society wouldn't win wars, and you would not enjoy the high standard of living which comes from the projection of power on the global stage. That's why your society has built-in systems of social censure which shun, belittle, and mock those who not only fail to contribute to the greater good, but fail to respect those who do. For example, unless the US faces an existential threat, the majority of people shouldn't have to fight. But mocking the people who do pick up that gun and protect the dominant position of my country so that I don't have to is severely frowned upon for a reason.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:28:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

MURICAAAAAAAA!!!

You gotta do what you gotta do.

If someone is trying to take over the world what should the good guys do?

Stop them.

In humanity's self-destructive nature and stupidity there is no avoiding it.
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:41:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:20:09 PM, TrumpTriumph wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:10:29 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:51:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Dying for one's country isn't insane. War is a part of life, and the costs of losing a war are a lot worse than the costs of winning a war for any given society.

Yes, for "society", not necessarily the individual (you can see where I'm going with this).

For this reason, a person who fights in a war is almost always acting in their own rational self-interest (examples to the contrary would be chattel slaves in the South during the civil war, or the Copts during the Islamic invasion of Egypt)

Really? Ever heard of leaving the country? Or how about not fighting? "Self-interest" to get blown-up -- silliest thing I read today.

What exactly is wrong with valuing the well-being of society over one's own self-interests?

You'll end up being used, injured, or dead.

Some people are able to make that choice. If you personally place paramount interest on your own self-interests, that's fine, but there's no rational argument to be made that your priorities are inherently "better" or "worse" than their priorities.

I suppose you're an oracle that knows every argument in the universe, and therefore has seen all the illogical attempts at proving that an individual's priorities should be considered better or worse than a collective's priorities. Negative proof fallacy.

If your country ever gets into a war, you better hope that there is a significant number of people who don't share your priorities, lol.

I don't have to hope: I know. They will lap up all the appeals to emotion. Oh well, better them than me.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:51:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 12:55:14 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

Australian here.
I can tell you for a fact, the vast majority of people have no understanding of WW1 and why A&NZ soldiers got pointlessly slaughtered on the beaches of Turkey during a war that started out between Austria and Serbia. We get a long weekend, the media gets to glorify war more than usual for a few days and lots of people have a BBQ and get drunk. I spent it playing Rome: Total War, which was fantastic.

Lol. Sounds very Australian. I suppose no one can go anywhere because all the ride-on kangaroos go on holiday, too.

I would say though, that our culture is pretty anti-war.

Okay, so if a war erupted elsewhere in the world, and Australia was called into it be America, would a sizable number of people go? Just a rough estimate would do, of course.

Also, what if the war was fought at home? How many people would accept a call to arms?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:00:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 5:27:38 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/25/2016 8:10:29 AM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/25/2016 7:51:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

First of all, Machiavelli never said that. It's not his style at all, and it's always unsourced (there are a LOT of misattributed Machiavelli quotes floating around.)

Whoah okay!! I'm wrong. It's just an honest mistake! No need to make me feel stupid.......

Just correcting an error. That shouldn't make you feel stupid; nobody is omniscient.

Yeah okay whatever.


Dying for one's country isn't insane. War is a part of life, and the costs of losing a war are a lot worse than the costs of winning a war for any given society.

Yes, for "society", not necessarily the individual (you can see where I'm going with this).

No, I can't.

Since the country which fights best (which often involves superior numbers) wins the war, anyone who isn't a solipsist can see that fighting improves the chance of their society succeeding.

"Their society?" They don't *own* the society. It's an imagined community which everyone believes to exist. No one owns it, lol.

'Abstraction' and 'imaginary' aren't synonyms. Societies exist because humans in large groups behave predictably.

Alright fine. That still doesn't contradict my point on no one owning it.


For this reason, a person who fights in a war is almost always acting in their own rational self-interest (examples to the contrary would be chattel slaves in the South during the civil war, or the Copts during the Islamic invasion of Egypt)

Really? Ever heard of leaving the country? Or how about not fighting? "Self-interest" to get blown-up -- silliest thing I read today.

The ridiculous assumption here is that moving to another country would avoid war. The only countries which don't have to fight wars are those which exist under the protective umbrella of a larger alliance, or very small countries with positions of stark neutrality, which have very strict immigration laws and very high costs of living (Switzerland).

Even tinsy islands in the Pacific? Even places like Greenland? Unless it's an actual world war (rather than simply by title), you could obviously move to another country.

The former can still be called on in times of war, and will still suffer if the alliance fails, and the latter has an extensive standing militia which is expected to fight to the death if the borders are breached.

Unless there is a tactical advantage is taking a small island, who would bother? Even if this were true, I'm not sure why anyone would bother will tiny islands away from countries.


The only way that fighting for one's country could be justifiably painted as widely 'insane' is if one viewed war as an unnatural state, and I don't know how anyone could hold that belief without being entirely ignorant of both history and biology.

I agree with you that war is natural. I don't agree that I should be fighting.

If everyone felt that way, then your society wouldn't win wars, and you would not enjoy the high standard of living which comes from the projection of power on the global stage.

Well, everyone doesn't feel that way, so I'm okay =)

That's why your society has built-in systems of social censure which shun, belittle, and mock those who not only fail to contribute to the greater good, but fail to respect those who do. For example, unless the US faces an existential threat, the majority of people shouldn't have to fight. But mocking the people who do pick up that gun and protect the dominant position of my country so that I don't have to is severely frowned upon for a reason.

You can mock and shun all you want. I am sure as anything not going to fight. I'll run into the bush before I'm drafted to fight in someone else's game.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:03:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 8:28:38 PM, Dragon_of_Christ wrote:
At 4/24/2016 11:37:04 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
I've always found it pitiful how easily people are drawn into war. They get all these ridiculous feelings, such as pride for the country, and so they rationalise submitting their body to mental and sometimes physical torture, even death on occasions.

Today, people in Australia remember those who fought for Australia. But what good did it do them? A lot of them are dead -- their one chance on this Earth gone forever. Some of them suffer horrific injuries, and some suffered some wickedly terrifying mental afflictions (e.g. shell-shock). It's honestly more shocking than I could ever comprehend.

So, in return for this, what do these people get? They get "remembered". That's it. It's as if that could ever be enough or do them any good, that is was worth their lives being ended, or the pain and agony of living with the poison of war.

"It is not titles that honor men, but men who honor titles" ~ Niccolo Machiavelli

MURICAAAAAAAA!!!

You gotta do what you gotta do.

Then I gotta be somewhere else.


If someone is trying to take over the world what should the good guys do?

Stop them.

You can be the good guy.


In humanity's self-destructive nature and stupidity there is no avoiding it.

Um disappearing into the bush?
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,079
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 11:55:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Society cannot survive without some people making self-sacrifices for the good of the whole, and we should be grateful to those people who do.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid