Puppy-throwing Marine is removed from Corps

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Lickyfingerbum It's the pleasure taken in the killing of anything that offends me. It also offends me that the military appears more upset over the publicity than the actual offense.

Exactly, their worried about hte publicity not the offense.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: Lickyfingerbum And realrockingham if i threw you off a cliff would you have a problem with that since you are just a pile of atoms with no "objective value"????

Probably, because of human nature. Your point actually supports me, human nature and thus morality is the result of nothing but a pile of atoms.

It has no inherent value. My having an opinion about something doesn't make me correct.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Jack In defense of those of us who have served in the military, I feel a need to object to this bit of hyperbole. Yer, soldiers are trained to kill. They are also taught how to injure without killing and how to disengage from a situation without injury to anyone. They're also taught first aid skills so they can tend to those who are injured, even if they're the enemy. Soldiers are taught how to recognize the enemy and to only direct fire at them, but when insurgents disguise themselves as citizens and use children and other innocent civilians as defensive shields, they increase the risk that our soldiers will kill innocents. Is that the soldiers fault or are the insurgents to blame? Soldiers in the field are never taught or lead to think that killing civilians is approved. It happens all too frequently in this current conflict, but in the vast majority of cases where it does I have no doubt that it was both accidental and deeply regretted by the soldiers responsible. Collateral damage is to be avoided whenever possible, and minimized when it isn't. Anyone who enjoys killing others is an anomaly, whether civilian or military. They are malformed humans. They contribute nothing to the advancement of our species. Now this guy sounds like one of those guys. And those guys are a threat to their own species. It's not uncommon among animals for a small percentage to "loose it", to turn on their pack mates without apparent regard. It's perhaps the ultimate betrayal of trust in a group, the greatest threat another can face, the threat of death. It's the pleasure taken in the killing of anything that offends me. It also offends me that the military appears more upset over the publicity than the actual offense.

I think you are oversimplifying the mindset one must have to follow orders to kill another person. A soldier that hates what he/she does or feels guilty about what he/she does during the act is an ineffective soldier. Soldiers follow orders and they are trained to never question or think about their acts so as to not have any fatal disconnects between orders and action. Soldiers are not like regular people until they are debriefed and discharged. Even then, there can be lingering effects of their training. If an authority figure handed me a gun and ordered me to fire at a particular person I would not do it. The reason? I am not a soldier. I have not been briefed or brainwashed to follow orders.

So, are most soldiers quietly mourning the ordered actions as they are doing them (and are thus at the mercy of a dangerous disconnect between orders and action), are they indifferent to the actions since they are "just doing their jobs" and are 100% not culpable for what they are doing, or is there a possibility they are enjoying the actions because they think they are doing a good job and keeping the world a safer place?

Also, it is not the innocent victim's fault - or the terrorist's fault - that a soldier mistakes a bystander for an enemy or opts to fire on an enemy with hostages. That is 100% the fault of the person who pulls the trigger or, in the case of soldiers, it is the fault of the person giving the orders. If a murder suspect wearing a hoodie flees through a crowd of other people wearing hoodies does it give the police free reign to open fire on the crowd?

I agree that people who enjoy torturing or killing living things potentially have some issues they need to work out (although a whole slew of sport hunters would disagree with that statement). I do not agree with the clear double standard or someone losing their career because of the public perception about what is right and wrong.

If the guy was off duty then he should pay whatever fines are associated with killing a dog. If he was on duty then he can be held accountable with the military but I suspect the military doesn't have any "animal cruelty" laws on the books. They may have something they can ding him with based on behaving responsibly or something else along those lines though.

[Jack]

Soldiers follow orders and they are trained to never question or think about their acts so as to not have any fatal disconnects between orders and action.

Simply not true. Soldiers are told repeatedly that they may refuse to follow what they perceive to be an illegal order, for instance a violation of the Geneva conventions. That's why from Mei Lai to Gitmo soldiers have been expected to refuse and report illegal orders. When they don't they are held to be as responsible as those giving out the orders.

I can't deny there are people in the military who enjoy combat a bit too much. But it's incorrect to paint the majority of military personnel as mindless killers.

[banko]

Quote by: RealRockingham Probably, because of human nature. Your point actually supports me, human nature and thus morality is the result of nothing but a pile of atoms. It has no inherent value. My having an opinion about something doesn't make me correct.

If it has no inherent value then why do you continue to live it? What is the point of living if there is no value?

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Jack Simply not true. Soldiers are told repeatedly that they may refuse to follow what they perceive to be an illegal order, for instance a violation of the Geneva conventions. That's why from Mei Lai to Gitmo soldiers have been expected to refuse and report illegal orders. When they don't they are held to be as responsible as those giving out the orders.

And how often do you think that happens? More or less frequently than soldiers following orders without question? Last time I checked, superior officers weren't too keen on grunts thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what they interpret a situation to be.

What do you think the effect would be of a soldier busting out a copy of the Geneva conventions and flipping through it before following an order in the heat of battle?

If a superior officer orders a soldier to throw a grenade into a building they do it. If an authority figure orders me to throw a grenade into a building I don't do it. Because I'm not a soldier.

[Matt]

The thing I don't get about this case is how stupid a Marine, someone who is supposed to fight for the 'good', can do such an aweful inhumane act of stupidity.

This person needs to go to a mental ward, get fixed up, and thrown off a cliff with people laughing. That should solve the problem.

[Hodge Podge]

Great, the United States Military is succumbing to the outcry of Animal Rights watch groups...Why has this been made into such a huge deal? We are fighting a war here. Is throwing a puppy of a cliff really that important to people? Why do people give groups like this so much power?

[Matt]

Quote by: Hodge Podge Great, the United States Military is succumbing to the outcry of Animal Rights watch groups...Why has this been made into such a huge deal? We are fighting a war here. Is throwing a puppy of a cliff really that important to people? Why do people give groups like this so much power?

Yes, because it is un-needed cruel behavior done by someone who is supposed to be a good citizen.

Because they deserve power.

[Hodge Podge]

Quote by: Matt Yes, because it is un-needed cruel behavior done by someone who is supposed to be a good citizen. Because they deserve power.

How do they "deserve" power? I don't know about you but I don't want the people that bitch the loudest to affect my life.
Since when do soldiers have to be good citizens? They are there to fight a war not be role models of American civilization.

[Matt]

Quote by: Hodge Podge How do they "deserve" power? I don't know about you but I don't want the people that bitch the loudest to affect my life.

They are fighting for a good cause, to help other creatures then just man, as Thomas Edison would tell you:

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison

Since when do soldiers have to be good citizens? They are there to fight a war not be role models of American civilization.

They are hired to do a good job and try to respect innocent life, in this case they clearly did not.

[Hodge Podge]

Quote by: Matt They are fighting for a good cause, to help other creatures then just man, as Thomas Edison would tell you: Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. ~Thomas A. Edison They are hired to do a good job and try to respect innocent life, in this case they clearly did not.

How is that fighting for a good cause? The cause is pretty much already won. I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the majority of the public view this a disgusting cruelty. How is turning an act of an idiot soldier into a giant media circus 'fighting for a cause'?

[Matt]

Quote by: Hodge Podge How is that fighting for a good cause? The cause is pretty much already won. I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the majority of the public view this a disgusting cruelty. How is turning an act of an idiot soldier into a giant media circus 'fighting for a cause'?

Because it's bringing more and more attention to the cause, and it will bring more negative attention to the marine. Hopefully all that attention will ruin his life completely.

[shawmutt]

I think what this thread needs is a heaping helping of perspective.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Marconius Killing animals for fun is one of the warning signs of a developing sociopath. It can develop into the desire to kill humans for fun and shows a lack of empathy so whether or not you care about animals this is not someone that should be given a weapon and told to use their own judgement on when to use it. I found it disturbing that he seems to have been let go because it was a PR nightmare instead of because he was mentally ill.

Mental illness is vague, it's easier to say "you embarrassed the corps, you're out"

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Muckraker I think you are oversimplifying the mindset one must have to follow orders to kill another person. A soldier that hates what he/she does or feels guilty about what he/she does during the act is an ineffective soldier. Soldiers follow orders and they are trained to never question or think about their acts so as to not have any fatal disconnects between orders and action. Soldiers are not like regular people until they are debriefed and discharged. Even then, there can be lingering effects of their training. If an authority figure handed me a gun and ordered me to fire at a particular person I would not do it. The reason? I am not a soldier. I have not been briefed or brainwashed to follow orders. So, are most soldiers quietly mourning the ordered actions as they are doing them (and are thus at the mercy of a dangerous disconnect between orders and action), are they indifferent to the actions since they are "just doing their jobs" and are 100% not culpable for what they are doing, or is there a possibility they are enjoying the actions because they think they are doing a good job and keeping the world a safer place? Also, it is not the innocent victim's fault - or the terrorist's fault - that a soldier mistakes a bystander for an enemy or opts to fire on an enemy with hostages. That is 100% the fault of the person who pulls the trigger or, in the case of soldiers, it is the fault of the person giving the orders. If a murder suspect wearing a hoodie flees through a crowd of other people wearing hoodies does it give the police free reign to open fire on the crowd? I agree that people who enjoy torturing or killing living things potentially have some issues they need to work out (although a whole slew of sport hunters would disagree with that statement). I do not agree with the clear double standard or someone losing their career because of the public perception about what is right and wrong. If the guy was off duty then he should pay whatever fines are associated with killing a dog. If he was on duty then he can be held accountable with the military but I suspect the military doesn't have any "animal cruelty" laws on the books. They may have something they can ding him with based on behaving responsibly or something else along those lines though.

Wait, so you say that a scared soldier who fires into a crowd because he is taking accurate, deadly fire from it is 100% culpable? what about the coward hiding behind women and children? Generally, sport hunters enjoy the hunt itself, not actually killing or butchering an animal. The corps has a righ to protect its own image, and if the video this marine made negatively impacts that, they have every right to fire him. (by the way, if he's in Iraq and in combat gear, he's obviously on a tour of duty.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Muckraker And how often do you think that happens? More or less frequently than soldiers following orders without question? Last time I checked, superior officers weren't too keen on grunts thinking for themselves and making decisions based on what they interpret a situation to be. What do you think the effect would be of a soldier busting out a copy of the Geneva conventions and flipping through it before following an order in the heat of battle? If a superior officer orders a soldier to throw a grenade into a building they do it. If an authority figure orders me to throw a grenade into a building I don't do it. Because I'm not a soldier.

I guarantee you if I put you in a uniform, send you to some dangerous part of the world in which you know full well there's probably a threat to you, the officer, and your buddies in that building, you'll throw the grenade.

The thing I don't get about this case is how stupid a Marine, someone who is supposed to fight for the 'good', can do such an aweful inhumane act of stupidity. This person needs to go to a mental ward, get fixed up, and thrown off a cliff with people laughing. That should solve the problem.

Interesting how you indict this marine with barbaric sadism when you yourself express a desire for just as barbaric revenge. A person can be otherwise relatively good and make a horrible decision.

[RealRockingham]

Quote by: banko If it has no inherent value then why do you continue to live it? What is the point of living if there is no value?

Their isn't an objective reason... either to continue or not continue to live. I just do. Why does a rock exist? Why does it continue to exist if their is no point? The questions are irrelevant, meaningless concepts born of humans frantically grasping at straws for emotional meaning. Their is one objective fact: Their is a rock.

Quote by: Matt The thing I don't get about this case is how stupid a Marine, someone who is supposed to fight for the 'good', can do such an aweful inhumane act of stupidity. This person needs to go to a mental ward, get fixed up, and thrown off a cliff with people laughing. That should solve the problem.

"the good" is subjective, not objective. At the risk of sounding offensive, duh

Quote by: shawmutt I think what this thread needs is a heaping helping of perspective.

LOL, a sane post. Sorry, but I don't think many of the good people of Volconvo know what that word means

[Matt W]

How about this thread stays on-topic.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Matt]

Quote by: RealRockingham "the good" is subjective, not objective. At the risk of sounding offensive, duh

Isn't killing an innocent life not good? Killing something for no reason is not good.