8 ms·

The Navy Seals I have known in my life have been the most honest, bravest, and intelligent people I have ever known. I'm grateful people like this exist in the

The Navy Seals I have known in my life have been the most honest, bravest, and intelligent people I have ever known. I'm grateful people like this exist in the world.

jacquesm 12y ago
I can't get behind people trained for the most part to kill other people. The bravest to me are those that refuse to be goaded into harming their fellow human beings at the behest of others. The line between 'brave seal' and 'tool' is a thin one.
- Nrsolis 12y ago
  This is a horribly naive viewpoint. You've fallen into the trap of making a judgement of someone based on a popular understanding of a particular profession rather than any factual reality. And here are the facts: 1. There is evil in the world. 2. That evil sometimes hurts innocent people. 3. We need some way of protecting innocent people from evil. I'm reminded of the current hullabaloo about Boko Haram and the kidnapping of several hundred girls from a school. exactly who do you think is going to do anything about rescuing those girls? Exactly what kind of campaign do you think is needed to meet that challenge? I see from your profile that you're in the Netherlands. I spent an afternoon at the Anne Frank house several years ago. I'm guessing you feel that she deserved NO protection whatsoever? I'm always amused at the opinions of those who live in safe countries with comfortable lives and how they have no concern for the people who keep them safe and comfortable. Maybe you should learn a little more, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korps_Commandotroepen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korps_Commandotroepen
  - jqm 12y ago
    "I'm reminded of the current hullabaloo about Boko Haram and the kidnapping of several hundred girls from a school." Yes. In Nigeria which is what... like the 5'th largest oil exporter in the world? So who funds these problems that then have to be solved by military invasion? I'm always suspicious.
    - jebblue 12y ago
      What ... on earth is your point? That everyone who drives a car is responsible for those poor children? I pray for their safe return.
      - PavlovsCat 12y ago
        I think the point was the when a country gets invaded, its economy and politics tend to get restructured in favour of the invader. I wouldn't go so far to say this proves it was engineered, but I think that was the implication.
        jqm 12y ago
        Exactly. I don't mean to "prove" nor even "imply". The word used was "suspicious". When these type of problems pop up in resource rich or strategically important locations and it gets a lot of air time on the news and we have to do something because "think of the children!" I am.... suspicious.
        Nrsolis 12y ago
        We sent the Marines into Haiti to rescue the civilian population after the natural disasters there. For the life of me, I can't imagine what economic interest we had there. I know because a good friend ended up killing himself after witnessing the human tragedy there. He was a Marine pilot.
        jqm 12y ago
        well, let me cynically suggest at least one "economic advantage"... The government of a country within boat reach of Florida falls apart and people start starving and the exodus towards the shores of America by Haitians reaches epidemic proportions... But this is just wild speculation. Look... I'm not saying all military adventures by the US are economically driven. But lots of them probably are. I'm naturally suspicious of them at this point and I think with good reason. Besides, I don't care for the massive expense and think it inefficient and generally unnecessary at current levels.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Is there a Navy Seals action underway to rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? That's news to me, all I know is there were a few rumors. The problem is not that navy seals could not be deployed to do good, the problem is that they are just as likely to be deployed to do harm. Anne Frank has nothing to do with any of this, the dutch army was of no significance whatsoever (but the dutch resistance was). As for me 'learning a little more', I think you have your mind made up about me. Your simple world with 'evil' and 'good' is not the world I live in. If only it were that simple.
    - Nrsolis 12y ago
      I think you're missing the point entirely. The point of the example is to show that without good people who are willing to fight against those who would do innocents harm, those good people get hurt. I think that if you kidnap little girls, you're evil. I think that if you set off a bomb in a hotel lobby, you're evil. I think if you crash a plane into a building and kill thousands, you're evil. In my world, if you indiscriminately kill an innocent person to further your political goals then you are evil.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        In my world, if you invade a country on a pretext and kill tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, you're out of control. Especially if in the run-up to such an invasion you squelch every possible voice of opposition or reason. That's where the problem lies, by your own definition your country is evil (not by mine, I don't believe in the whole good/evil thing, it's just a simplification to make it easier to delude voters into thinking things are easy to understand when in fact they are not).
      - vacri 12y ago
        You keep on subscribing to this image of the military as valiant crusaders against the dark, yet the most significant deployment of the biggest military in the world this century was an unmitigated disaster, that had nothing to do with defense of innocents, and that left the people of the target country far worse off than they were originally. The problem is this: by continually glorifying the military the way you do, making them out to be crusader heroes, you fool young, impressionable people. So instead of decrying things like the invasion of Iraq, they sign up in droves, because they've been tricked by the rhetoric into thinking it's somehow about defending their country. The point is, if the US military was really about fighting your definition of evil, it would be far more involved in Africa. Its mission is "keep the US safe and further its interests", which is fine, but it's not the "fight evil" mission that you say it is. If the US military really was about fighting evil (which is an oversimplistic term), it would have staged a coup when GW Bush declared war on Iraq, a war in which hundreds of thousands of people have died, in a country that was no threat to the US.
  - PavlovsCat 12y ago
    If that is horribly naive, so was Einstein: He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. > 1. There is evil in the world. 2. That evil sometimes hurts innocent people. 3. We need some way of protecting innocent people from evil. That is true, but doesn't justify anything and everything. For example, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador making stuff up about Iraqui soldiers tearing babies out of incubators. "War is a racket" may not be the full story, but has it ever been refuted in a meaningful way? If so, I'd like to see that. As for Anne Frank, she and others were hunted and murdered by organized, trained killers. To say "but that's different, because those are evil, and we are talking about organized, trained killers who fight evil" doesn't really help, because from the perspective of fanatical followers of Hitler, they were doing the exact same thing, protecting the world from evil and degeneration. So to bring up Anne Frank to justify glorifying the military seems weird at best.
    - Nrsolis 12y ago
      She was hunted and murdered by organized, trained killers THAT WERE SUPPORTED and FUNDED BY THE CIVILIANS. FTFY. Sorry Bub. Your hands aren't clean there. And don't forget that Einstein wrote the letter to the FDR that kicked off the race to build the atomic weapon. Even HE was asking for the USG to do something that would squelch the evil of Nazi aggression. If you believe that soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines are mindless drones, boy have you got it wrong.
      - PavlovsCat 12y ago
        > Sorry Bub. Your hands aren't clean there. I totally agree with that. If you look at it as a pyramid, and the moment of a soldier shooting someone as the very tip, a LOT goes into that. There is a bit in Robert Antelme's "The Human Race" where he actually says the supposedly innocent and righteous civil society, with its supposed values, that underpinned and enabled the SS at times stirred up more resentment than the SS itself; at least the SS wore skulls, and acknowledged the existence of the people they were murdering. I am paraphrasing, but my point is, even someone who lived through that horror agrees with you. > And don't forget that Einstein wrote the letter to the FDR that kicked off the race to build the atomic weapon. Even HE was asking for the USG to do something that would squelch the evil of Nazi aggression. "I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them!" & "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I would not have lifted a finger." > If you believe that soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines are mindless drones, boy have you got it wrong. This however strikes me as a non-sequitur. How does the fact that civilian society can act as mindless drones, too, make soldiers less drone-ish?
  - dang 12y ago
    I spent an afternoon at the Anne Frank house several years ago. I'm guessing you feel that she deserved NO protection whatsoever? Please stop attacking other commenters personally. It's against the rules and weakens your argument. "Guessing" something horrible about somebody is personally aggressive. There is a lot of other personally charged language in your posts as well. Please refrain from that. You have a good point—insinuation spoils it.
  - CatheryneN 12y ago
    I have a stronger opinion for those who live in safe countries and have no concern for the people who keep them safe and comfortable. The fact that everyone on this thread can voice their opinion freely, criticize openly, and play armchair quarterback on something they may know nothing about should speak volumes. Today and tomorrow is the time for grace for those who have laid down their life in service to our country. US Navy Seals are an elite group who undertake incredibly dangerous missions. They deserve nothing but respect on this Memorial Day. Freedom is never free.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      You have a few nice bumper stickers in there.
- tptacek 12y ago
  If only nobody anywhere in the world was trained to kill other people, our country (and yours) wouldn't need to ask people to sacrifice that part of their humanity in service to their countrymen. You might read Marlantes _What It Is Like To Go To War_. You might find that while SEALs are happy to speak proudly what they've learned in basic training, not so many of them speak happily about what war forces them to do during deployment. Those people trained for the most part to kill other people probably agree with much of your sentiment about their job.
  - crimsonalucard 12y ago
    They are actually obligated by law not to talk about their operations. It's all classified.
    - Nrsolis 12y ago
      That's not strictly true. Go read "Inside the Red Circle". The author is a friend of mine.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    As a conscientious objector I've done plenty of thinking on the subject. My personal stance on this is that I and nobody else determines where and when the line into violence is crossed and that I will not let others determine what my hands are used for when it comes to matters of life and death. Words like 'sacrifice', 'pride' and so on try to put glory where there is none. Navy seals and their various colleagues from other countries should be a means of last resort (just like armies), unfortunately they find themselves (ab)used as blunt instruments of offence rather than as a way to defend their homelands. I know a couple of vets, and if there is one thing they collectively agree on then it was that they were used. That's not going to happen to me, I won't let it.
    - tptacek 12y ago
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Good sentiment, but 'bravery' is not the right word. Those refusing to participate are not really risking much, certainly not their lives (or being captured and tortured for instance). So pretty much different. But considering the world we live in, I'd much rather have Seals on my side. Properly trained ones.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    It would be great if special forces like the Navy seals would only be deployed on missions of an ethically defensible nature. Unfortunately that is not the case. It's a real pity because I'm very much under the impression that most people that enter the services do so from the best of intentions. 'Your' side could easily be the bad guys by some objective standards and that is where the problem lies. If only it would be as simple as saying that 'our' side was always right.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Good sentiment, but 'bravery' is not the right word. Those refusing to participate are not really risking much, certainly not their lives (or being captured and tortured for instance). So pretty much different. Well, not here and now, but there were certainly times when that was not true.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > Well, not here and now, but there were certainly times when that was not true. Just like there were times when towns needed to have coopers. But like you just said, these aren't that times, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to add to the discussion.
- jebblue 12y ago
  >> The bravest to me are those that refuse to be goaded into harming their fellow human beings at the behest of others. The problem is that the enemy wants to kill you, without brave men and women who serve voluntarily, you would not likely have the freedom to hold the idea that it's braver to not fight and give in and give up.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Which enemy is that? Try harming (directly) one that is dear to me and we'll see how I feel about not fighting. Try sending me to some country halfway across the planet to further the agenda of a bunch of politicians that make sure they're safe themselves and as far away from harm as they could possibly be and I refuse to budge. Navy seals have given the ability to make that choice to their superiors. Let's just leave it at that I've seen authority abused more often than that I've seen it be used for good and that I have a very strong distrust of the motives of those that govern in our name. Too many wars, too much manipulation, too many things in the news where the stories don't check out after the fact. Would you like some yellowcake with that barrel of petroleum?
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > Let's just leave it at that I've seen authority abused So have we all at some point, I'd imagine. Is it your opinion that anything that can be abused should be forbidden? Because no offense, but that's the same logic in the child's fairy tale about the boy who cried wolf. You're very rightly pointing out that if you make false use of your authority too often that you should expect people to not trust you in the future. But there was a second part to that story: Once the people stop trusting that authority entirely, they can be taken advantage of, just as the wolf did to the villagers' sheep. As it stands your personal decision to be a conscientious objector is made possible only because enough other people did not make that same decision (a point Orwell makes much better than I can). So while I won't argue with that decision as it's something only you can decide on, based on your own life experiences, I would also caution that your experiences are not everyone else's experiences and so maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge other people.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

The Navy Seals I have known in my life have been the most honest, bravest, and intelligent people I have ever known. I'm grateful people like this exist in the world.

jacquesm 12y ago

I can't get behind people trained for the most part to kill other people. The bravest to me are those that refuse to be goaded into harming their fellow human beings at the behest of others. The line between 'brave seal' and 'tool' is a thin one.

Nrsolis 12y ago
This is a horribly naive viewpoint. You've fallen into the trap of making a judgement of someone based on a popular understanding of a particular profession rather than any factual reality. And here are the facts: 1. There is evil in the world. 2. That evil sometimes hurts innocent people. 3. We need some way of protecting innocent people from evil. I'm reminded of the current hullabaloo about Boko Haram and the kidnapping of several hundred girls from a school. exactly who do you think is going to do anything about rescuing those girls? Exactly what kind of campaign do you think is needed to meet that challenge? I see from your profile that you're in the Netherlands. I spent an afternoon at the Anne Frank house several years ago. I'm guessing you feel that she deserved NO protection whatsoever? I'm always amused at the opinions of those who live in safe countries with comfortable lives and how they have no concern for the people who keep them safe and comfortable. Maybe you should learn a little more, eh? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korps_Commandotroepen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korps_Commandotroepen
- jqm 12y ago
  "I'm reminded of the current hullabaloo about Boko Haram and the kidnapping of several hundred girls from a school." Yes. In Nigeria which is what... like the 5'th largest oil exporter in the world? So who funds these problems that then have to be solved by military invasion? I'm always suspicious.
  - jebblue 12y ago
    What ... on earth is your point? That everyone who drives a car is responsible for those poor children? I pray for their safe return.
    - PavlovsCat 12y ago
      I think the point was the when a country gets invaded, its economy and politics tend to get restructured in favour of the invader. I wouldn't go so far to say this proves it was engineered, but I think that was the implication.
      - jqm 12y ago
        Exactly. I don't mean to "prove" nor even "imply". The word used was "suspicious". When these type of problems pop up in resource rich or strategically important locations and it gets a lot of air time on the news and we have to do something because "think of the children!" I am.... suspicious.
        Nrsolis 12y ago
        We sent the Marines into Haiti to rescue the civilian population after the natural disasters there. For the life of me, I can't imagine what economic interest we had there. I know because a good friend ended up killing himself after witnessing the human tragedy there. He was a Marine pilot.
        jqm 12y ago
        well, let me cynically suggest at least one "economic advantage"... The government of a country within boat reach of Florida falls apart and people start starving and the exodus towards the shores of America by Haitians reaches epidemic proportions... But this is just wild speculation. Look... I'm not saying all military adventures by the US are economically driven. But lots of them probably are. I'm naturally suspicious of them at this point and I think with good reason. Besides, I don't care for the massive expense and think it inefficient and generally unnecessary at current levels.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Is there a Navy Seals action underway to rescue the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram? That's news to me, all I know is there were a few rumors. The problem is not that navy seals could not be deployed to do good, the problem is that they are just as likely to be deployed to do harm. Anne Frank has nothing to do with any of this, the dutch army was of no significance whatsoever (but the dutch resistance was). As for me 'learning a little more', I think you have your mind made up about me. Your simple world with 'evil' and 'good' is not the world I live in. If only it were that simple.
  - Nrsolis 12y ago
    I think you're missing the point entirely. The point of the example is to show that without good people who are willing to fight against those who would do innocents harm, those good people get hurt. I think that if you kidnap little girls, you're evil. I think that if you set off a bomb in a hotel lobby, you're evil. I think if you crash a plane into a building and kill thousands, you're evil. In my world, if you indiscriminately kill an innocent person to further your political goals then you are evil.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      In my world, if you invade a country on a pretext and kill tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, you're out of control. Especially if in the run-up to such an invasion you squelch every possible voice of opposition or reason. That's where the problem lies, by your own definition your country is evil (not by mine, I don't believe in the whole good/evil thing, it's just a simplification to make it easier to delude voters into thinking things are easy to understand when in fact they are not).
    - vacri 12y ago
      You keep on subscribing to this image of the military as valiant crusaders against the dark, yet the most significant deployment of the biggest military in the world this century was an unmitigated disaster, that had nothing to do with defense of innocents, and that left the people of the target country far worse off than they were originally. The problem is this: by continually glorifying the military the way you do, making them out to be crusader heroes, you fool young, impressionable people. So instead of decrying things like the invasion of Iraq, they sign up in droves, because they've been tricked by the rhetoric into thinking it's somehow about defending their country. The point is, if the US military was really about fighting your definition of evil, it would be far more involved in Africa. Its mission is "keep the US safe and further its interests", which is fine, but it's not the "fight evil" mission that you say it is. If the US military really was about fighting evil (which is an oversimplistic term), it would have staged a coup when GW Bush declared war on Iraq, a war in which hundreds of thousands of people have died, in a country that was no threat to the US.
- PavlovsCat 12y ago
  If that is horribly naive, so was Einstein: He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. > 1. There is evil in the world. 2. That evil sometimes hurts innocent people. 3. We need some way of protecting innocent people from evil. That is true, but doesn't justify anything and everything. For example, the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador making stuff up about Iraqui soldiers tearing babies out of incubators. "War is a racket" may not be the full story, but has it ever been refuted in a meaningful way? If so, I'd like to see that. As for Anne Frank, she and others were hunted and murdered by organized, trained killers. To say "but that's different, because those are evil, and we are talking about organized, trained killers who fight evil" doesn't really help, because from the perspective of fanatical followers of Hitler, they were doing the exact same thing, protecting the world from evil and degeneration. So to bring up Anne Frank to justify glorifying the military seems weird at best.
  - Nrsolis 12y ago
    She was hunted and murdered by organized, trained killers THAT WERE SUPPORTED and FUNDED BY THE CIVILIANS. FTFY. Sorry Bub. Your hands aren't clean there. And don't forget that Einstein wrote the letter to the FDR that kicked off the race to build the atomic weapon. Even HE was asking for the USG to do something that would squelch the evil of Nazi aggression. If you believe that soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines are mindless drones, boy have you got it wrong.
    - PavlovsCat 12y ago
      > Sorry Bub. Your hands aren't clean there. I totally agree with that. If you look at it as a pyramid, and the moment of a soldier shooting someone as the very tip, a LOT goes into that. There is a bit in Robert Antelme's "The Human Race" where he actually says the supposedly innocent and righteous civil society, with its supposed values, that underpinned and enabled the SS at times stirred up more resentment than the SS itself; at least the SS wore skulls, and acknowledged the existence of the people they were murdering. I am paraphrasing, but my point is, even someone who lived through that horror agrees with you. > And don't forget that Einstein wrote the letter to the FDR that kicked off the race to build the atomic weapon. Even HE was asking for the USG to do something that would squelch the evil of Nazi aggression. "I made one great mistake in my life—when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification—the danger that the Germans would make them!" & "Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I would not have lifted a finger." > If you believe that soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines are mindless drones, boy have you got it wrong. This however strikes me as a non-sequitur. How does the fact that civilian society can act as mindless drones, too, make soldiers less drone-ish?
- dang 12y ago
  I spent an afternoon at the Anne Frank house several years ago. I'm guessing you feel that she deserved NO protection whatsoever? Please stop attacking other commenters personally. It's against the rules and weakens your argument. "Guessing" something horrible about somebody is personally aggressive. There is a lot of other personally charged language in your posts as well. Please refrain from that. You have a good point—insinuation spoils it.
- CatheryneN 12y ago
  I have a stronger opinion for those who live in safe countries and have no concern for the people who keep them safe and comfortable. The fact that everyone on this thread can voice their opinion freely, criticize openly, and play armchair quarterback on something they may know nothing about should speak volumes. Today and tomorrow is the time for grace for those who have laid down their life in service to our country. US Navy Seals are an elite group who undertake incredibly dangerous missions. They deserve nothing but respect on this Memorial Day. Freedom is never free.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    You have a few nice bumper stickers in there.
tptacek 12y ago
If only nobody anywhere in the world was trained to kill other people, our country (and yours) wouldn't need to ask people to sacrifice that part of their humanity in service to their countrymen. You might read Marlantes _What It Is Like To Go To War_. You might find that while SEALs are happy to speak proudly what they've learned in basic training, not so many of them speak happily about what war forces them to do during deployment. Those people trained for the most part to kill other people probably agree with much of your sentiment about their job.
- crimsonalucard 12y ago
  They are actually obligated by law not to talk about their operations. It's all classified.
  - Nrsolis 12y ago
    That's not strictly true. Go read "Inside the Red Circle". The author is a friend of mine.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- jacquesm 12y ago
  As a conscientious objector I've done plenty of thinking on the subject. My personal stance on this is that I and nobody else determines where and when the line into violence is crossed and that I will not let others determine what my hands are used for when it comes to matters of life and death. Words like 'sacrifice', 'pride' and so on try to put glory where there is none. Navy seals and their various colleagues from other countries should be a means of last resort (just like armies), unfortunately they find themselves (ab)used as blunt instruments of offence rather than as a way to defend their homelands. I know a couple of vets, and if there is one thing they collectively agree on then it was that they were used. That's not going to happen to me, I won't let it.
  - tptacek 12y ago
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Good sentiment, but 'bravery' is not the right word. Those refusing to participate are not really risking much, certainly not their lives (or being captured and tortured for instance). So pretty much different. But considering the world we live in, I'd much rather have Seals on my side. Properly trained ones.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  It would be great if special forces like the Navy seals would only be deployed on missions of an ethically defensible nature. Unfortunately that is not the case. It's a real pity because I'm very much under the impression that most people that enter the services do so from the best of intentions. 'Your' side could easily be the bad guys by some objective standards and that is where the problem lies. If only it would be as simple as saying that 'our' side was always right.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Good sentiment, but 'bravery' is not the right word. Those refusing to participate are not really risking much, certainly not their lives (or being captured and tortured for instance). So pretty much different. Well, not here and now, but there were certainly times when that was not true.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > Well, not here and now, but there were certainly times when that was not true. Just like there were times when towns needed to have coopers. But like you just said, these aren't that times, so I'm not sure how that's supposed to add to the discussion.
jebblue 12y ago
>> The bravest to me are those that refuse to be goaded into harming their fellow human beings at the behest of others. The problem is that the enemy wants to kill you, without brave men and women who serve voluntarily, you would not likely have the freedom to hold the idea that it's braver to not fight and give in and give up.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Which enemy is that? Try harming (directly) one that is dear to me and we'll see how I feel about not fighting. Try sending me to some country halfway across the planet to further the agenda of a bunch of politicians that make sure they're safe themselves and as far away from harm as they could possibly be and I refuse to budge. Navy seals have given the ability to make that choice to their superiors. Let's just leave it at that I've seen authority abused more often than that I've seen it be used for good and that I have a very strong distrust of the motives of those that govern in our name. Too many wars, too much manipulation, too many things in the news where the stories don't check out after the fact. Would you like some yellowcake with that barrel of petroleum?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > Let's just leave it at that I've seen authority abused So have we all at some point, I'd imagine. Is it your opinion that anything that can be abused should be forbidden? Because no offense, but that's the same logic in the child's fairy tale about the boy who cried wolf. You're very rightly pointing out that if you make false use of your authority too often that you should expect people to not trust you in the future. But there was a second part to that story: Once the people stop trusting that authority entirely, they can be taken advantage of, just as the wolf did to the villagers' sheep. As it stands your personal decision to be a conscientious objector is made possible only because enough other people did not make that same decision (a point Orwell makes much better than I can). So while I won't argue with that decision as it's something only you can decide on, based on your own life experiences, I would also caution that your experiences are not everyone else's experiences and so maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge other people.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]