Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
RayNewman123

IS KILLING EVER FUN?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

HA HA HA

"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!" Adolf Hitler

"Why does the world shed crocodile’s tears over the richly merited fate of a small Jewish minority?" Adolf Hitler

"It's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot.... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." General Mattis, Obama's pick to head the Central Command of American Forces in Middle East

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is a point to this post. We are in a serious state when killing is an enjoyable human activity...killing may be necessary at times, but never fun and a hoot. That attitude expresses a disdain for human life that denigrates humanity.

Gates says Mattis is a "deep thinker" and he is, in the toilet. To imply that America has no one more capable, more noble in spirit, to command our forces, is shameful...and if true, heralds our heading over the abyss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is a point to this post. We are in a serious state when killing is an enjoyable human activity...killing may be necessary at times, but never fun and a hoot. That attitude expresses a disdain for human life that denigrates humanity.

Ok, that's what I was looking for. Your post was left so open ended I didn't know what you were getting at.

As to the "serious state" part of your post. I think you are starting from an incorrect place there.

Some people have always enjoyed killing for the sake of killing & torturing for the sake of torturing. This is nothing new.

Nor is it new that these people hold positions of power.

Your premise seems to be that society is downsliding by allowing this.

I believe that it is more a status quo that we have not managed to overthrow from society's primitive roots.

The distinction may seem minor but it is important.

How does society progress beyond considering such minded people useful?

Well for starters men like this will be needed by our leaders so long as our leaders are corrupt.

Our leaders will always be corrupt so long as we do not live in a rights respecting society.

What then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that Mattis's comments imply more of an apathy towards those who wish to initiate force against women. All it seems like he's implying is that there is no sympathy for people like that. And he shouldn't.

The things he has to say about Afghani civilians seems to imply that he understands the difference between civilians and terrorists.

"Every time you wave at an Iraqi civilian, Al Qaeda rolls over in its grave."

I think this is a better attitude to adopt - even if you assume Total War.

Edited by Black Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people have always enjoyed killing for the sake of killing & torturing for the sake of torturing. This is nothing new.

Nor is it new that these people hold positions of power.

Nevertheless, it is shocking that a 4-star general of the US Marines Corps would aspire to such depths, and would display such a blatant rejection of rational cultural values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, it is shocking that a 4-star general of the US Marines Corps would aspire to such depths, and would display such a blatant rejection of rational cultural values.

On that part I am torn.

I don't know whether to be furious that the president would ignore the poor judgement of someone in a position of such power..

..or be glad he came out and said what he meant, where it would be subject to public scrutiny.

I stand by my statement of it being hard to be shocked that living in such a corrupt system we shouldn't be entirely surprised though. 4-star generals are as much a political position as they are a military one. You could say that even more reason to be shocked that someone having attained such a level would be so impolitic. But again, the larger (voting, alas) public of our country seems to have grown numb to the crassness that is part and parcel of everyday politics. Whether it be ACORN helping commit fraud through child prostitution, Obama's "putting my boot on their throats" remarks about industry, Obama's healthcare appointee openly advocating medical treatment rationing, Democrats gushing to praise KKK member Senator Byrd and so on. It seems that nothing is shocking anymore.

We live in interesting times.

I am often saddened by what I read and see, almost never shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand. Boiled down to its roots this mans profession is the efficient and effective killing of the enemy. No one should be surprised or dismayed that at least some people who would choose this career think of killing in this way. It's like having a Doberman that is trained to attack and then being upset that the dog seems to like it.

Nor does the mans obvious enjoyment of his job mean that he is a moron or unintelligent.

If your military ideals run along the lines of total war and the absolute and irrevocable destruction of your enemy then people like General Mattis are exactly the kinds of men you want fighting for you.

You can start to worry when he ignores the difference between a civilian and a soldier/insurgent. You should be damn worried should he ignore the difference between the nations enemies, and those who disagree within the nations political process and you certainly should be worried if as a soldier he does not want to get in there and fight kill and win for his country.

You can't have your cake (a soldier that is willing to kill, and to give up his life if necessary for the rights of his countrymen and everything his country stands for) and eat it too (have this same soldier be some sort automaton who acts like a docile pussycat for less violent sensibilities until you decide you need him to be your killing machine again)

Edited by Zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HA HA HA

"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!" Adolf Hitler

"Why does the world shed crocodile’s tears over the richly merited fate of a small Jewish minority?" Adolf Hitler

"It's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot.... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you. I like brawling. You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." General Mattis, Obama's pick to head the Central Command of American Forces in Middle East

The proposed moral equivalence between General Mattis and Adolf Hitler does not exist. The Taliban are petty murderous religious tyrants quite different from the Jews Hitler went after.

All killing is not equally wrong. If victory in war is desirable then the means to obtain victory is desirable. Killing the enemy is the way to obtain victory in war.

Edited by Grames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison to a Doberman is exactly the point. A Doberman is an animal, a dog, not a rational human. Good generals ought be efficient, but not dogs enjoying the kill.

It is a spiritual thing which I do not hear in most of the comments. Human life begins as a glorious value. America uniquely recognized that value and gave it the best environment in which to thrive and attain its potential. True, killing evil may be required, but the fact that we need to kill ought never, from my vantage point, be more than brutal necessity. I may have to burn a Rembrandt painting to survive, but I would feel sad to have to do so because I value great painting, as I value life, even if it is not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison to a Doberman is exactly the point. A Doberman is an animal, a dog, not a rational human. Good generals ought be efficient, but not dogs enjoying the kill.

It is a spiritual thing which I do not hear in most of the comments. Human life begins as a glorious value. America uniquely recognized that value and gave it the best environment in which to thrive and attain its potential. True, killing evil may be required, but the fact that we need to kill ought never, from my vantage point, be more than brutal necessity. I may have to burn a Rembrandt painting to survive, but I would feel sad to have to do so because I value great painting, as I value life, even if it is not mine.

The man that is trying to kill me and destroy my way of life is most certainly not of any value. None. I'd skin him and wear him as a coat if I needed to to survive, or to ensure the survival of the people and things I do value.

The fact that the Doberman is an animal is beside the point. My point is that the attacking is its job, its reason for being a guard dog is its ability to attack, not its status as a dog.

A toy poodle would not make an effective attack dog and a humanitarian wouldn't make a very good soldier.

What is that famous quote? "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

You can bemoan the savagery of the man but you can not deny his utility. A is A. Have your cake or eat it.

To draw a connecting thread, this same attitude is root cause that lost the Vietnam war, it is the same attitude that will loose this war.

Doberman or Toy Poodle. Your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison to a Doberman is exactly the point. A Doberman is an animal, a dog, not a rational human. Good generals ought be efficient, but not dogs enjoying the kill.

It is a spiritual thing which I do not hear in most of the comments. Human life begins as a glorious value. America uniquely recognized that value and gave it the best environment in which to thrive and attain its potential. True, killing evil may be required, but the fact that we need to kill ought never, from my vantage point, be more than brutal necessity. I may have to burn a Rembrandt painting to survive, but I would feel sad to have to do so because I value great painting, as I value life, even if it is not mine.

This is the opposite of a spiritual attitude, it is a juvenile arrested development. You are celebrating a mentality that refuses to integrate.

A similar argument would be to praise the natural alarm and aversion at wounds and blood as civilized and cast suspicion on the motives of surgeons for going into the field, because they deliberately inflict wounds and spill blood. Instead of a range-of-the-moment awareness involved in the simple revulsion to blood or killing, it is the dedication to the longer term benefit surgery and war serve which reveals where the higher wisdom lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is that famous quote? "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

You can bemoan the savagery of the man but you can not deny his utility. A is A. Have your cake or eat it.

To draw a connecting thread, this same attitude is root cause that lost the Vietnam war, it is the same attitude that will loose this war.

Doberman or Toy Poodle. Your choice.

I'm hardly a pacifist.

Surely there is something in between a man being ready to kill and die for his country, revelling in his excellence at his chosen profession as a warrior and a man thinking that killing people is "a hoot".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hardly a pacifist.

And I wasn't calling you one.

Surely there is something in between a man being ready to kill and die for his country, revelling in his excellence at his chosen profession as a warrior and a man thinking that killing people is "a hoot".

Absolutely but you will draw your share of people who do believe that some people are worth or deserving of being nothing more than target practice.

Read the General's comments again. Are you absolutely sure that this man views all opponents in this manner or is it an indication of how he considers the current enemy to be unworthy of consideration as human beings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some other things the General has said.

"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all"

"You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon."

"no war is over until the enemy says it's over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote"

The USA could do a lot worse than to have this man fighting for them in Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some other things the General has said.
Yeah, you know, we are about to install a radical leftist harpie as a Supreme Judge for Life Term, and she has shockingly little literature to her credit (no serious judicial-indicative publications). Now, a potential SCOTUS ruler is exactly the kind of person who you'd expect to have a paper trail that would leave you with a reasonable understanding of their philosophy. So what I guess we have here is a general with vastly less of a paper trail, and on one occasion he managed to open his mouth while talking out of his ass. In public. Even Lucius Vorenus had a bad PR day. What I find most disappointing is that if this was just stupid spastic lips and he did not mean what he said, if that statement was out of character and was not representative of his philosophy, why did he not man up an and in unequivocal marine terms what he actually did mean? Well, in the context of modern politics where people feel that compromise of principles is required, I do see why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I wasn't calling you one.

I didn't mean that as a defensive tone against you.

I've been accused of it on the forums before when topics of warfare came up so I just threw that out there preemptively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been accused of it on the forums before when topics of warfare came up so I just threw that out there preemptively.
Careful what you throw out there: you wouldn't want to bleed to death because you fragged yourself with a preemptive grenade that bounced back at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you know, we are about to install a radical leftist harpie as a Supreme Judge for Life Term, and she has shockingly little literature to her credit (no serious judicial-indicative publications). Now, a potential SCOTUS ruler is exactly the kind of person who you'd expect to have a paper trail that would leave you with a reasonable understanding of their philosophy. So what I guess we have here is a general with vastly less of a paper trail, and on one occasion he managed to open his mouth while talking out of his ass. In public. Even Lucius Vorenus had a bad PR day. What I find most disappointing is that if this was just stupid spastic lips and he did not mean what he said, if that statement was out of character and was not representative of his philosophy, why did he not man up an and in unequivocal marine terms what he actually did mean? Well, in the context of modern politics where people feel that compromise of principles is required, I do see why.

Maybe I've not made myself clear.

I don't believe for a second that he was in any way guilty of misrepresenting his thoughts on the matter in the original quotation. I believe he really did (does?) think those things about the Taliban.

Does he love fighting? Sure I can see that. There is a very old quote from Vegetius... "A soldier exists only to demonstrate that what he has been taught he can execute expertly." or words to that effect.

My point is that all of these things make him exactly the kind of guy you want fighting on your side.

As for the throwaway that "at that rank all appointments are political"... bullshit. The man has to at least a little palpable to the political class but you had better hope that the skills he's being promoted on are military or your country has far greater problems than a few uncensored lines from an old-school Marine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the throwaway that "at that rank all appointments are political"... bullshit. The man has to at least a little palpable to the political class but you had better hope that the skills he's being promoted on are military or your country has far greater problems than a few uncensored lines from an old-school Marine.

I scanned the topic again and didn't see anything else quite like that statement you're quoting so I'm assuming you are referencing me.

If so what I actually said was "4-star generals are as much a political position as they are a military one." Which is quite different from the way you took it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find his passion for dealing swift justice admirable.

Exactly. It is morally good to administer justice. So a rational person would enjoy administering justice. The enemy (the Taliban) kills innocents, steals, beats and represses women, etc. They, therefore, deserve to die. So a rational person should enjoy watching them die/killing them. Seeing someone get what they deserve shouldn't be something one feels bad about, one should revel in it and feel elated that justice is being done. Example: I imagine most people (including the rational ones) who saw "Inglorious Basterds" felt elated when they saw the ending, because it was a depiction of a tremendous good being done (even if it was extremely violent and involved many people dying).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...