|
aravain -> RE: Army Suicides at Record High (1/29/2009 11:32:05 PM)
|
I'll work in parts to respond
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Tell, me Aravain, are people who have been through a fraternity hazing "not necessarily people?" Not all that different. Prison inmates get funny clothes and depersonalization. Would you apply your standard to them?
Yes, I would. I also find hazing to be, not only illegal, but completely reprehensible (and am QUITE glad that I've only ever attended schools that, on first scent of hazing suspend the chapter). We don't need to depersonalize these people... *at all*. Those that are hazed are forever not the same (and usually for the WORSE, not better).
quote:
As the recruit moves through the process, that aspect fades. The self returns, with a lot of new skills and confidence. The shock wears off. Name tags show up on the uniforms. Personalities re-assert themselves. Unity building continues, of course. Teamwork is mission critical. Is that what makes them subhuman? Shall we apply that to sports teams? Is anyone putting themselves on the line for a higher cause still a person in your mind? How about a bunch of peace-protesters chanting a slogan?
Strawman argument, at best. They are soldiers first, people second (if at all), which is where my standpoint comes from. A member of a sports team, or someone working as part of a team, hasn't always lost their individuality (though I won't argue the fact that sometimes they do), and that actually brings further proof to just how powerful INDIVIDUALS that band together for a cause can be.
You also use the word 'subhuman' which I don't remember using (or think is appropriate). I follow the basic dictionary definition of the word 'person' to apply 'person-hood' to someone. "Human, Individual" so they meet one criteria, but not always (usually?) the second while in the military.
quote:
How are you a bigot? You suggested that a group of people aren't really people at all.
[8|] Further proof you didn't read my posts (or are selectively reading, at best) in order to be able to continue believing that I'm some sort of evil person. So I won't bring it up again after this since you just proved that, though I doubt you'll drop it.
I said that soldiers are not necessarily people, which is true enough. They're soldiers first. To the military, that's all that matters. The military doesn't want people (individuals) because people don't make good soldiers. Those who belong to a group (and let that define them MORE than their individuality) are more important.
Essentially we're making the same argument (though coming to different 'moral' conclusions about it). You said it yourself. Don't remember? Here, I'll quote it: "Depersonalization is certainly one of the tools used..." Notice your wording there? 'Depersonalization' or, in other words, *removing of the person*. I don't care if it's temporary, it's *wrong*. I don't care if their personality starts to 're-assert' themselves, it's no longer as important (to themselves or to the military) as the fact that they're a soldier, and it *does* ruin lives when some lose that identity when they leave the military. Personally, I think one life ruined is too much.
I would much rather have my country represented by PEOPLE who happen to be well-trained soldiers. Not 'soldiers-first-people-second' at all. I would rather have my tax dollars support an institution that *doesn't* utilize any methods of "depersonalization" (oh, look, I used your word again) on those who belong to it.
You are (whether intentionally or not) misunderstanding what I mean because I find it to be distasteful, at best, while you seem to find it the essence of what makes the military great... or something [8|].
|
|
|
|
