Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

Do you not get any of my points about bad not being bad for everybody? So saying something is bad is ridiculous. Also, saying 'if you don't want to be killed, don't go out and murder.' You keep bringing it back to people in the army, they murder, yet people complain and grieve when they get killed don't they?

I DO get your points. Bad is different for every person, yes, but taking the life of someone for no reason SHOULD and is bad for everyone, whether they like it or not.

And I'm not bringing them back to them, you're not listening to me. A person who goes out and murders someone, just to kill. THEY need to be locked up or killed, why? cause they killed for no reason.

Then Army, police, etc. they kill people who are HARMING others for no reason. They go out, and take care of all of us, protect us, they, not just the army risk their lives for us to take care of bad people who hurt others for no good reason. SO yes, when people like that die, we feel bad and cry. We don't cry for some serial killer who goes out and killers bunches of people, is it very sad that the serial killer probably got shot...yes.. it is. any life being lost is horrible but to a point you have to accept and expect that to happen, you can't just run around and kill people for no reason and expect to be treated well..

Little white flowers will never awaken you, not when the cold depths have all but overtaken you.

Dearest, The days are all so long,
and in the shadows I spend them all.
My heart and I long for slumber.
Slumber I'm caressing you, I bless your touch, I lust for you.
Slumber you are not a dream, Not as much as you seem.
- Joao <3

I can't say I've read the debate, because frankly I don't have the time or energy to do so.

But on a moral level, I think that men and women who put their lives on the line to help their country should be paid more.

On a realistic level, they never will be. First, you never make that much money working for the government unless you are the one writing your own salary (looking at you, US Congress). Further, there is less of a demand for soldiers, in the eyes of the public, then for footballers. Until football (or as I call it, soccer), is in less of a demand then the United States or British army, then they will never be paid more.

It doesn't make it right or wrong; it just is.

"A toothache, or a violent passion, is not necessarily diminished by our knowledge of its causes, its character, its importance or insignificance".- T.S. Eliot

Newly-available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States, but DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases.
The Death Penalty Information Center (U.S.) has published a list of 8 inmates "executed but possibly innocent". At least 39 executions are claimed to have been carried out in the U.S. in the face of evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt.
^Another reason why killing isn't the greatest option ever, it can't be undone. Therefore if you kill an innocent person, then that is murder yes? So why do we not kill all of the US judicial system seeing as killing murderers is alright?
You seem very big on the army protecting you, but how do you know they are? How do you know that if the government hadn't sent forces out to these middle eastern countries you would be in any sort of danger? Why is it necessary? If it isn't necessary then it isn't justified, if it isn't justified then it is murder.
Can you stop talking about 'bad' and 'good' people please? I've already established that I don't believe in them yet you seem adamant on bringing this back to them.

How do you know they have no reason? Are you psychic? They could have a reason as legitimate as your governments for harming people. Just because you do not understand their reason does not mean they do not have one. They clearly do have a reason. It is impossible to act without a reason. You could say harming without justification but seeing as their is no objective justification they could have their own subjective one, which of course they will. The people of the US or any army have their own subjective justification to kill. Where is there a difference? You believe they are bad, they believe you are bad. What's to say you are right?

What is your justification for this? I could go jump through a burning hoop for a barrel of oil each day for my job, does this mean I deserve to get paid more than a professional at their field for doing their job?
All jobs are helping the country via tax, creating resources etc.
Also, taking it literally, you are risking your life doing any job. If I worked in an office then the floor may collapse, there may be a fire, I may fall out of a window. If I'm a bus driver then I could crash, or the bus could blow up. I'm risking my life for the benefit of my country then by your standards. Does this mean I deserve to get paid more than a professional in their field? A footballer could be in a coach crash on the way to a game. Risking his life doing his job. Anything more examples needed?

Is it just me or did you contradict yourself here? Either "bad" is different for every person (morality is subjective) or not (morality is, essentially, objective). You claimed both; the two are mutually exclusive.

If morality is subjective, then you are simply incorrect in saying that killing "for no reason" is inherently wrong: all it takes is one person to disagree with you- and who are you to correct them? We've just established that morality itself is subject to individuals' opinions on it!

If morality is objective, then it is possible that killing for no reason is universally wrong... but you have absolutely no way of knowing that. How do you measure morality? The short answer is that you cannot, and so any claims to objective morality can amount to little more than individuals' subjective opinions about the nature of objective morality. They are necessarily unsubstantiated.

Do you realise that the number of people who kill "just to kill" is small enough to be considered zero in all practical circumstances?

Regardless, if an individual kills for no reason, they forfeit their right to life? Why? How? What possible justification for this can there be other than retributive "justice" (revenge, in laymans' terms)? Revenge is a pathetic substitute for justice used by moral cowards and the weak-willed.

False.

The army do not kill (and indeed never have killed) people who are "harming others for no reason." In almost all circumstances, soldiers are going out and killing other soldiers... guess what? The soldiers that our soldiers are killing also believe that they are killing/fighting for a just cause! In saying that those killed by soldiers are "harming others for no reason" or some other such rubbish, you are engaging in a (perhaps mild) form of dehumanisation (or potentially even racism).

I hope that we have already established that the people our soldiers are just as likely to be "bad people" as our own soldiers, and are extraordinarily unlikely to be "hurt[ing] others for no good reason".

In some wars, soldiers do protect us. But not in all - you might present a case in which war was necessary to assure our protection, but it is absurd to claim that all wars being fought are being fought for our protection. It is simply incorrect.

Let's assume briefly, though, that soldiers do protect us: that's nice. But they are still killing other human beings who, in (almost) all circumstances, do not deserve to die. That's a pretty high price to pay for freedom, isn't it? Celebrate our protection - sure - but to celebrate what each individual soldier does is somewhat disturbing, for me.

Again, people don't (or very rarely) kill for no reason.

It might interest you to know, actually, that a vast number of serial killers actually believe (or believed) that what they are/were doing was right and moral. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? Oh yes- that's exactly what our soldiers do! And that's the "more moral soldiers"; I'm not considering those who join the army simply for money or the minority who join just so that they can kill.



With regard to the monetary aspect... neglecting the immorality of war entirely, soldiers still should not be paid more than footballers. To implement such an idea would necessarily infringe upon the free market and individuals' rights to buy and sell services at whatever price upon which they agree. Soldiers get paid what they get paid because that is what the state is willing to pay for soldiers, and that is what civilians are willing to accept to become soldiers. Footballers get paid what they get paid because that is what the clubs are willing to pay for skilled footballers, and that is what skilled footballers are willing to accept.

So, to pay soldiers more than footballers would almost certainly infringe upon civil liberties... not to mention the fact that the money has to come from somewhere. Where is the state gonna get that amount of money to pay each and every one of its soldiers? It isn't, of course! And, even if it did, surely the money would be better off spent on something other than the glorification of war? I understand that this is a practical issue though, and so perhaps shouldn't be considered if this thread is discussing whether or not the idea is principally moral...

القذافي*


OWNED BITCH OWNED!!!!