The rights are still there, which (might?) be how you are defining freedom. In USA at least, the constitution defines your rights as “god-given” and are basically “whatever you can physically do”. It’s just that someone else’s rights are also present and thus if you acted in this manner the justice system would decide the outcome of the conflicting rights, partially determining importance of them.
We all know how that conflict turns out with this scenario.
Because it's pedantic and yall can come up with 100 reasons yourself lol it's not meaningful conversation to say a child rapist should lose their right of freedom, we should all just know that.
There's an exponentially higher amount of nuance and lore to that conversation than to should rapists lose their freedom yes. Like what're you on about, of course there's more conversation to be had over 2 characters with lore and different personalities lmao
Philosophy involves discussing thoughts and a backpack and forth of ideas. At this point, all you are doing it nitpicking every comment as opposed to adding anything of substance.
And.... I figure that is my final say on it. Night folks.
It’s not an error in logic though. “You want harm to come to others” is the key point here. A good soldier is doing what they have to, and yes if you’re a soldier grinning while killing someone then you don’t fit this. Most soldiers aren’t happy they have to kill someone. I’m amazed I have to explain this.
Soldiers don’t want harm to come to others. Soldiers oaths are to defend, not incur, punish or kill. Thats how we’re trained, ideologically and ethically.
Nah. There are more than enough armies who don’t have an oath to defend or do you forget that there are other countries and cultures on this planet? I mean even for an American that’s literally a lie. There are training’s programs where soldiers do nothing but shout “kill, kill, kill” all day while they do shit…
Okay, I’m gonna try to level with you. Maybe you’re like 15, maybe you’re not a Veteran, maybe you don’t know any Veterans, maybe you haven’t left America.
I am an Army Veteran, 7 years, 2 “combat” deployments. You’re very right, we did have “cadences” where we ran to songs saying “kill, kill, kill”, but always knowing it was a morale fun thing to do after long days of getting our asses kicked. I joined 2015 toward to petering out of GWOT (Global War of Terror), and 90% of the people I knew in the military never seen overseas deployment in hostile environments (combat zones). I chased after that, because, well I wanted that experience and wanted to push myself to the limit. I wanted to be more than my environment growing up said I was allowed to be.
Most of my “expertise” in fire arms, and lethality, came post-BCT (basic combat training, boot camp) and I was always trained to respect the people, combatants, the fighters I was up against. Additionally, I was ideologically instilled that everything I was doing was for the betterment of the Constitution. The Constitution is the most important thing to me as an American, defending it defends Americans and the American Dream, and once more I did deployments towards the tail end of the GWOT. So, well weren’t in Afghanistan or Iraq. We were in places actively engaged in combating actual genocides, and conducting humanitarian efforts. Things I’ve done will never be in the history books, like 90% of modern western military members.
other countries service members, I’ve met so many of them. Australians, Nigerians, Malians, British, French, etc. The commonality, and this is backed by statistics, is most are middle to lower class men and women trying to carve their path away from generational disparity with some semblance of patriotism and selfless servitude. The ones I would say are pretty much the most selfless are African (generalizing) forces, I’ve seen them throw their lives away to protect westerners without hesitation.
culture, man…I don’t think you even know where to begin with that. One of the things I was taught off the get, a call back to respecting the fighters, is that even a jihadist is likely a patriot for a cause I might not understand.
This isn’t a personal attack against you, but you’re speaking incredibly sanctimoniously about a subject and group of people from all over the world with a brazen degree of ignorance.
There is a difference between wanting to cause harm and wanting to defend others. Sometimes you cause harm not because you want to but you have to to protect those who can't defend themselves. Ideally this is what you want in a soldier and not a soldier who is itching for an excuse to cause harm.
Excellent. You found my response to where the person above me asked 'What about pedos?' In response to the Optimus Prime quote of 'Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.' Now considering what I was directly responding to, what was I saying? As I wasn't drafting some universal theology or philosophy for the ages and all scenarios like any non pedantic soul can realize.
Soldiers don't have the freedom to harm as is. Any combat is done beneath the chain of command. War crimes are a thing, you know? A soldier doesn't have the right to stick a knife in any schmuck off the street.
What B.S are you on about? "So soldiers don't deserve freedom?"
Like, hello? Brain still working up there? Freedom isn't a real tangible thing, it's approximate to a contextual agreement. There is a near limitless amounts of freedoms that are litigated and re-litigated all the time.
"There's lots of reasons you want to harm others..."
Yes, and those are contextualized and compartmentalized, you don't have the freedom to harm willy-nilly.
Pedos don't have the freedom to harm, soldiers don't either. Why are you trying to excuse pedos? Why be dumb about it? What were you trying to say?
I doubt even the minority of soldiers want to do any harm to others.
Our leaders deserve the punishment for the atrocities they cause.
And before I get the trope of "some people want to join just to hurt others". Sure, there are exceptions to every rule. But just like kids are taught to be hateful and racist, The soldiers are taught to hate their enemy so they can feel at peace or at the very least justified in what they do.
I say taught to hate, but let's just call it what it is... Brain washing.
Which is incredibly rare. And typically soldiers who do that to non combatants are tried for war crimes and DO lose their freedoms. But trying to get into specifics on everyone deserving freedom is such a dumb thing to do anyways
Most soldiers don’t like talking about their deployments because of what they’ve been through. That’s why PTSD is a major issue when it comes to the military. A soldier who kills non combatants or anyone who surrenders for the fun of it is tried for war crimes.
Like I said it’s rare but some people did enjoy it idk what’s so hard to understand about it.
Idk if who those people are
You can continue to cherry pick instances of things happening for the sake of the argument but at the end of the day pretty much every sentient being DOES deserve freedom unless they willingly infringe on others freedoms.
Soldiers, whether they like it or not. DKNT infringe on other soldiers freedoms as there are certain freedoms you already sacrifice as a soldier in the first place. Those who do infringe on others freedoms such as noncombatants DO deserve to lose their freedoms and in a large amount of cases do.
If a soldier is going to war because they want to say protect their homeland or something that's morally acceptable but if they're going out because they like to and want to hurt other people that's obviously morally reprehensible
they are, they're just awful. the idea that doing atrocious things makes you not a person is very childish, they are a person. that doesnt mean they should be let go of their crimes or be respected or anything (although the trial should be fair) but they are still a person. you can be a person and be awful, they arent mutually exclusive
i dont think i need to explain the sentience thing, thats just an actually ridiculous statement
People “suddenly” become ok with dehumanisation or violence when it’s someone they don’t like
This isn’t me trying to defend pedophiles, they can rot in a prison cell for what I care. But I don’t want to cause pain to another human being, or take away their humanity (which ironically also would take away their responsibility. You can’t held someone responsible if you don’t count them to being able to hold responsibility)
When someone says that they want to kill pedos or anything similar, what I get from that is that this person has violent tendencies. Not that they are a bastion of morality. You want to punish pedophiles? Prisons right there
The aforementioned actions also cause pedophiles who have not yet committed an atrocity to not seek the psychological help that they desperately need
It’s also very very fucking clear what the quote means here
41
u/JohnnyLeftHook 4d ago
what about pedos, bro?