Gun Argument #957

[ClakarEQ]

You look at these posts, then sit back and reflect, you read what is written and then you call me a highschooler. Wow, just wow, I'll admit I got pretty childish, even below high school, but you went through how many posts, just in a lame attempt to stir shit up? What value other than for my entertainment did you provide?

While my opinions are not mainstream, I attempt in most of my posts to offer some value, you know, the mature thing to do. However lets review your 18k worth of posts, I'd be real curious out of that number, the value of the content.

Harri, perhaps being on the inside you're just not capable to see, you are the most immature poster on this board, several point it out, this isn't just "me". But I know, you have no faults, your actions and responses are infallible. You see I can recognize my long winded writings, my off base sarcasm, my left wing nut comments, etc. I have no issues pointing out my faults here, I don't fear you or these boards or any of the posters, I don't have anything to prove. You on the other hand, well, what you post speaks volumes to your character, you should take some classes, o sorry, you should read some books on psychology to better understand what I'm saying. You can say shit like "but I'm not really like this in real life" but I'm really a good guy, I'm smart and know a lot of stuff. Your own life experiences paint a far different picture, and I only know a very limited amount, from your own postings.

Your inability to recognize your deep rooted issues will only hurt you in the end.

BTW, I got a bulls-eye friend. What I thought was true, was, you obey unless it is blatantly obvious that by obeying, you'll commit an unlawful act. So even though it is written that you can question your authority, you can't in reality. You can only reject authority if it is obvious that by fulfilling your order you'd commit a crime. Otherwise you do what your told without question. And for the record, I'm 100% ok with that. I would hate to have someone like you, full of themselves, infallible, questioning every freaking command they get.

It is apparent that you didn't understand my question, and it didn't have anything to do with the military, or the cops, or any level of authority. I brought up my example to prove my point and as far as I'm concerned it has been proven. Cliff notes: What is written, be it constitutional, your code, whatever, does not equate to what is done.

But I digress now from this thread, I'll check your last post because you are not capable of letting someone have the last word. You literally can not stop yourself. I've had to go this far with you in the past and I can test you now to see if it will work again. I command you to post again, I ORDER you to post last, now DO IT, don't disappoint me (after you get back from the bar, just guessing)

[brinstar]

josh i've read this latest argument with nonpassionate objectivity and i must say that there is at least one thing true

every post, every comeback, every "answer" you've offered can be boiled down to a simple "nuh uh! you're wrong!" and it wasn't until gidan came in with, you know, an actual, real response that the argument got anywhere

if you're gonna tell someone they're wrong, you have to be able to tell them why. without doing that it is impossible to ever truly win an argument

this is not an opinion, this is the basis for how rational people achieve goals

[Lueyen]

BTW, I got a bulls-eye friend. What I thought was true, was, you obey unless it is blatantly obvious that by obeying, you'll commit an unlawful act. So even though it is written that you can question your authority, you can't in reality. You can only reject authority if it is obvious that by fulfilling your order you'd commit a crime. Otherwise you do what your told without question. And for the record, I'm 100% ok with that. I would hate to have someone like you, full of themselves, infallible, questioning every freaking command they get.

The correlation was drawn between sheep who do not question authority and a soldier who's sworn an oath, part of which entails that they follow orders given by their command. In Gidian's answer(s) he explained to you that there are many factors in a given situation that one must take into account before being able to make a determination as to if an order is lawful. Even if a soldier after taking all known aspects into account makes the determination that an order is lawful and follows it, I think it's unfair to say that it was followed blindly and without question.

[Harrison]

I don't like to explain things to people. It is one of my shortcomings. I get frustrated if people don't know something I deem as common sense. I especially lose my patience when, right off the bat, they're a combative, uninformed mongoloid.

The sheer enormity of the ignorance he spewed forth in this thread turned everything he said into a joke for me. I gave up many posts ago to "answer" his ridiculousness about blowing up a building with terrorists in it, surrounded by children. And looking back, I did answer it. I even applied the same stipulations Gidan did. He just turned it into another insult about being too afraid to answer.

This shit should be common knowledge. I can't even fathom how he could come to believe such stupidity.

[araby]

your ego appears

[Harrison]

I have a pretty massive ego. That's not news lol

[araby]

it's crippling you. let it go.

[Harrison]

Crippling me how? In an argument with some guy on the internet? lol hardly important in the least.

[araby]

your ego can't be taken seriously because it's identified with who "josh harrison" is but josh harrison is a human being to me, exclusivity unimportant online or in person.

also, if it carries into your real life, it is dangerous to your conscious because your ego takes it over completely, giving you a false 'self' (pretty much fake). which is why a lot of people come online I guess, to have that "fake" sense of self...which is funny, because their ego does that for them every day. they dont' even realize it, just as you don't, but then you actually admit to possessing that ego and what that entails...so essentially, even though you know you have the ego, you do nothing to remove it from your identification of "josh harrison", thereby perpetuating your own misery.

which is crippling.

[Spazz]

Is that like some ecartoli ( spelling) space case ?

[brinstar]

I don't like to explain things to people. It is one of my shortcomings. I get frustrated if people don't know something I deem as common sense. I especially lose my patience when, right off the bat, they're a combative, uninformed mongoloid.

The sheer enormity of the ignorance he spewed forth in this thread turned everything he said into a joke for me. I gave up many posts ago to "answer" his ridiculousness about blowing up a building with terrorists in it, surrounded by children. And looking back, I did answer it. I even applied the same stipulations Gidan did. He just turned it into another insult about being too afraid to answer.

This shit should be common knowledge. I can't even fathom how he could come to believe such stupidity.

blablablabla

instead of consciously choosing laziness and arrogance, try bending that enormous intellect of yours (lol, please) towards developing better word economy-- if you're as smart as you say you are, you should be able to reach the point where it actually takes fewer words to accurately explain your viewpoint than it does to ridicule someone for not understanding it or for having misconceptions about its basis. i mean, i know that LOL EFFORT ON THE INTERWEBZ but guess what, using proper rhetorical* techniques here will actually help you in real world debates as well


*rhetoric here is meant in a classical sense, not the modern "using big fluffy words to fool the gullible" sense

[ClakarEQ]

BTW, I got a bulls-eye friend. What I thought was true, was, you obey unless it is blatantly obvious that by obeying, you'll commit an unlawful act. So even though it is written that you can question your authority, you can't in reality. You can only reject authority if it is obvious that by fulfilling your order you'd commit a crime. Otherwise you do what your told without question. And for the record, I'm 100% ok with that. I would hate to have someone like you, full of themselves, infallible, questioning every freaking command they get.

The correlation was drawn between sheep who do not question authority and a soldier who's sworn an oath, part of which entails that they follow orders given by their command. In Gidian's answer(s) he explained to you that there are many factors in a given situation that one must take into account before being able to make a determination as to if an order is lawful. Even if a soldier after taking all known aspects into account makes the determination that an order is lawful and follows it, I think it's unfair to say that it was followed blindly and without question.

In that quote of mine though, I feel it is on target, perhaps the "can't in reality" bit is a poor choice of words.

I don't think I used the word blindly though, and I do agree with you in the scope that authority should be questioned, and in some situations that is easier than others just as Gid pointed out. Again the military and cop scenario's were examples.

I was more poking at you and Evermore in that I don't agree with the it is written in their oath or in our constitution, that it plays out that way in the real world. Like I said, next time you get pulled over by a cop, do you what you're required to do by the law, provide your ID, proof of registration, etc. but the law says I don't have to say ANYTHING to a cop, period, but if I exercise that right, I will actually find myself in a worse situation. That would probably cost me time, money, etc. Even though it is my constitutional right.

Similarly, if Gidan or Harri question their CO in a situation, critical or not, they can be of the mind that the "questioning of authority" is 100% justified, the problem is, it's in their mind, and questioning authority, even if you are justified to do it, does not mean they won't be court martialed, or get a buddy killed, or kill an innocent civilian (e.g. murder, and that is unlawful).

I was ultimatly looking for something like, from Gidan or another that has actually served; Well in my years of service I only rejected my orders X times, or I never questioned my orders, etc, or One time I questioned my CO and he said shut up and do it, or I questioned my CO and he said, hey, you know, you maybe right, etc.

In truth this is somewhat of a semantics issue, but I got on a soap box because I see folks post or mention snips of the constitution, snips of laws, snips of oaths, that when read are pretty clear and concise but when you actually attempt to practice them, they don't always work out that way and in some cases actually backfire and blow up in your face.

[Lueyen]

In truth this is somewhat of a semantics issue, but I got on a soap box because I see folks post or mention snips of the constitution, snips of laws, snips of oaths, that when read are pretty clear and concise but when you actually attempt to practice them, they don't always work out that way and in some cases actually backfire and blow up in your face.

Yea I get what you are saying. I think your argument would be better served in a non specific manner citing time and pressure rather then trying to come up with a specific scenario that isn't covered well by rules of engagement. ROE pretty well covers most if not all situations, rather than try and find a theoretical situation in which a soldier is damned either way, I'd find it much more readily acceptable to believe a soldier is likely to give an order the benefit of a doubt when they don't have time to break out a rule book and asses the situation for a couple of hours. I still believe however that in the heat of a fire fight, if given a command to shoot fleeing unarmed civilians most soldiers would hesitate and access the situation to some degree, and wouldn't aim and pull a trigger without it occurring to them that things may not be quite right.

[Eziekial]

Let us not forget that no "scenario" occurs in a vacuum and if this building contained "terrorist" and it was a "threat" that intel and corresponding danger level would be established and set by a number of other personnel within the armed forces all of whom understand the consequences of their actions to a degree. The officer who commands a soldier to fire on a building is also held accountable to the UCMJ, Geneva, the Constitution, all laws of the state (if INCONUS) and must try to work in accordance to local laws (OCONUS) to a degree that do not go counter to any other law. This, by the way, is why there is no porn or alcohol allowed in muslim countries . Anyway, the point is, the officer giving the command to fire is responsible, the officer above him that passed the order down is accountable and vetted it. So on and so on up the chain. No "situation" ever just happens in the US military. Granted, a unit on patrol in hostile territory has a lot of autonomy but they just didn't head out on patrol without intel, orders on ROE (sometimes SPECIFIC for that patrol), etc from their command. Lots of very intelligent people are part of the process that leads to a bullet fired in our military. Any scenario that cheapens that process into a fight or flight moment on the battlefield is way off target.
And while we are at it, remember that our Armed Forces are servants of the People of the United States of America. Every child that gets killed by our soldiers is due to the fact that the People of the United States, including you, whomever you voted for, ordered our military into battle. You can try to wash your hands of it by claiming ignorance, or whatever, but at the end of the day it is every US citizen that has blood on their hands.

[Harrison]

The worst part of all that wasted time, is he probably still actually believes he's right.