Topic awaiting preservation: American Heroes in Iraq.. (Page 3 of 3)

double post...odd.

(Edited by Ramasax on 05-25-2004 21:25)

quote:

---

There are more negative influences on the minds of children today than ever before.

---

No doubt. But there are also far more positive influences as well.

I will agree that there seems to be a bit more widespread apathy over the alst few years than there was, say, 30 years ago. But that's a pretty short term reference.

You can't tell me that such things haven't happened at all kinds if times and placaes throughout our past.

In many times/palces such things would have been acceptable, even encouraged.

The thing that sets our time period apart, is that such an act is exposed around the world, so when it happens, everyone knows it. 30, 50, 100, 1000 years ago, nobody outside of a few locals would ever have heard about it, *if* the kid would have ever had the nerve to speak up about it.

We also show how much higher the moral standard is today than in the past purely by the outrage that people react to such things with.

What do I think of it, in comparison with the prisoner abuse? I think it works two ways actually. I think the total lack of any real stimulus to behave this way is rather frightening, and makes things that much more appalling. it makes it a little harder to understand how someone could do such things when compared to someone in a war situation.

On the other hand, the people involved in the prisoner abuse have been explicitly put in positions of authority over other people. They have then taken that authority to horrible extreme and reduced a large number of people to sub-human playthings for their sick amusements.

That still stands as a more appaling factor in comparison to the case you posted. The prisoner abuse was more widespread, more accepted by peers and superiors.

So it's really a bit of a split issue, kind of an 'apples and oranges' situation.

HAHA, yo Ramasax. In the past teenagers murdered for food and money...I doubt this happens nowdays...

No, but they have been known to murder for shoes, drugs, and other less "needed" items. They have also been known to take guns to school and slay their teachers/classmates simply because they felt they had been treated badly. They have also been known to kill their own parents for the same reasons.

Ramasax

Yup. as has been done all throughout history. And worse.

=)

It's all been done before, I agree, I just question the volume.

higher population + modern technology - higher power = Greater volume + worldwide distribution + manmade morality = greater lack of morality in general. Yeah, or something like that.

Ramasax

Bugs, it is an interesting phenomena, and that is not the first time such has been tested...I believe the first one was done in the US after WWII, to show [b]how[b] and why people could follow along in line with genecide.

However, we cannot compare that study, or the findings, with that in Abu Ghraib for several reasons :

Soldiers are not civilians! Soldiers are rigorously trained to be disciplined, to follow orders and must follow regulations and laws that civilians do not have to. Now, in Abu Ghraib, there should have been professionally trained soldiers guarding the prisioners...NOT truck mechanics, etc! Even then, such as what happened at Abu Ghraib is NOT normal behavior for soldiers! Either such was ordered, from higher up on the chain of command, OR discipline broke down in a major way (meaning the abusers where acting without orders, against regulations). The FACT that there are regulations that dictate what one is (and is not) to do, is more than telling here...

Second, the events at Abu Ghraib were more than just "push a button, inflict pain" - soldiers where directly [b]active[/] in administrating the torture - this is a big difference from just pushing a button...one is actually applying the pain, etc physically oneself to the victim! I don't think any study has actually simulated this yet. Laying physical hand on a victim and applying pain, etc is much more difficult, than just pushing a button from a distance, without actually viewing the subject.

Third, Germans are pretty much systematically trained to obey in their society - it is a socialistic system, where difference and non-conformity is really frowned upon and discouraged. Therefore, it really comes as no surprise to me, that not one of them attempted to free the victim, or even refused to apply pain. In the study done in the US, this was NOT the case - there were those who did attempt to do just that. Not all, but some. Thus, some of the "impulse", if you will, boils down to how one reacts in the face of group pressure. I suspect that were the study done in Japan, that the results would be even worse, because that society is trained to be susceptable to group pressure more than any other. It is when group pressure overcomes individual cognizance, that one obtains a result like this. Combine that with a de-humanization of the victim, and one has an environment, where pretty much anything is possible.

Fourth, the events in Iraq (a war, and the fact that Americans had been killed in Action, and after the main conflict, everyday through guerilla tactics) leads up to fustration, feelings of helplessness and rage. Being in a position to let such feelings out, on hapless captives (irregardless of whether or not the captives were really responsible for such events, like killing American soldiers, it is easy in such an environment to ASSUME that they did, or are partly responsible, somehow) is very tempting - only a professional, trained to resist such, will. Therefore, the prisoners at Abu Ghraib should have been guarded by professional MPs the whole time. This appears to not be the case. And since there are regulations and guidelines that clearly outline such, I find it incredulous as a former soldier that these were not upheld.

Irregardless of the why it happened, we cannot change the fact that it has happened. We must concentrate on making sure it doesn't happen again, punishing the guilty, and limiting the damage as best we can.

It really is overdue, to start thinking of a plan of withdrawl, and getting the UN involved, IMHO.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Ramasax - one simple question (I'll address your equation later maybe):

What point in the history of civilization do you think represents our moral high point, and how/why?

DL, you know as well as I that the question you pose is about as impossible to answer as "why are we here?" It is a purely philosophical debate where all answers are based on opinion or belief. There is far too much moral relativism in the world today. What is immoral to me, may not be immoral to my neighbor, and definatly won't always be deemed immoral to those in other civilizations and belief structures.

My basis of morality originates from my belief in Christ and God, so essentially any answer I would give would be based on my "limited viewpoint" and will not be taken seriously by any non-Christian. Hence the dilemma.

You also seem to misunderstand that when I say morality is in decline I speak of volume, in regards to increasing population and the means by which to spread. The more evil there is in the world, due to higher population, the more immmoral the world becomes. Again, what is evil? There is no anchor or standard from which to draw. I understand that horrible things have happened all throughout history, I am not naieve in thinking there was a time when everyone thought with the same moral clarity and all was perfect.

To me, family is a very integral part of society. I think one thing different about our times which emphasizes my opinion that morality is in decline is the continuing decline in the strength of family. The family is strengthened by the love of mother for father and vice versa and there is less and less of this due to the higher strains placed on parents to provide. Generally speaking, parents are too busy. Too busy to love eachother and too busy to guide the minds of their children, which are essentially like sponges.

There are also more broken families now and it is my belief that two parent families can, on average, more easily protect and care for children. Are two parents needed for the socialization of children? Perhaps they are not necessary but it is, on average, easier for two parents to supervise, love, care and guide children than one.

Children are thus less socialized by their parental counterparts and take more to outside and "less-than-moral" ideals which are easily accessable, more so than any other point in history, to our children. Either by the Internet, TV, government intervention, or peers is irrelevent, the negative influences are there. The problem is that the parents are not there to put things into perspective for their children. To tell them what is right and what is wrong. We see this lack of judgement in the headlines every single day.

Now, a few generations down the line with all these people lacking moral clarity only breeds more moral relativism and lack of a moral anchor and the eventual decay of any sense of morality besides that which is deemed moral by the state. Without God or a higher being, we have no anchor, because who is the state to say what is right and wrong, since after all, they are only human.

Now do not get me wrong, I am not saying that if a person is raised improperly they will grow up to be human scum, that depends on the individual. My upbringing was less than perfect and I made out all right. (Don't even say it ) Why? Because I made a choice. Many of my childhood friends who grew up in similar situations are in jail, OD'ed on heroin, or working at the local 7-11 on probation. I took a different path, probably at the time when marijuana was being replaced with cocaine as the drug of choice among my peers. It hurt at the time to break from the pack, but luckily I had the strength of will to do so. It was also about this time when my family life strengthened, and without going into the gory details, suffice it to say we grew together through what I still to this day consider a miracle of God.

The moral highpoint in history? To me that would be the time in history where family was the strongest. Regardless of what governments (the minority) were doing, individual morality comes down to strength of family. Family is what shapes the individual. In my limited timeframe to which I can relate, I would have to say 1950-1960. Family was strong, morals were solid, more than solid, there were absolutes that were not questioned. Then comes the rise of Liberalism, and it has all been downhill from there, IMHO of course. Does that make me a bigot in some people's view, probably. Do I care, not a damn bit.

Sorry if that answer is insufficient, but I suspect any answer I give would deemed as such.

You spoke above of more positive influences for our children today. What are they, and who advocates these so-called positive influences? What you consider a positive influence I may consider negative. I will say with confidence that for a teen in today's world the negative influences far outweigh the positive.

Ramasax

That's a lot to respond to, and I don't have time for it all right now.

The one point I would like to address, is the issue of the 50's. Now, I had no doubt that would be your answer. Why? Because it is a very romaticized time period for many americans. It is a time period in which the american propaganda machine hit its full stride.

Your mind is filled with images of small towns, apple pies, baseball games, good solid american men with their pretty, pleasant american wives, and their freckled little american children all smiling gooberishly while riding in their nice big american car.

You picture solidarity, sobriety, charity, goodwill.

You picture these things primarily because of propaganda. You picture these things because the media was limited in its ability to show the negative side of thingts, and because the american public had less interest in learning about the negative side of things.

A great number of horrible things were quite common place, but they were hushed away, swept under the rug. Rape, alcoholism, child abuse, etc, were quite common, but were in large part simply ignored.
And that doesn't even begin to touch the issues of racially motivated murder, arson, torture, rape, etc. That's an issue too large for this post.

In a lot of ways, the very things you claim cuase a lower morality are actually only the things which now show us more of what low morality is out there.
Personally, I would rather know than hide it away and pretend it doesn't happen.

quote:

---

To me that would be the time in history where family was the strongest.

---

Hmmm...this would be, for my people, before you Europeans came, and wiped out our families, our traditions, took our land, and enslaved us. Of course, we are supposed to be "grateful" for our "liberation" from barbarism...and embrace "advanced culture" - of which we are not allowed to participate, especially not in the '50s.

quote:

---

Without God or a higher being, we have no anchor, because who is the state to say what is right and wrong, since after all, they are only human.

---

I disagree. I believe, that without this programming, we have the most solid of anchors...ourselves, and only ourselves to count on. I used to rely on a "Greater Being" taking responsibility for my actions, and proscribing for me how to live - I found a better way. I accepted responsibility for myself. After that, I found that I did not need the concept of a "Greater Being" to guide me.

Most things taught by the different Religous Faiths as Rules for Mankind to live by, are self-evident, really, for the functioning of a social, stabile environment. Do good to others. Pretty obvious, isn't it? Be honest...also obvious. Respect your environment...only too obvious.

In fact, anyone following such rules inside, has a much easier time, applying the responsibility for their own lives. Not having a core of rules to follow, is where things start to break down, on that, I agree. My people believe, that a combination of information, handed down from Parent to child, combined with the experienced gained through Trials, are what leads to a solid, self-aware individual. Through my experiences, I can only concur. This "Ur-Religion", if you will, I think is a very effective method of creating the Rules that one needs to accept responsibility for one self. I do not think that the various Religons, in the way that they have now grown to becoming Institutions, allow this. Instead, they have grown into huge, weighty clogs on thinking, on learning. About Life.

Because Life is a unique experience for every individual, there is no one way, for everyone. Instead, there are a myriad of ways (as myriad as each one of us), with some common connections, ideas, experiences, that create a whole.

I have never witnessed the intervention of a "Greater Power" for me, or in my stead. Nor have I witnessed this for someone else. In every instance, the individual themselves had to pull themselves through, irregardless of what that particular individual believes to the contrary. This is what Nature shows us, what it teaches us. Sometimes, other individuals help one another, on small, or large scales. Why? Because it fosters the same behavior in others, which in turn may prove helpful sometime in the future, when in need.

In the war, I saw some of the basic, underlaying "cruelty", if you will, of this - there was no rhyme or reason, to who got killed, targeted, stepped on a landmine, etc. There was no "invisible hand" safeguarding some, and not others. Occasionally, as if by miracle, someone survived something that stretched the limits of credibility. However, they often were not "protected" the next time...so if this is really intervention of a "Greater Power", why so capricious?

I never witnessed any violations of the Laws of Physics in the war. None. Nor have I heard of anyone that did. Soldiers that got injured, or killed, did so because of the Laws of Physics - i.e. bullits, or explosions physically damaged their bodies beyond repair.

In short, there was no evidence that God(s), Greater Being(s), etc, were present. None, whatsoever. Instead, there were just individuals, trying to stay alive, follow their orders, and protect their comrades, and kill the enemy. I may not have personally liked my comrade(s), but I needed them, to protect my back. The same went for them. It forged us together, into something greater than our individual selves. It was often, that when this did not work, that someone got killed, or hurt. One could actually "see" such groups, in the art and fashion that they dealt with one another on a routine basis. Some groups clearly demonstrated this "melting together", and some didn't. Those that didn't, had higher casualty rates in comparison to those who did under the same circumstances. This demonstrates, to me, that having abilities that encourage group behavior, is far more desirable, than the opposite, for survival and success.

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-27-2004 13:43)

Seems like the investigation is going all the way to the top:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/13/wguan13.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/13/ixworld.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room