Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (52775)	8/22/1999 8:54:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

On the battlefield it generally boils down a bit. Fight to stay alive and duty (this usually embodied in small unit bonding and a strong desire to not let down, or be seen to be letting down your squad, platoon, wingman, whatever). Absolutely true. Actual conflict reduces everything to basics; I was referring the motives that get people onto battlefields. Most who went to Vietnam were damn good soldiers and are normal successful people today. The strung out, *ed up loser vet is a real guy with real problems but he is the exception. Also true, I'm sure; we see rather too many of the exceptions around here. But I do suspect that the level of resistance all down the line, from resistance to joining up down to conflict within units in the field, was higher in Vietnam than in wars where the reason for fighting was more immediately obvious. I'm sure many of the stories are exaggerated, but there is too much smoke not to have a little fire in there somewhere. I was too young to spend time in Vietnam, but after working a while in a refugee camp and living in a community with a disproportionately high ratio of veterans, I've heard tales from a variety of perspectives. And I've seen enough jungle disagreements at close range to have a decent sense for what is bullshit and what is not. I don't see the comparison as strained at all. I was stating a view that there may be bigger sacrifices than having sex forced on you -- losing you life, for one. Soldiers been making that sacrifice a long while. Another valid comparison, perhaps: just as there are circumstances in which one might legitimately choose not to be a soldier, there are circumstances in which one might legitimately choose not to participate in the reconstruction of the species. Of course people are coerced into the soldiery all the time, which raises another interesting question: is coercion by the state on behalf (theoretically) of the people of the state fundamentally different than coercion by an individual on behalf of a society yet unborn. No one came forward with anything specific re. the non human species facing extinction. No, the responses were consistent and very specific. People felt that not enough information was provided to make a reasonable decision. The second hypothetical suffers from the same problem. One important detail that was not specified in the hypothetical is the reason of the refusing party for refusing. Refusal because the person looked or smelled unappealing would be rather different than refusal on the grounds that the other person was totally unqualified to assist in raising the offspring, for one example....