Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
ashw_justin

National Guard: At least Canada is in N America...

Recommended Posts

The US Military would seem to fit most if not all of the criteria cited here for the definition of a cult.

 

The baisic tenants of the US military has been in place for over 200 years. There are reasons that soldiers are required to act the way they do. These are not traits reserved for the US military; these are global tenants of militaries in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you guys really that bad at reading comprehension? I have written, at least four times now, that we don't and can't allow him to choose his consequences. The plain fact is that he did, however.

 

So, what praytell is your position in the matter Matt? Devil's advocate as I had assumed earlier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are not traits reserved for the US military; these are global tenants of militaries in general.

We are in complete agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US Military would seem to fit most if not all of the criteria cited here for the definition of a cult.

 

That's just silly.

 

Yeah, after reading them again, I think you could make a case that the US military fits all ten. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is my position on what? I have said that he must be accountable under the law. I criticized his position and agreed with you that he was justifying his actions by saying the mission was wrong, not necessarily that he himself had been ordered to commit or partake in any specific atrocities.

 

I have been trying to get you to admit that there may be some circumstance where refusing to follow orders or perhaps desertion would be justified. After two pages you admit that refusing to follow the orders of a drunk commanding officer would be justified. What other scenario might you imagine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are not traits reserved for the US military; these are global tenants of militaries in general.

We are in complete agreement.

 

Let me guess, you think all war is wrong don't you? Get off your 10th grade social studies teachers' teat asap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is my position on what? I have said that he must be accountable under the law. I criticized his position and agreed with you that he was justifying his actions by saying the mission was wrong, not necessarily that he himself had been ordered to commit or partake in any specific atrocities.

 

I have been trying to get you to admit that there may be some circumstance where refusing to follow orders or perhaps desertion would be justified. After two pages you admit that refusing to follow the orders of a drunk commanding officer would be justified. What other scenario might you imagine?

 

did you read my last response to you matt? I think not. I clearly stated that breaking the law was not part of one's oath. This clearly shows that following orders is not a carte blanche to circumvent the law (ala nuremburg) but rather a way to ensure order and more often than not, prevent attrocities like the ones you seem to be so fond of stating that officers like to order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US Military would seem to fit most if not all of the criteria cited here for the definition of a cult.

 

That's just silly.

 

Yeah, after reading them again, I think you could make a case that the US military fits all ten. Thanks.

 

You could, but not based on any foundation of reason or logic. I, however, could not since I would be employing both reason and logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right, Scott, you did acknowledge that there are situations where one should not follow orders. I had to ask the same question several different ways, but you finally did cede that point.

 

How about Lynde England? Had she refused to abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib, I'm sure you would argue that she should have been subject to court martial. However, assuming that you believe the activities that she engaged in were illegal (you do agree with that, don't you?), would she have been "justified" in refusing to participate? In any sense of the word? Would she have been entitled to some kind of Nuremberg principled defense in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The equation of what is moral with what is legal seems questionable given the turbulent (to say the least) evolution of US law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

 

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word?

Edited by canyondweller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? These notions have been used to underpin every form of nationalistic militarism from the Roman Empire to Japanese neofascism. You just happen to believe your particular form, the American one, has some claim to exceptionalism and truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, Scott, play along now:

 

could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"

 

no.

 

From a well-known researcher on cults:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

 

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

 

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

 

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

 

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

 

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

 

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

 

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

 

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

 

9. The group/leader is always right.

 

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

--from the Ross Institute

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that communism is a cult? Ok, point taken, but lets get back on track junior.

 

LOL. A Marxist lecturing on cults. :lmao:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, Scott, play along now:

 

could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"

 

no.

 

From a well-known researcher on cults:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

 

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

 

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

 

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

 

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

 

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

 

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

 

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

 

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

 

9. The group/leader is always right.

 

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

--from the Ross Institute

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that communism is a cult? Ok, point taken, but lets get back on track junior.

 

LOL. A Marxist lecturing on cults. :lmao:

 

If anything, it'd have been a small "m", marxian. But Spray has pushed me straight to nihilism. :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What? These notions have been used to underpin every form of nationalistic militarism from the Roman Empire to Japanese neofascism. You just happen to believe your particular form, the American one, has some claim to exceptionalism and truth.

 

So, you're not going to answer the question, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

 

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word?

 

The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

 

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word?

 

The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence.

 

Denying the existence of honor is a long tradition of those lacking that trait. Honor is real and I have seen it personally. If less people would forget what honor was, this world might not

be so bad.

 

Things like Pride, Duty, Self Sacrifice and Honor should not be bad words. They are ideals that we MUST instill in our children; not try to erase.

 

Perhaps the reason you are a nhilist is that you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in than a washed up philosophy that killed more people than the plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Things like Pride, Duty, Self Sacrifice and Honor should not be bad words. They are ideals that we MUST instill in our children; not try to erase.

 

Well said, and I intend to. :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

 

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word?

 

The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence.

 

Denying the existence of honor is a long tradition of those lacking that trait. Honor is real and I have seen it personally. If less people would forget what honor was, this world might not

be so bad.

 

Things like Pride, Duty, Self Sacrifice and Honor should not be bad words. They are ideals that we MUST instill in our children; not try to erase.

 

Perhaps the reason you are a nhilist is that you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in than a washed up philosophy that killed more people than the plague.

 

My point is not that these things don't exist, it's that the relationships between the abstract ideas and what they're realistically in service to need to be examined. I think people can be honorable, exhibit virtuous qualities, etc. but that killing people in the service to and for the benefit of the State (much less invading and occupying Iraq) doesn't meet the criteria.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my definition includes, but isn't limited to, valor in battle

 

sometimes honor may be not going to war, which is sometimes the more appropriate choice.

 

honor and nationalism have definitely been "misused" in the past (nazis is a case i think would all agree on), but then that would depend on your point of view. perhaps you could only view it as "misused" in that the problem was at the top (hitler and his party), and that the concepts of honor and nationalism are impossible to misuse. it seems to me if you drape it in a flag, honor takes on the subjective baggage you associate with that nation. is it possible to view valor outside of the baggage? i'm sure some people can appreciate the code and valor of a kamikaze pilot, but i'm sure those on the carriers that were their target had a different point of view.

 

i don't think honor is a bad thing, it is certainly a noble aspiration, but it is also useful to see the same trait in the enemy and recognize that it is not something we have a patent on (other than the honor the represented by the American flag)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think honor is a bad thing, it is certainly a noble aspiration, but it is also useful to see the same trait in the enemy and recognize that it is not something we have a patent on (other than the honor the represented by the American flag)

 

There is no honor in this enemy.

 

-He uses children to fight for him.

 

-He uses women and children to sheil his attack knowing full well we will not fire back.

 

-He uses fear to persuade civilians to help him.

 

-He uses indescriminate ordinances.

 

-He detonates ordinances MEANT for civilians.

 

-His ultimate aim is genocide.

 

-He fights to ensure that another country remains oppressed.

 

-He fights for the destruction of modernity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×