Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
5 years ago  ::  Jan 22, 2009 - 7:50AM #1
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 11,694
[QUOTE]robots not only can be better than soldiers in conducting warfare in certain circumstances, but they also can be more humane in the battlefield than humans.[/QUOTE]~Georgia Tech~

My kitchen kettle could be more humane than an American!
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2010 - 7:53AM #2
Pulson
Posts: 1
Interesting post dude....discussion are always helpful in one way or the other. Thanks for giving out information. It’s really nice and mean full.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2011 - 9:27PM #3
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

Jan 22, 2009 -- 7:50AM, Karma_yeshe_dorje wrote:

robots not only can be better than soldiers in conducting warfare in certain circumstances, but they also can be more humane in the battlefield than humans.


~Georgia Tech~ My kitchen kettle could be more humane than an American!




What is humane or inhumane about robotic wars? Only humans can be humane or inhumane.


Given Australia's history with it's Aborigines, your footing on the moral high ground is a bit precarious. Neither the most sophisticated nor the most primitive society is more or less humane than another.

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 24, 2011 - 10:16PM #4
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 11,694

Hm.

Stripped of its refinements, his case is that the West has attempted in recent years to wage war for humanitarian purposes, in a humanitarian way, and that effort has largely failed. As he puts it, "humane warfare heralds the military's increasingly ironic alienation from the battlefield and from battle itself."


www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57678/el...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 11:23AM #5
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

I understand the point being made here and agree with the premise. To put it more succinctly, "humane warfare" is a contradiction of terms. War is the business of killing people on a wholesale level. The objective of war is to inflict more casualties on one's enemy than one must sustain. Modern warfare uses advanced technology to inflict casualties while limiting or eliminating the risk of sustaining them. We love euphamisms. We no longer have civilian/non-combatant casualties. We have collateral damage. To wage war effectively, one's enemy must be dehumanized. It is far easier to kill chinks, gooks and rag-heads than it is to kill people. Far easier to sleep at night after causing collateral damage than killing old men, women and children.

How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 8:00PM #6
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 11,694

Thanks, watcher59:

one's enemy must be dehumanized


We can oppose this! For example, after the Islamist bombing of Manhattan, I took a friend to the local mosque. There we observed a prayer service.

It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed throughhumanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.


www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehum...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 2:49PM #7
watcher59
Posts: 1,606


It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed throughhumanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.


That is well and good. However, until everyone adopts that attitude, it is wise to maintain a standing military. Israel, for example is surrounded by religious fanatics who exist simply to see Israel destroyed and ALL Jews killed. It would be fatal for Israel to trust these people have any interest in pursuing common goals. Israel not only has a right to exist, it has a right to live free from tyranny and oppression. If that means they must kill those who would kill them, they are justified in so doing.



How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 26, 2011 - 10:27PM #8
Karma_yeshe_dorje
Posts: 11,694

I think that's sectarian.

Sectarianism, according to one definition, is bigotrydiscrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion orfactions of a political movement.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 5:25PM #9
anidominus
Posts: 105

Jun 26, 2011 -- 2:49PM, watcher59 wrote:




It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed throughhumanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.


That is well and good. However, until everyone adopts that attitude, it is wise to maintain a standing military. Israel, for example is surrounded by religious fanatics who exist simply to see Israel destroyed and ALL Jews killed. It would be fatal for Israel to trust these people have any interest in pursuing common goals. Israel not only has a right to exist, it has a right to live free from tyranny and oppression. If that means they must kill those who would kill them, they are justified in so doing.






 


And most of them pray 5 times a day and wouldn't dare cheat on any of their 10 wives.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 5:42PM #10
anidominus
Posts: 105

Jun 25, 2011 -- 8:00PM, Karma_yeshe_dorje wrote:


Thanks, watcher59:

one's enemy must be dehumanized


We can oppose this! For example, after the Islamist bombing of Manhattan, I took a friend to the local mosque. There we observed a prayer service.

It is thought that the psychological process of dehumanization might be mitigated or reversed throughhumanization efforts, the development of empathy, the establishment of personal relationships between conflicting parties, and the pursuit of common goals.


www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehum...





Taking this guy to a mosque after an Islamist bombing to defuse him of the dangers of muslim extremist is like taking a person to a pit bull breeder after one just mauled off the face of his child. 


You can't assume if one muslim does something they are all guilty of it, nor can you assume that a room full of praying muslims doesn't have one in their that won't, not only blow himself up, but you, along with the other muslims.


We don't lock our doors because the other guy is a fool.   We lock our doors because he might be a fool because we know fools exists, and we can't determine by looking at them who they are.


The Muslim community has a problem.  This community has been a concentrated source of violence for the past couple of decades (or longer pending on who you ask).  This problem isn't going to go away by ignorning it and not dealing with the reality that there is a disproprtionate amount of Muslim extrememist vs most other groups.  To make matthers worse, the Muslims who are not this way are not holding the ones who are that way accountable.  The best they can seem to do is to try to convinece me that they are not all that way but Lord forbid they quit praying long enough to shout at the top of thier lungs these pepople are idiots, do not follow Allah, and then throw the ones who think like that out the mosque, or at least point them out if something happens.  If the Muslims really wont to rid themselves of this problem they are going to have to be active in rooting it in out until some Muslim guy doing something is like a side note instead of, "Again?  Not surprised."


If you want to help your friend, teach him the reality, not political correctness for it may get him killed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook