Siro goes to to pre-military training

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
but you get to bond with your friends on a new level , so that's kinda fun.

Is this when your infamous comparison took place?

I couldn't take a sh!t for the whole time though ...

What does this have to do with the thread?

[Az]

...

infamous ? for whom? for me?
and no, It didn't happen there....

What does this have to do with the thread?

and it has anything to do with the thread. THE FOOD.

[The Mad Monk]

Are you saying the food was so bad you couldn't eat it, or that it left you...plugged?

[Berzerker]

notyoueither -

And some people make absurd statements with the surety of the deluded. I was addressing someone who said "natural rights, by definition, exist no matter what." Well, that is a nice sentiment, but it is also a fallacy.

If it's such a fallacy, does that mean you believe the Nazis and communists did nothing wrong when they slaughtered millions?
Since their victims had no natural rights, but only those rights granted by "society", upon what basis would you condemn them?

As to the founders of the United States of America. They did indeed believe that the rights they were codifying existed in some sense beyond thier own existence. They, like the other fellow, were wrong.

And what is your proof? Since you've just claimed to have a greater knowledge than that of the Founders, you better come up with something better than "rights are a product of society". That argument is destroyed by my previous questions.

Rights are constructs. They are a product of a society, not one of the primary requirements of one. There is no metaphysical book of rights from which certain learned humans have gleaned wisdom and reported back to the rest of us.

And just how does "society" produce these rights without the "wisdom" of certain "learned" individuals reporting to others about the justification for these rights? If you're suggesting the majority has the moral authority to make up rights, then they can invent a right for themselves to enslave or murder members of the minority.

Rights which are destructive to a society are no more natural than the weapons a society's enemies would use to destroy it and them.

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

Do you actually have any examples of these "rights" that destroy "society"?

To suggest that the young people of Israel enjoy some "natural" right to avoid contributing their part to the survival of that nation is absurd in the extreme. Or so I believe.

Meaning one group of people have the moral authority to force another group of people to die for their "security"? Try telling your neighbor his son must die for your security...

BTW. The founders of the United States enjoyed their rights because they conceived of them and then stood up and took them. They were far from passive.

But according to you, they were wrong for conceiving of and protecting these rights. I see you have ignored the definition of natural rights. First you claim they are idiotic when you don't even understand what they are, then you ignore the actual definition. And I didn't say the Founders didn't use force to defend their rights, I said one need not lift a finger to have a natural right. You claimed the people who believe in natural rights are "pampered people who have never had to face tough choices." I just refuted that argument by pointing to the Founders who faced tough choices. Are you going to acknowledge that your insult was slanderous or do another dance around the facts?

What I don't understand is individuals who divorce themselves of the notion of any God, yet cling to ideas about the universe that would be better served by divine right. I do not know if you are one of them, I just find them funny.

Why would the idea of natural rights require a "god"?

There is no God, but they still feel a need for some "higher" justification for their existence and their societies so they pin their hopes on fallacies.

That justification is called self-ownership.

It is as if they cannot bear the consequences of the terrible isolation their entirely material universe has confined them to.

Or maybe they don't believe in fairy tales.

At least if you believe in God your belief in the existence of natural rights divorced from the socities that create them is coherent. If not, well... How's Santa Claus doing?

"Natural" rights. Notice the word "natural", not supernatural? Let us know how Santa is doing, he's sharing the same figment of your imagination where you found this god of yours.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Even when they are stealing other people's land?

This is your opinion. Not ours.

[Drake Tungsten]

So, they're sending Siro to camp so he can learn how to be the next Moshe Dayan.

I sincerely hope that they don't blind you in one eye as part of your training. OTOH, you might look good wearing a patch...

Good luck, Siro.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Eli
This is your opinion. Not ours.

But Eli, didn't you realize.... your opinion doesn't matter.

Now where is Siro to put the Israeli perspective on the post .

[Alinestra Covelia]

Something I learned from my "ha-ha" cadet training experience in the UK. When you're cleaning your M16 assault rifle, whatever you do, don't get your finger stuck in the hammer sliding mechanism thingy as it goes forwards. A friend of a friend of mine did that and lost the whole digit from the first knuckle upwards.

[Ecthy]

Good luck, and don't get killed.

I personally can't decide on whether to do military service or civil service. Military service is not popular in this region, and thouhg I'd like to be the man, that argument is not quite popular either

How do I convince a bunch of pacifists that there is something like "the army experience"?

[Sirotnikov]

How did he come to this "finding"? I'd love to know who he interviewed for this information.

He was a genetics scientist who worked on the link between genetics and human behaviour.

Gee, another Russian "psychic", or did he ask Shirley McClaine?

Look, if russian scientists aren't good enough for you, it's ok.

You need to read more closely what David posted, he opposes the draft - forcing others ("government") to risk their lives for his safety. To draw the conclusion he wants "government" to protect him without paying for it with blood or money is a demagogic strawman.

No it's not. It's the exact rephrasal of his statement.

He does expect the government to protect him.
He does not wish to take part in protecting other country men.
He thinks that when war comes, the government will have time to explain to him why he should do it, and plea he agrees to defend anyone but himself.

I say - if he doesn't want to protect others, let not others protect him.

Even when they are stealing other people's land?

1) That is irrelevant and to be dealt with later. Take a look at WWII. German claims that they were opressed and stolen from as a result of the Versailles agreements were right.
Satifying those demands while Hitler was in power was a grave mistake that only demonstrated "weakness" to him.

2) No lands were stolen. Some lands were bought. More were allocated in a UN decision, but not accepted by the arabs. And the rest was conquered in wars started by arab agression.

3) We attempted to give them back those lands, but they seem to want more - demands that will clearly bring the destruction of the state of Israel.

If it's such a fallacy, does that mean you believe the Nazis and communists did nothing wrong when they slaughtered millions?
Since their victims had no natural rights, but only those rights granted by "society", upon what basis would you condemn them?

On the basis of international society agreements.

There are socially accepted laws. That doesn't make them "natural" or "sacred".

200 years ago, the Nazis wouldn't have been punished. If the laws were natural, they should have been punished.

And what is your proof? Since you've just claimed to have a greater knowledge than that of the Founders, you better come up with something better than "rights are a product of society". That argument is destroyed by my previous questions.

That arguement is not destroyed as your claims are a fallacy that only pretain to the current society.

On what basis do you assume that the founders were smarter than anyone here?

And just how does "society" produce these rights without the "wisdom" of certain "learned" individuals reporting to others about the justification for these rights? If you're suggesting the majority has the moral authority to make up rights, then they can invent a right for themselves to enslave or murder members of the minority.

Which is exactly what they did until some century ago.

And still, in Saudi Arabia it is only natural to murder a wife that is suspected of adultry, or a girl suspected of pre-marital sex.

Where is the international community there?
Where is "nature"?

"The good of society must prevail over the good of the individual" - Benito Mussolini

Do you actually have any examples of these "rights" that destroy "society"?

Each right has the potencial to destroy society.
This ofcourse doesn't mean that all rights should be revoked, as then society would lose it's purpose - protecting rights.

But, in order to have a working society, some rights are limited.

For instance, you give the right to keep law and order to a group called "police" and you trust the right of court to the court system.

You also don't have absolute freedoms of speech and similar, as if you lie, people can sue you and make you stop. Similarly you are usually disallowed from discussing secrets of state.

Meaning one group of people have the moral authority to force another group of people to die for their "security"? Try telling your neighbor his son must die for your security...

a) it can and did happen alot in history.
b) things are judged now according to international standards.
i think it is acceptable that if a person carries a gun, shoots at civilians and then shoots at law enforcers, the law enforcers should use what ever means to stop him.

every criminal / illegal combatant / soldier is someone's son.
yet wars exist, since conflicts exist.

there's nothing natural about pacifism.

I said one need not lift a finger to have a natural right.

And I said that no rights are natural since they only exist in society.

For instance, 400 years ago, you did not have such rights. And today, if you are stranded in a desert, there is no society around you to protect your right of life.

Why would the idea of natural rights require a "god"?

They don't.

But they are similar in the way they are presented to "god given rules".

So, they're sending Siro to camp so he can learn how to be the next Moshe Dayan.

No.. it's 5 days of mostly lectures and stories....

I'm going to slightly learn what to expect in several years. Not become Swartzcopf.

I sincerely hope that they don't blind you in one eye as part of your training. OTOH, you might look good wearing a patch...

Why is it everyone expect I get hurt?

Now where is Siro to put the Israeli perspective on the post

*kiss* right here

and lost the whole digit from the first knuckle upwards.

auch

Thanks

Good luck, and don't get killed.

killed by.... a stray pencil in the lecture?

How do I convince a bunch of pacifists that there is something like "the army experience"?

Simple.

Reasearch done in Israel suggests that the service in IDF is reponsible for the success of Israeli economics. IDF gives structure and morals and discipline and so on and so forth.

It also gives technology - alot.

You know our pilots navigate their missiles by moving their eyeball? Purely Israeli invention.

[The Mad Monk]

You know our pilots navigate their missiles by moving their eyeball?

Ouch--that's gotta hurt.

[Eli]

You know our pilots navigate their missiles by moving their eyeball? Purely Israeli invention.

Wut?
Source?

[TCO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Do you think anyone whos served in the military in other than a front line combat role is deserving of such language? Or am i misinterpretating the above post? (note that i did not serve in any role - i was not subject to the draft - I DID register- and did not volunteer - Im too old now)


LOTM

Eli lied on his medical exam to avoid certain types of duty. It is not a question of what he volunteered for.

[Sirotnikov]

Thanks chris and tingkai

Tingkai, I know all aobut this spirit breaking stuff. And I do think I tend to stay cool under pressure

Eli, we have electronic systems within the helmet which track the eyeball movement and the head movement.

Developement of Refael and Elbit.

[Sirotnikov]

Eli falsified his medical exams for a while.