Can the US Army embrace atheists? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16859421)
QuoteIn a land of faith and flag, Justin Griffith is challenging the US military to abandon its religious ties.
When he was a child growing up in Plano, Texas - a place he describes as the "oversized, goofy buckle on the Bible belt" - he would bring his bible to science class and debate his teachers on the finer points of evolution.
"In my head, I won every time," says Mr Griffith, now 29.
But somewhere along the way, his penchant for picking ideological fights with the non-religious got him in trouble. He found it harder and harder to argue with the points they were making. At 13, he suffered a crisis of faith.
"It was so painful. I lost my religion before I lost my first girlfriend. Nothing that big had ever happened to me, and I didn't have any coping skills," he says.
Mr Griffith found peace with his atheism, but he is not done sparring with the opposite team.
As an active-duty sergeant in the US Army, he's leading the charge to get atheists more respect in the armed forces. In the process he is earning attention, both positive and negative, from around the world...
A brave bloke.
He was in town speaking at our FoF meeting last month on the topic of atheists in the military. Seems like a nice, smart, young man; had a pretty good sense of humor too.
That's going to be a tough chore, for sure. I don't remember where I saw the data, but more military members identify as non-religious than in the civilian sector, yet Christianity has such a huge hold in the military. I decline to go to memorial day ceremonies, for example, because of this. There is always a Christian invocation at these ceremonies. I have often felt like paying a Muslim service member to roll out a rug and start praying in the middle of the ceremony, wondering how they would handle that. When I express my opinion in the workplace, coworkers say, "If you're atheist, then it shouldn't matter to you. You can just show respect by standing silently." Of course, I have trouble showing respect to something I don't actually respect. I point out that it isn't about me, that it doesn't matter to me personally that much. However, there are a lot of Jews, Muslims, Pagans, etc., who have died for this country, and to me it seems a bit of a slap in the face to pray over their dead with a Christian prayer only.
Good to hear
Quotehe would bring his bible to science class and debate his teachers on the finer points of evolution.
"In my head, I won every time," says Mr Griffith, now 29.
That's funny. :)
I'm sure the lot of religious bafoons in the army probably think they are doing "god's work."
I can just imagine the groaning in that board room "first we accepted homosexuals and now atheists??"
*eyeroll*
I am grateful that this soldier is taking the time to try to raise military tolerance. The US is certainly teetering on the knifes edge of Christian fundamentalism. I think this is a good step in illustrating that, although faithless and godless, those of us who embrace science and reject modern god concepts are still capable of morality, altruism, patriotism, honor, courage and strength. It also gives other people of non faith an opportunity to be honest with themselves and with others about how they view their own reality. It's strange to think of the intolerance and social barricades that have been erected in the us when it comes to religion especially considering who the original settlers/conquerors of this nation were.
Now about the other gentleman, Hewett, I'm not sure I agree with him taking issues like a flag to the city council. This is a vast and counterproductive use of resources. I live in San Diego California and here we have a monument on Mt. Soledad. It is a cross about 30 feet high and along the base are honorary plaques honoring war veterans. We have a group of atheists who have been fighting to have this cross removed. A cross that has been standing since 1913. An atheist group has spent the better part of 20 years fighting to have this cross removed. I am an atheist but have found no common ground with this effort. This cross is a symbolic monument not only of faith and military but of our countries history. If we start going down a path where we require religious symbolism to be struck from all previously constructed monuments where does it end. Do we start to crumple the Pantheon in Rome and the Parthenon in Greece, do we crumble thy ancient pyramids of Tenochtitlan or any other religious symbolism that has been etcher or printed in human kinds history. At what point does a monument become less of a religious symbol and more of a historic symbol. In my opinion these particular atheists should stop this ridiculous battle over a monument and focus on awareness projects or looking at construction and building plans for future monuments/memorials and ensuring that religious neutrality exists in those prior to them being erected. Not only is this a useless battle as it basically accomplishes nothing it also sets back the atheistic cause because it appears as thought this fight is directly aimed at harming the Christian community along with all those whose family are remembered at the monument, along with those who have been raised in the area and have come to know the monument as part of their landscape a natural piece of their environment.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/jan/24/move-protect-mt-soledad-cross-advances/
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ohioverticals.com%2Fblogs%2Fakron_law_cafe%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2FMt_-Soledad-Memorial.jpg&hash=3f5a76f9f72f259a9d43aca3a95ef4e976c81a72)
I'm also against protesting and calling for the removal of religious symbols incorporated into existing monuments that are old enough to qualify for the national historic registry (ie 50 years or older). Right or wrong, they are part of the historic record and dismantling them destroys a part of that record. It's much more appropriate and effective to focus on new monuments and government buildings which are trying to illegally incorporate religious symbols....all the better if they team up with Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, liberal christian, etc groups when protesting these projects.
How about stop building useless monuments and start building more community centers or low income housing? You know, stuff that helps the LIVING.
Pagans lament so much on the dead and forget that life goes on, with or without a piece of slab to worship. :(
I have never understood why atheists or humanists would want to join the military. Unless a foreign army is invading, I don't see the morality in joining. I don't see the humanity in traveling to other nations to destroy their homes, businesses, lives, and often times killing them... Preferably from a bunker within the U.S. while piloting an unmanned drone. We (U.S.) rape and murder innocents simply because the politicians need a war to get re-elected.
At least christians can say they are fighting a holy war... Granted, I have a hard time relating to this topic. But why not argue for the end of a standing army, rather than arguing all state sanctioned murders should be treated equally? The U.S. hasn't fought a just war since (arguably) WWII.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 07, 2012, 11:13:11 PM
But why not argue for the end of a standing army, rather than arguing all state sanctioned murders should be treated equally?
I wish that was practical. But let's say we take down our army. What happens next? China flexes its muscles and starts forcing itself on other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Russia probably invades some countries in its old soviet bloc. We do still need an army in some shape or form to defend ourselves and other democratic countries around the world.
That being said, our army has been exploited, sadly, and it and the CIA have done some horrible things at times. And while I'm not against every war, I am against most wars that we have fought, particularly Iraq. Our army should be used wisely and sparingly, and it has not always been the case.
Quote from: Firebird on February 08, 2012, 04:05:57 AM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 07, 2012, 11:13:11 PM
But why not argue for the end of a standing army, rather than arguing all state sanctioned murders should be treated equally?
I wish that was practical. But let's say we take down our army. What happens next? China flexes its muscles and starts forcing itself on other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Russia probably invades some countries in its old soviet bloc. We do still need an army in some shape or form to defend ourselves and other democratic countries around the world.
USA are not the international defenders of the free world.
They broke off their ANZUS agreement because NZ choose to be nuclear free which meant no nuclear powered ships where to enter NZ waters.
But even with ANZUS agreement USA were never going to simply be NZ's defence force.
USA primarily fight for USA interests. Which is fair enough. They mostly fight for oil and money, which is questionable.
Quote from: Firebird on February 08, 2012, 04:05:57 AM
I wish that was practical. But let's say we take down our army. What happens next? China flexes its muscles and starts forcing itself on other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Russia probably invades some countries in its old soviet bloc. We do still need an army in some shape or form to defend ourselves and other democratic countries around the world.
That being said, our army has been exploited, sadly, and it and the CIA have done some horrible things at times. And while I'm not against every war, I am against most wars that we have fought, particularly Iraq. Our army should be used wisely and sparingly, and it has not always been the case.
I don't think the U.S. should be policing the world. I'm all for giving the nations we have been protecting time to build up their own military defenses before pulling out. The reason the rest of the world hates the U.S. is precisely due to our interventionism. We still need an army or militia, but we don't need a standing army in peace times. Unfortunately this country has averaged a major war every 20 years since it's founding and peace isn't something those with power are good at.
They don't need nearly a thousand bases around the world to protect American soil.
The only part of your statement I have a problem with is the view we need to protect the rest of the world. I disagree.
Quote from: Stevil on February 08, 2012, 04:16:50 AM
USA primarily fight for USA interests. Which is fair enough. They mostly fight for oil and money, which is questionable.
And reelections and wars of public opinion. I won't be surprised if Obama starts a war with Iran prior to the election season. A large "just" war would likely solidify his reelection. The propaganda machine was in overdrive less than a month ago. I have been on one of my boycotts of national and world news lately though, so I'm not sure if the U.S. has calmed down or if they are still reporting on how evil and scary those Iranians are.
I have also noticed a lot of the anti-war sites have been pumping out a lot of pro-Iranian propaganda as well, which makes me think they are a bit worried about a new war as well.
I got a little off topic there. I typically can't help rambling a little bit though.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 07, 2012, 11:13:11 PMI have never understood why atheists or humanists would want to join the military.
I think that (at least in the US) one of the more powerful reasons is education. The cost of college has been outpacing inflation for at least two decades (http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/10/27/cost-of-college-on-the-rise-again/) now, and the ROTC program can make all the difference. As well, patriotism and love of country is not necessarily tied to religious belief.
I'm really glad to see this topic in the forum. I was planning on creating a post similar to this, but I'll just go off of this since its pretty much the same. I myself plan on going into the U.S. military (first choice is U.S. Marine Corps, 2nd is Army) and I plan to go infantry. I have been had the idea of going infantry since I was 5 from my best friends dad who was in the Army. He'd tell me about all these stories about how he killed people in Desert Shield, and it was just so interesting. It sounds extremely sadistic and insane unless you get to know me in real life, but I want to kill people for my country. I don't even know if its for my own country though. I was on youtube listening to Richard Dawkins talking, and he talked about a quote from George W. Bush where he said something roughly like "I do not believe atheists should be citizens or patriots." Like... honestly, that is completely absurd. I want to fight for this country, and I am not even supported by the people I'm going to fight for? Howard Bloom (i don't know if anyone knows him because i don't know how popular he is) mentioned a poll that said that homosexuality was more accepted than atheism. That is completely just... I can't believe it. (Sorry if this post makes me sounds like I am a serial killer, I'd love to give more detail to anyone who asks, but I really do try to be a good person based on the natural good and will of the population)
I would like more detail. Why would you "want" to kill anyone.
Well... have you ever seen jarhead, the scene where they are watching the film and it gets them excited to see the enemy getting taken out by the americans? Its kind of that way. Like I said, its been in put in my head since I was 5. As well, throughout high school I've had a LOT of experience with military life and mentality. Over the past summer, I went to Parris Island Marine Corps Depot in South Carolina for a "boot camp orientation" where they as well drill into your head that (as a marine) you are taught and "demanded of two things, kill and discipline". The more I think about it harder, the harder it gets in to express it in words. My mentality as an atheist is I try to accept and do "natural" things, which I understand killing is a natural thing (animals do it, and humans obviously have done it throughout history). But I can understand and it makes me second guess myself why I would want to kill. Maybe its the fact that "someone has to do it." I'm not sure. All i know is that video games are not the reason why I want to join the military and go infantry xD if you could ask more specific questions that might be a little easier
Also, going off of the early experience to military thoughts, I can't see myself doing any other job. My main reason to go to college is to become an officer. I can't think of any other jobs I'd be guarenteed and able to do. I love psychology and studying religion and the lack of them (to disprove them) but I don't really know the job options with that that either don't require a doctorates or aren't extremely hard to get
If I were you I'd go for a doctorate and become a therapist that specializes in recovering from religion and you could work with behavioral addictions as well to bring in the money. Once you get the degree you could work for yourself.
I would love to work for myself (and make a LOT of money). Another option i have is enlist in the navy and become a nuclear technician (the hardest job to get in the navy academic wise), get out and become a civilian nuke tech (a lot of money in that), but my parents don't want me to enlist. Plus i want to do a job *I* want to do, and nuke tech doesn't sound that fun. I would love to be a therapist but like i said, I don't have the time or money to get a doctorate. But that does sound like an amazing idea to help people "recover from religion" xD It might sound stupid to a theist but i know personally that it is hard to be an atheist in modern america. (if i pursued that career, i'd have to tell my parents i'm atheist though. i still havent told them that). But to get back on topic, it is still sickening to think that American military is so tied to religion. Maybe I might have a way to change that. The OP had an article from a Sergeant (enlisted), but officers have more "power." So who knows, maybe i might be able to do a little change for the military ideals. Wouldn't that be awesome? xD
Quote from: Whitney on February 08, 2012, 09:56:07 PM
If I were you I'd go for a doctorate and become a therapist that specializes in recovering from religion and you could work with behavioral addictions as well to bring in the money. Once you get the degree you could work for yourself.
That sounds like a good career move. :)
Quote from: Xiilent on February 08, 2012, 09:53:23 PM
Also, going off of the early experience to military thoughts, I can't see myself doing any other job. My main reason to go to college is to become an officer. I can't think of any other jobs I'd be guarenteed and able to do. I love psychology and studying religion and the lack of them (to disprove them) but I don't really know the job options with that that either don't require a doctorates or aren't extremely hard to get
This mentality is very scary. I understand the want to kill a living thing. It's actually quit natural. However, why kill indiscriminately? Self defense killings, vengeance killings, and legitimate enemy kills are one thing. From what you describe, you simply want to partake in state sponsored murder. I honestly don't care how this comes off, but I think your reasons for joining are despicable. You seem to not care who they may order you to kill, you will get pleasure out of the act regardless...
Quote from: ThinkAnarchyThis mentality is very scary. I understand the want to kill a living thing. It's actually quit natural. However, why kill indiscriminately? Self defense killings, vengeance killings, and legitimate enemy kills are one thing. From what you describe, you simply want to partake in state sponsored murder. I honestly don't care how this comes off, but I think your reasons for joining are despicable. You seem to not care who they may order you to kill, you will get pleasure out of the act regardless...
Nonono. I didn't mean it to sound like that. If by "who they may order you to kill" you mean the "enemy", well then yes. Someone who threatens my life, subsequently threatens my family, my loved ones, even you. (Hopefully that makes sense). But I would never take pleasure in killing lets say, a civilian of the opposing country. Hopefully that helps with the understanding.
And this isn't a dominating feeling I have. xD trust me. It's not something I constantly talk about. I know you/everyone else is probably thinking I'm crazy. The best way I can say you'd understand is if you watch the movie Jarhead.
Quote from: Xiilent on February 09, 2012, 01:48:13 AM
And this isn't a dominating feeling I have. xD trust me. It's not something I constantly talk about. I know you/everyone else is probably thinking I'm crazy. The best way I can say you'd understand is if you watch the movie Jarhead.
It's not my type of movie, but I know the feeling. Most of the people here think I'm crazy as well.
What worries me about what I've read from you Xiilent is that your longing to kill may not be satiated even if you do go to war. Could be scary when you get back and are no longer afforded the option of state sponsored murder.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 08, 2012, 06:11:55 PM
Quote from: Firebird on February 08, 2012, 04:05:57 AM
I wish that was practical. But let's say we take down our army. What happens next? China flexes its muscles and starts forcing itself on other countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Russia probably invades some countries in its old soviet bloc. We do still need an army in some shape or form to defend ourselves and other democratic countries around the world.
That being said, our army has been exploited, sadly, and it and the CIA have done some horrible things at times. And while I'm not against every war, I am against most wars that we have fought, particularly Iraq. Our army should be used wisely and sparingly, and it has not always been the case.
I don't think the U.S. should be policing the world. I'm all for giving the nations we have been protecting time to build up their own military defenses before pulling out. The reason the rest of the world hates the U.S. is precisely due to our interventionism. We still need an army or militia, but we don't need a standing army in peace times. Unfortunately this country has averaged a major war every 20 years since it's founding and peace isn't something those with power are good at.
They don't need nearly a thousand bases around the world to protect American soil.
The only part of your statement I have a problem with is the view we need to protect the rest of the world. I disagree.
While I don't agree with everything you say, we're in agreement on a lot of points here. We do need to get rid of a lot of the bases we have around the world (why do we need 80,000 soldiers in Germany, for example?). I do think we need to maintain a standing army at all times, but we could easily cut back our military and still be well defended.
As far as defending the rest of the world, I do wish Europe and other countries would pick up some of the slack (with all due respect to the Europeans on this board). I was particularly happy that France and the UK took the lead in the Libya operation.
And with Iran, I think Israel or some country will do an airstrike on their nuclear facilities, but that does not necessarily mean war. Israel did the same thing in Iraq in '81, Syria in '07, and we bombed Iraq military facilities and Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan during the Clinton years, and none of those led to immediate war. There is, unfortunately, a good risk that Hezbollah would attack Israel as Iran's proxy if Israel bombs their facilities. But I do not think the US will be invading Iran. The most they'll do is support the Israelis in an airstrike. Obama's not stupid
Quote from: Firebird on February 09, 2012, 03:50:58 AM
We do need to get rid of a lot of the bases we have around the world (why do we need 80,000 soldiers in Germany, for example?).
Here in Germany several bases were closed, because they needed fresh Cannon-fodder for Iraq. The American soldiers were not particularly happy with that and neither the cities where these bases were located. Thousands of soldiers means a lot for the local economy.
QuoteAs far as defending the rest of the world, I do wish Europe and other countries would pick up some of the slack (with all due respect to the Europeans on this board). I was particularly happy that France and the UK took the lead in the Libya operation.
I'm not so happy with that, because that meant that we stuck our hypocritical noses in the local Libyan political affairs. Basically we changed a protest to an armed conflict/civil war. We got away with that, because China and Russia didn't protest. Guess why the US and Europe don't do the same for the protesters in Syria, who are fighting against a far more "evil" regime?
QuoteAnd with Iran, I think Israel or some country will do an airstrike on their nuclear facilities, but that does not necessarily mean war.
I define that as an act of war. As retaliation, Iran has all the justifications to bomb the nuclear facilities of Israel.
QuoteThere is, unfortunately, a good risk that Hezbollah would attack Israel as Iran's proxy if Israel bombs their facilities.
Why would that be unfortunate? People are fed up with Israel playing the victim card all the time.
QuoteBut I do not think the US will be invading Iran. The most they'll do is support the Israelis in an airstrike. Obama's not stupid
The US can probably not afford another war, but I'm pretty sure that they would love to start another invasion.
Quote from: Tom62 on February 09, 2012, 06:47:39 AM
Quote from: Firebird on February 09, 2012, 03:50:58 AM
QuoteThere is, unfortunately, a good risk that Hezbollah would attack Israel as Iran's proxy if Israel bombs their facilities.
Why would that be unfortunate? People are fed up with Israel playing the victim card all the time.
As much as I disagree with a lot of Israel's actions, implying that they somehow deserve to be attacked by Hezbollah is pretty low. Not to mention that another war with Hezbollah would be disastrous for everyone, no matter your viewpoint
Quote from: Firebird on February 10, 2012, 06:27:14 AM
As much as I disagree with a lot of Israel's actions, implying that they somehow deserve to be attacked by Hezbollah is pretty low. Not to mention that another war with Hezbollah would be disastrous for everyone, no matter your viewpoint
Israel doesn't deserve to be attacked, just like Iran doesn't deserve to be attacked. In the conflict between Israel and the Arabic world, both parties can be blamed for being hot-headed and not willing to negotiate peace. At this moment we've got a "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" situation running there for many, many decades, with religion being the show stopper for any positive progress. It is a spiral of violence. You treat my people bad and you bomb me, so I fire some missiles to you, which makes you bomb me again, so that gives me another reason to fire some more missiles to you; so that you can send some drones to kill me or invade my country, etc. etc. Bombing installations in Iran would definitively not make things better. Sadly enough, It would give Hezbollah another justification to hit back. No surprises there and nothing to be angry about, because these are the "Rules" of the "Game" (sarcasm). If the whole situation wasn't so sad then you could regard it as being utterly pathetic and disgusting. It is a loose-loose scenario. And basically I'm fed up with Israel playing the victim card all the time. In this conflict the only victims are the people that really want to live in peace (Arabs and Jews).
Xiilent you may want to check out this tv series Ross Kemp return to Afghanistan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMUvIcWW_6k), I think its three episodes long and should be able to find all the links from there, also watch Frontline Medicine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8rKzUk1wPg). They both show an unglorified look at the war in Afghanistan hopefully giving you a better perspective rather than one tinted with propaganda. The Ross Kemp show is a look at the war from British, American, and Afganistan National army perspective with interviews being conducted with citizens of Afghanistan and the taliban leaders. The Frontline Medicine is about what goes on in the medical rooms and provides a real sense of what the NATO casualty rate is.
Xiilent - I wouldn't know of course, but I doubt that war and killing are as....glamorous (for lack of a better word) than movies make them seem. I find that most things in life are less glamorous and...I dunno....MTV (if you're not too young to even get that reference - I'm from an era where MTV actually played music videos) than they would seem. I would like a hip soundtrack to play whenever I'm dressed up and walking slowly, but it hardly ever does.
I think I do know a little bit about what you're feeling. I grew up in an area of the country where young men very much idolize the Marines, the Rangers, the Seals. As a result, I know several 30-ish men who have been, and have done, and while they may be proud of their service, I don't think they have any more illusions about what humans are capable of, or about glory. Do what you like with your life, but I urge you not to fall into the trap of thinking it's going to be just like the movie Jarhead.
Saving private ryan was probably a more realistic idea of what combat would be like than Jarhead; and even then I doubt it catches the full horror of it all. I've heard some of the newer video games like Call of Duty mimic it rather well...except that in real life you don't get do overs. One of the guys I work with is ex military and while he doesn't have much of a filter he won't even talk about some of the stuff he had to go through. In high school I was dating a guy who was related to an Army Ranger...he was proud when he got a hold of pictures of decapitated middle easterners (not something you want to see, trust me) and talked about "kills" as if it was easier than swatting at flies. I don't think it's possible to go through the military and come out not having a slightly twisted view of death....too much desensitizing goes on in training.
That's what really scares me, Whitney. What makes it okay to.murder in cold blood and be proud? Nothing does.
so many new games like Call of duty are getting people addicted to violence, like it's a normal, natural thing to kill.
I found especially disturbing after Bin laden was killed, a lot of Americans wanted the pics online to celebrate it. There was even a daytime show where a guy said he wanted the blown off head/corpse as a screen saver . What the heck?!
People even boo'd Obama for making the photos confidential and not accessible via public.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 10, 2012, 11:18:10 PM
That's what really scares me, Whitney. What makes it okay to.murder in cold blood and be proud? Nothing does.
so many new games like Call of duty are getting people addicted to violence, like it's a normal, natural thing to kill.
I found especially disturbing after Bin laden was killed, a lot of Americans wanted the pics online to celebrate it. There was even a daytime show where a guy said he wanted the blown off head/corpse as a screen saver . What the heck?!
People even boo'd Obama for making the photos confidential and not accessible via public.
Sweetdeath, I am disappointed. I would have been sure that by now you'd realize that there is a certain segment of American society that views class as a bad thing. Obama showed some class and sensitivity with that issue, and those people hated it. It's usually the same people who are avid NASCAR fans, wear camouflage when they aren't trying to hide from anything, and think that spitting tobacco for distance is a spectator sport. You shouldn't be surprised by now. ;)
Even though i've lived here for 25yrs, I definitely think very differently from the typical american. Hehe ;)
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on February 07, 2012, 11:13:11 PM
I have never understood why atheists or humanists would want to join the military. Unless a foreign army is invading, I don't see the morality in joining. I don't see the humanity in traveling to other nations to destroy their homes, businesses, lives, and often times killing them... Preferably from a bunker within the U.S. while piloting an unmanned drone. We (U.S.) rape and murder innocents simply because the politicians need a war to get re-elected.
At least christians can say they are fighting a holy war... Granted, I have a hard time relating to this topic. But why not argue for the end of a standing army, rather than arguing all state sanctioned murders should be treated equally? The U.S. hasn't fought a just war since (arguably) WWII.
I enlisted in the army in 1988. I think that in the years since, the mission of the US Army has changed from what it was declared to be; 'To deter armed aggression against the United States and its allies, that failing to fight and win on any battlefield any time.'
That's paraphrasing of course, but it's the general idea. I understand that to me that going to war is admitting failure in its primary mission. During my service time the cold war came to an end making that perhaps our biggest success. I also think that the liberation of Kuwait was a noble cause, even if it wasn't undertaken for the most honorable reasons.
Unfortunately you are right about the elections, politicians have discovered that war is a great tool for distracting the sheep from the real domestic issues that they aren't fixing.
I feel like I could never go to war. For any country. I could just never live with myself if I took the life of another human being. I can still remember the stories that my late grandfather told me of WWII and the honestly terrified me. However I'm not naive, war will always be a part of society. I just don't see myself as ever being apart of it.
Quote from: Budhorse4 on February 15, 2012, 01:39:14 PM
I feel like I could never go to war. For any country. I could just never live with myself if I took the life of another human being. I can still remember the stories that my late grandfather told me of WWII and the honestly terrified me. However I'm not naive, war will always be a part of society. I just don't see myself as ever being apart of it.
I wouldn't go to war because I don't love my country. I can't fight for something I don't love. It'd be like being a salesman and trying to sell something that doesn't work.
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on February 15, 2012, 06:27:22 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on February 15, 2012, 01:39:14 PM
I feel like I could never go to war. For any country. I could just never live with myself if I took the life of another human being. I can still remember the stories that my late grandfather told me of WWII and the honestly terrified me. However I'm not naive, war will always be a part of society. I just don't see myself as ever being apart of it.
I wouldn't go to war because I don't love my country. I can't fight for something I don't love. It'd be like being a salesman and trying to sell something that doesn't work.
You always say great things, Mike. <3 <3
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 10, 2012, 11:18:10 PM
That's what really scares me, Whitney. What makes it okay to.murder in cold blood and be proud? Nothing does.
so many new games like Call of duty are getting people addicted to violence, like it's a normal, natural thing to kill.
I found especially disturbing after Bin laden was killed, a lot of Americans wanted the pics online to celebrate it. There was even a daytime show where a guy said he wanted the blown off head/corpse as a screen saver . What the heck?!
People even boo'd Obama for making the photos confidential and not accessible via public.
Call of duty and first person shooters in general don't get people who are mentally stable addicted to violence. My friends and I regularly play Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto 4 and none of us have gone on a killing spree. If you think what's okay in a fictional reality is okay in actual reality you shouldn't be watching television, much less virtually killing people.
Quote from: xXxWashburnxXx on February 25, 2012, 11:06:55 PM
Call of duty and first person shooters in general don't get people who are mentally stable addicted to violence. My friends and I regularly play Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto 4 and none of us have gone on a killing spree. If you think what's okay in a fictional reality is okay in actual reality you shouldn't be watching television, much less virtually killing people.
And certainly not reading books. Books by large go way further than any film, tv program, or game have ever been able to do whilst being far more visceral. I recently downloaded gta3 on my iphone and its crazy how that game managed to stir up such a kerfuffle on its release, it quite clearly feels like you are playing a game that if anything is an homage to films that go way beyond anything presented in that game. Saying that though Black Ops and Modern Warfare 2 single player campaigns crossed the line for me at certain points, but in my opinion they largely play like over the top Micheal Bay type film that are so far removed from reality that its just ridiculous for anyone to get confused between reality or the virtual world.
Only if it is consensual.
Oh sorry, this thread has been around for a long time and I've resisted up to now.
Just a moment of weakness I suppose.
It could be a subtle anti conscription reference, I'm not averse to my babblings being given loftier interpretations than I had in mind.
People who tend to live sheltered, isolated, and anti-social lives have unstable minds.
If you grow up in an unloving place, playing COD and Gears of war, halo, etc, who says you can handle real confrontation irl?
Men who degrade women tend to be men whom have had no real interaction with women. They recall fantasies such as porn and men's magazines that dont portray females as anything but sometging to be used.
I dont mean all men of course, and every case is different. I read watch smut as well, but I also interact with people on a daily basis.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 26, 2012, 08:46:47 PM
People who tend to live sheltered, isolated, and anti-social lives have unstable minds.
If you grow up in an unloving place, playing COD and Gears of war, halo, etc, who says you can handle real confrontation irl?
Say you replaced Call of Duty, Gears of War, and Halo with Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, and Disgaea wouldn't the same thing still apply? If those people are mentally unstable in an unloving environment wouldn't any form of escapist activity have a detrimental effect?
I disagree with the remark about men who degrade women being directly linked as a cause with porn and mens magazines as it's usually caused by childhood home life, peers, and/or life experience that has helped them form that opinion. Lets just change men who degrade women to women who degrade men, does porn and womens magazines cause that opinion to form, I don't think so. Maybe those forms of media help to perpetuate the matter in the individuals head but its far from the cause.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 26, 2012, 08:46:47 PM
People who tend to live sheltered, isolated, and anti-social lives have unstable minds.
If you grow up in an unloving place, playing COD and Gears of war, halo, etc, who says you can handle real confrontation irl?
Men who degrade women tend to be men whom have had no real interaction with women. They recall fantasies such as porn and men's magazines that dont portray females as anything but sometging to be used.
I dont mean all men of course, and every case is different. I read watch smut as well, but I also interact with people on a daily basis.
People who live those lives usually didn't have a choice in the matter. Those people are usually either home schooled from an early age by over-protective parents or bullied heavily by their peers, so they try to avoid social situations and their only escape is a fictitious reality.
I agree with crow here.
Quote from: Crow on February 27, 2012, 01:20:55 PM
Say you replaced Call of Duty, Gears of War, and Halo with Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, and Disgaea wouldn't the same thing still apply? If those people are mentally unstable in an unloving environment wouldn't any form of escapist activity have a detrimental effect?
This idea is situational. Penn and Teller did an episode on their show "BS" about whether or not video games affect a child's outlook on life and violence and they seemed to find that they don't. Whether or not they really did enough research is debatable, but it holds a little bit of water. Mental stability isn't necessarily affected by a video game. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWr4htYp9dM that is the first video of the 3 part series if you'd care to take the 30 minutes to watch all 3 parts.
Quote from: xXxWashburnxXx on February 27, 2012, 04:49:47 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on February 26, 2012, 08:46:47 PM
People who tend to live sheltered, isolated, and anti-social lives have unstable minds.
If you grow up in an unloving place, playing COD and Gears of war, halo, etc, who says you can handle real confrontation irl?
Men who degrade women tend to be men whom have had no real interaction with women. They recall fantasies such as porn and men's magazines that dont portray females as anything but sometging to be used.
I dont mean all men of course, and every case is different. I read watch smut as well, but I also interact with people on a daily basis.
People who live those lives usually didn't have a choice in the matter. Those people are usually either home schooled from an early age by over-protective parents or bullied heavily by their peers, so they try to avoid social situations and their only escape is a fictitious reality.
I agree with crow here.
Actually, home schoolers are no less socially awkward, nor do they try and avoid social situations than there public/private school counterparts. As for bullying, I'm not sure, but I'm sure it results in many children shying away from social interactions for obvious reasons.