h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Well, good for them.
The really bright kids who wouldn't normally consider military service- would that be because being bright involves a natural tendency towards individual expression and questioning the given way of doing things? It does not take much intelligence to blindly obey orders which you personally might object to- sheep do this.
I was objecting to 'class' in the British sense, i.e. of a society which was based a upon rigid class system for years- still is to some degree- and is still rife with ridiculous snobbery which annoys and upsets me very much. As you point out, though, someone's class does not predispose them to certain behaviour, or not.
I'm with you on volunteer forces, though. Let those who want to, do, but that should not shame those who don't want to, for whatever reason, nor convey instant heroism on those who do. (But... annihlating somewhere because none of its people want to fight? Bit extreme. That should be their business, not that of whoever does the wiping. )
I can't see how it's correct to force someone to fight if they have a child. Male or female, particularly if they have a partner who's also been enlisted. That's similar to women condemned to death becoming pregnant to avoid their execution- the baby would be born- sometimes not even weaned- and its mother killed. The only thing that would stop me getting pregnant to avoid the draft would be the thought of what any child born in such a turbulent time would have to put up with.
For those who want to join, they're quite welcome to it- and I don't see anything unnecessary about basic training. But the thought of someone whose only superiority lies in their possession of a nice shiny badge taking out their frustrations on me 24/7, does not sit well with me... as for obeying orders, surely that's obeying unquestioningly. I don't trust any authority that puts itself above being questioned, and I see something deeply wrong in learning to overcome your moral/ethical qualms simply to obey an order. Still, if that's the only way they'll learn to kill without thought... (I see something deeply wrong with that, too.)
As for personal growth- I fail to see how making someone's identity subservient to that of a unit, conveniently altering their ability to identify compassionately with other humans (if they aren't wearing the right colours), and removing their tendency to question possibly objectionable commands, in the name of discipline, makes them 'better' as people.

-Mandragora, who is not a team-worker.

I'd take issue with one thing Mandragora - submitting your personality to that of a unit has a long reputation for spiritual growth - one need only look at many religious and spiritual orders through the world for examples. Probably doesn't apply to joining the army, though...

Ah yes, Nirvana slipped my mind...

Drill seregants aren't sadists. If they were, they'd be washed out of the program. They're 'superiority' comes from their experience in the military. Most of the ones that I had, were also combat veterans.

Discipline, does not mean that orders can't be questioned. The American military prides itself on having intelligent soldiers who can act independently. However, there is a mission to accomplsih. If you're in combat, you can't stop to have a debate about who should shoot and who should move. The survival of the unit, and the unit's members depends on action and speed.

Do I strike you as a person who can't question authority?

(Hey, sadists aren't all bad... )
It appears to be a system in which those who are best succeed. Which is fine. But being a good soldier does not automatically mean you're a good person... if your drill sergeant's giving you abuse, you can't stop him and point out that actually, you're a thoroughly decent type who doesn't deserve this shabby treatment. If these same drill sergeants weren't good at shouting and making others feel subservient, they wouldn't have ascended to those positions. However, I have experience only of the British military and can't speak for the Americans (although I imagine there are similarities, since they're both out to do the same job) who don't fill me with confidence- several of their own men get killed during live ammunitions training, they waste money spectacularly and have been disciplined several times for letting young men die of exhaustion. My only close experience of drill sergeants is from a friend who has been in Cadets for years, then at 16 went on work experience and was called a 'Fenian b*****d' by whoever was in charge. The feeling I get is that this is all too typical; how does personal insult make you a better person? And why should you put up with it simply because you're of a lower rank? There has to be a certain mentality that enjoys parading their superiority over underlings and making them feel wretched. (Not saying that this is widespread, but those who have it seem ideal for the job.)
Is it not difficult to detach your (not you personally) army persona from the original one? Combat screws people up. Some, it makes unfit to live in normal society. I'm sure that most are left with lasting unpleasantness.

I've not spoken much with you personally, so I can't say. However, I'm discussing not individuals but the military, where the individual seems to count for little. As a group, they do not strike me as able to question- good for you if you can.
Incidentally, what would you define cowardice as?

A natural reaction to the mentality you've just described?

Heheh!

...And going back to "the get-out option" for pacifists: my cousin recently said that he didn't care if there was a war, he'd be a Consciencious Objector. I thought more of him for that - he'd just been beaten up, and he has the muscles to have stood up for himself.

x x Fenny (hoping for Zero Intolerance)
Posting from an Oasis of Calm and Relaxation

How is that admirable? It's one thing if he couldn't have stood up to them, but being beat up by weaker people seems pathetic.

Part of the reason that our military does as well as it does is that we are trained to think and question. At the end of training exercises, the units involve gather together and have an after action review. The soldiers say what they saw, and try and figure out how to do it better. That's how they learn.

However, combat is not the time for questioning the morality of shelling the enemy stronghold. Other people are depending on you to do your job.

My definition of cowardice? I hadn't really thought of it in terms of a definition. It's more like something that I can identify when I see it. I would say it's being mastered by your fear, and avoiding a necessary job because you're too scared to do it.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
Courage is the compliment of fear. A man who is fearless cannot be courageous. (He is also a fool.) - Robert Heinlein

"Being beat up by weaker people seems pathetic"

I guess you're referring to physical weakness, Two Bit, as opposed to emotional weakness, the kind to turn a spilled pint into a broken jaw, and a difference of opinion over the true nature of God into a long drawn out war of attrition that kills hundreds of thousands.

Was Ghandi weak? Was Dr. King weak? No, and neither was Fenny's cousin. Courage to me is far more evident in restraint than largesse, as far as physical combat is concerned.

Was he beat up for a political cause? I geuss there's a certain nobility to it. I wouldn't do it.

Thanks, Kid, for sticking up for my cousin. Sorry Two Bit, he wasn't beaten up for a noble cause. He was beaten up because four drunken louts wanted a fight after "closing time" in the Pub. He was just walking along the street. When they closed in on him, he was trying to calm them down.

I can't answer whether they had a noble cause to fight for, but it sounds like liqueur!

x x Fenny

Hmm... cowardice= fear causing you to avoid a necessary job.
Sometimes I get so scared of the dark that I am too afraid to go downstairs to the bog. This isn't cowardice, it's a phobia. Irrational and senseless also.
I don't see enlisting in the military as a necessary job- neither do I see fear of doing so irrational or senseless, but a common sense reaction.
(Hello Fenny-Lite; interesting name and hurrah etc. for Zero Intolerence.)

If he could have defended himself, then why didn't he? Non-violent protest aside, it's stupid to let yourself be beat up if you can prevent it.

I think we have to take action to have any measure of security. Someone is going to have to stand up for the nation. I fear that I am expecting too much of our youth.

Two Bit Trigger Pumping Moron
Those who refuse to support and defend the state have no right to claim the protection of that state. - Robert Heinlein

Defended himself? Against Four!! Pissed!! Louts!!
Different ways of defending yourself. According to Fenny's post, he tried reasoning first and that did jack sh*t- I doubt that then he actually lay down and said 'You're welcome to hit me, fools.' Some of us really don't have violent tendencies; if I were set upon like that, I'd run like hell and unplug my personal alarm. Taking them on would make it far worse- they're spoiling for a fight and you're giving them what they want.
Again, it's personal difference- like those which make some of us want to enlist and others not.
Standing up for the nation- in general (NO specifics here) I would choose personal principles over the abstract concept of 'nation' any time, since I don't buy into the patriotic p.o.v. I'm sure the youth of your country are doing plenty to support it, since there are ways other than military action. From what I've heard so far, the 'youth' have a remarkably balanced and responsible attitude.

"he'd just been beaten up, and he has the muscles to have stood up for himself."

She implied that he could stand up for himself.

He was standing up for himself. He was standing up for the right to be himself, someone who doesn't believe in an eye for an eye. That takes courage in front of one, let alone four.

and the point in beating the s**t out of drunken peoplke who proberbly have no idea what they are doing would be?
I agree he shouldent have let himself get beaten up, and I dont really think anyone would but that is no reason to use superor strength agast weaker people. as far as I know that is being a bully. or shall we be childish and say they started it I mean really carrying it on would make you no better then them wouldent it?

Thank you all for standing up for my cousin, who could have stood up for himself. I'm not so sure about his ability to stand up against four people all spoiling for a fight. Perhaps he did pull a few punches before they laid him flat: I wasn't there, I don't know. But I do agree with everyone who said that he was standing up for his right not to sink down to the 'beat 'em up' level - that was his conscious choice.

For Deity's Sake, Two Bit, there's going to be enough fighting soon. What use would more 'thump-happy' people, outside the local pub on a Friday evening, be anyway?

x x Fenny (bemused by war and hoping for Zero Intolerance)