RE: Soldiers life threatened by his own side.
June 12, 2012 at 4:55 pm
(This post was last modified: June 12, 2012 at 5:09 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I would have imagine it would be easy to understand, what with rehashing some of the same phrases and being arranged in a format that mimics the post you made identically...
Here,let me help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
Even though you aren't entirely clear on what cultural relativism actually is I understood what you were trying to say (you are criticizing moral relativism), and cultural relativism does make observations like the ones you mention (although you interestingly decided to call them proposals, probably due to confusion) as it is a methodology used to study cultures. This would be what I was referring to at 1 and 3.
2 is me calling you out on an appeal to consequences.
4 is my offering a right that I'm guessing you wouldn't say "by [it's] nature, do best serve society as they maintain the moral integrity of the people which constitute the society itself." Some specific right might be able to accomplish that, but not all do, and I'm not sure why you think that they do, by their nature, considering the sorts of batshit (to you and me-cultural relativism-) "rights" we so often enjoy. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the value (using the metric above about serving a society and integrity and whatnot) of any given "right" is measured by whatever it confers to whomever it confers it and not by it's "nature", whatever the nature of a right is in the first place? It's what is contained in the right, not some whispy "nature of a right" that serves society (however it might do so).
We back on track?
Here,let me help you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism
Even though you aren't entirely clear on what cultural relativism actually is I understood what you were trying to say (you are criticizing moral relativism), and cultural relativism does make observations like the ones you mention (although you interestingly decided to call them proposals, probably due to confusion) as it is a methodology used to study cultures. This would be what I was referring to at 1 and 3.
2 is me calling you out on an appeal to consequences.
4 is my offering a right that I'm guessing you wouldn't say "by [it's] nature, do best serve society as they maintain the moral integrity of the people which constitute the society itself." Some specific right might be able to accomplish that, but not all do, and I'm not sure why you think that they do, by their nature, considering the sorts of batshit (to you and me-cultural relativism-) "rights" we so often enjoy. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the value (using the metric above about serving a society and integrity and whatnot) of any given "right" is measured by whatever it confers to whomever it confers it and not by it's "nature", whatever the nature of a right is in the first place? It's what is contained in the right, not some whispy "nature of a right" that serves society (however it might do so).
We back on track?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
