CDNBear When you talk about killing, what do you mean by it?
It would depend on the situation. ie...
a)Eminent physical danger to family or loved ones, in which the termination of that threat would require extreme prejudice.
b)As ordered to, so long as the orders were not contrary to standing orders and/or the RoE.
c)To protect the mission, fellow Soldiers, outside standing orders or the RoE.
d)To provide food, tools and clothing.
It is really quite an interesting question, if you go into it deeply, to inquire whether a human being, living in this world, can totally cease to be violent. Societies, religious communities, have tried not to kill animals. Some have even said, "If you don't want to kill animals, what about the vegetables?"
Now that would be going to far, how would one exist?
Where do you draw the line?
At sport or pleasure or bigotry.
Is there an arbitrary line according to your ideal, to your fancy, to your norm, to your temperament, to your conditioning, and you say, "I'll go up to there but not beyond"?
Yes, I have that line, carved in stone. The taking of a life is not a frivolous thing. I have hit animals with motor vehicles and cried. There was no purpose, no meaning and the death was a waste of life, because I have had no need or use for that particular animals gifts.
Is there a difference between individual anger, with violent action on the part of the individual, and the organized hatred of a society which breeds and builds up an army to destroy another society?
Wars waged without purpose, ie; saving lives, stopping the advance of agression of another force, etc, are valid and just. Wars waged for religous beliefs, materialistic wants, etc, are not.
The primary goal of any Armed Force should be first and formost, for the good of the majority.
Where, at what level, and what fragment of violence are you discussing, or do you want to discuss whether man can be free of total violence, not a particular fragment which he calls violence?
I'm not sure what you are asking of me here.
We know what violence is without expressing in words, in phrases, in action. As a human being in whom the animal is still very strong, in spite of centuries of so-called civilization, where shall I begin?
I'm sure you, as have many, noticed I not only recognise my baser instincts, but honour them and wear them openly.
That is not to say that this Bear has not been tamed to some extent and requires constant internal and external reminders, that he is not a beast and must act according to the confines of societal norms, though I would much prefer to be buck nekkid running amok in the bush.
Shall I begin at the periphery, which is society, or at the center, which is myself?
The center is where we should all begin, the periphery is where we all wish to have or center be seen. But I wish not to be at the merci of others centers, but rather live with an amagamation of the centers of the collective. With respect for all and steadfast adherence to none. One for all and all for one, as it were.
You tell me not to be violent, because it is ugly. You explain to me all the reasons, and I see that violence is a terrible thing in human beings, outwardly and inwardly. Is it possible to end this violence?"
No it is not possible, for that to be possible, one would have to turn their back on their self, the animal that is man. Is it a valiant effort to try and rise above the animals? Perhaps. But I revel in my blood and understand my place in the universe, therefore I can not remove myself willingly from the trappings of the food chain.
PS ..I respect You CDNBear
Thanx China, you have provoked more then your fair share of deep and meaningful thought within this wild beast and would be one of those external thoughts that has curtailed the outward expression of my baser instincts. Thus garnering my deepest appreciation and respect.
