All's Relatively Fair In Love & Debate

[IDMclean]

A friend of mine whom was recently in the Army, was trained to fire at the body, and not the head, on the specific grounds that if they were trained to fire at the head, they would be trained to be snipers. The Army, he said, stated that it could not, by international law, train and use snipers. What the Army does have, that resembles what popular culture would call snipers, is percision riflemen, and scouts.

 

My friend said, that you are not allowed, by international law, once again, to selectively shoot for officers, or those of apparent high rank.

 

Thus the primary jobs for Scouts is to range find for forward operations, give positional information for artillery, mortars, airstrikes, and paint targets.

 

As for the Nuclear Weapons thing, there is to my understanding an internation ban against the use of Nuclear ordinance. That there has been international agreements against the use, testing and development of nuclear ordinance since about the 70s or 80s.

 

Not to say the rules aren't broken, or bent absurdly, but them are the rules as I understand it.

 

The relevenance I am trying to allude to in this analog, is that all is not fair in love and war. There are rules for the conduct of individuals, groups, armies, societies, and worlds. You are free to break these rules and fart in the general direction of people, but do expect them to be none to kind in response.

 

Further that fairness is a collectively defined thing, like communication standards, such as language. They do have degrees of relativity within them to allow for improvement, but in general, by definition, they must be objective. That is everyone must agree on the standards to some degree, and follow those standards in the majority for them to work.

 

Fairness of debate is one such thing. Simply put, if you are not fair in your dealings, people will be harsh in their dealings with you or worse (better, depending on your point of view and which side of the fence your on) people won't deal with you. Simple as that.

[sebbysteiny]

No offence KickAssClown, but your friend sounds like a serviceman and not a lawyer.

 

Show me the statutes. I'll happily browse through them ;).

[IDMclean]

I will admit his level of education in the subject is questionable, however my point remains valid until disproven. I have done some research towards find the truth of this, however my knowledge in the field is limited, and I was kinda hoping that the kind people here at hypography would either substiate the claim, or disprove it. Either way works for me.

 

The details however are rather inconsequential. The fact of the matter is not all is fair in love and war. There are rules, and breaking/bending these rules net's negative results. Whether man made, or naturally existing.

[Edella]

I was kinda hoping that the kind people here at hypography would either substiate the claim, or disprove it. Either way works for me.

As for the Nuclear Weapons thing, there is to my understanding an internation ban against the use of Nuclear ordinance.

 

I did mention the U.S. Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations in my first post KAC. Here is a link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2_15mar2005.htm

From that article :

"The US does not make positive statements defining the circumstances under which it would use nuclear weapons. Maintaining US ambiguity about when it would use nuclear weapons helps create doubt in the minds of potential adversaries, deterring them from taking hostile action. This calculated ambiguity helps reinforce deterrence. If the US clearly defined conditions under which it would use nuclear weapons, others might infer another set of circumstances in which the US would not use nuclear weapons."

 

The Army, he said, stated that it could not, by international law, train and use snipers.

Untrue. http://www.currentargus.com/ci_4744726

You can not, by international agreement, snipe your enemy's commander.

The commander at what level? Platoon? Company? Battalion? How can a sniper know the command structure of the enemy troops without a full Order of Battle?

 

 

From the Wiki entry for "sniper" :Snipers can target personnel or materiel, but most often they target the most important enemy personnel such as officers or specialists (e.g. communications operators) so as to cause the maximum disruption of enemy operations.

[Turtle]

I did mention the U.S. Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations in my first post KAC. Here is a link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2_15mar2005.htm

 

Excellent reference Edella! Here is another interesting piece on 'fairness' in war, lest we all forget the pen is mightier than the sword.

 

http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE95/Chomeau95.html

Dr. John Chomeau reflects on the status of deception in military operations and the question of when lying is permissible for a member of the military profession. In this aptly titled article, he reflects on where we draw the line, noting that the traditional view is that lying and deception for service people are strictly prohibited by institutional standards except in the extraordinary circumstances of war. He reviews numerous examples of deception, the various categories of deception, and the purpose of deception operations in war. Dr. Chomeau concludes that "the American people expect the military to favor honesty over deceit, but that in cases of clear self-defense or where U.S. forces are at a disadvantage, then a resort to lying and deception is justifiable." The test is that military and political leaders must be prepared to justify their actions publicly after the fact.

[sebbysteiny]

You can not, by international agreement, snipe your enemy's commander. You are can not, by international agreement, drop an atomic bomb.

 

A friend of mine whom was recently in the Army, was [told that the army] could not, by international law, train and use snipers.

 

I will admit his level of education in the subject is questionable ... I was kinda hoping that the kind people here at hypography would either substiate the claim, or disprove it.

 

Today is your lucky day :hihi:. The facts you have asserted above are legal questions that can be resolved by legal analysis.

 

I've had legal training and I will be happy to try and find the truth of the claims if you like.

 

Firstly, I have talked to a number of people about international law. Mainly from Arabs and Lefties accusing various Western Countries of committing war crimes. But they have usually completely misunderstood the nature of international law.

 

As far as I can see, international law does not prevent any military commander from doing what is necessary to win a battle and save his soldiers or civilians. In this sense, the right of self defence seems to me to be absolute. Not even collateral damage can get in the way of this right.

 

But the statutes normally then state that such force would need to be proportionate. I mean, that is common sense. What this really means is that you can't use a nuclear weopon under the pretence of self defence when all you needed to do was fire a machine gun.

 

Every statute I have seen has confirmed this approach and this is why no weopon is illegal per se. For this reason, as cluster bombs are not illegal, and as snipers are such a blatantly effective weopon against all enemies from super powers to low tech insurgents, it would be a monumental change of international law for them to be blanket banned. Restrictions maybe, but banned is almost rediculous.

 

Okay, lets get to the law.

 

You have said that 'until proven otherwise, you are correct'. Sadly, that's not how law works. If there is no statute (and you can't prove a negative) there is no law. So you actually have to find the statute before making any assertions. The most I can do is do a search for the law and check that which I find.

 

I've done such a search and found nothing. The closest was Wikipedia on snipers. It says snipers are useful and that nowhere does it say they are not.

 

The best I could say is that for insurance purposes or something, the US army does not wish to train standard infantry for sniping.

 

You can not, by international agreement, snipe your enemy's commander. You are can not, by international agreement, drop an atomic bomb.

 

What do you mean by international agreement? Is it official aka international law, or is it a gentlemen's agreement between certain armed forces? A gentleman's agreement has no legal force.

 

I know of no law that restricts sniping at an enemy's commander. There is a rule against assassinations though. But 'targeted killings' are okay.

 

Again, if such a law exists, it will not last past the first few bullets.

 

What is 'a commander'? I think a commander is just 1) a crack troop [and therefore, in this capacity, a legitimate target, and 2) a command and control unit. You are saying that because of an officer's use for 2), officers are not targetted.

 

But command and control units are targetted all the time. Eg, telephone wires etc.

 

About 200 years ago, officers had more of a front line approach and there was a gentleman's agreement not to target officers. But this rarely survived even then.

 

Again, I can't even think of where to find such a statute that might regulate this activity so the onus is on you I'm afraid to show that one does exist.

 

 

And the most interesting one you have talked about is the atom bomb.

 

This is forbidden in almost all instances by the requirement that force must be proportionate. Only when confronted with a nuclear scale threat might nuclear bombs even be considered proportionate. However, can it be used as deterance?

 

International law is unfortunately silent on the use of deterence (as far as I'm aware). It's a shame because a common code of ethics about what is and is not permisable under deterance would be a great help.

[Edella]

The best I could say is that for insurance purposes or something, the US army does not wish to train standard infantry for sniping.

Aaaahhhh! :D How many times do I need to say it? The U.S. Army has snipers! Look,here's the current schedule and info for the sniper school at Ft. Benning Ga. https://www.atrrs.army.mil/atrrscc/courseinfo.aspx?fy=2007&sch=071&crs=010-ASIB4&crstitle=SNIPER&phase=

[IDMclean]

Doing well enough, people.

 

Now I am bothing speaking in the sense of within the formal system (law, and legally binding documents, and/or agreements) and in the sense of outside the formal system (gentlemen's agreements, and formal declarations).

 

The term, I believe, is equal opportunity targets.

 

My assertion is supported by my discussions with my army friend. Now it is quite possible that dishonesty on his part, or on the part of his commanding officer(s) is at fault. In anycase. I want the assertion tested. However I am going to request that this be moved to an appropiate thread.

[IDMclean]

When one talks about "fairness" one is talking about agreements. That is when one is talking about fairness, one is talking about formal systems.

 

Formal systems have very clear rules, that constrain the allowable behavior of agents within the system. true that often enough one can simply exist the formal system, though this can and often does require great effort.

 

Take for instance the formal system of society. A person CAN leave the society, and all that entails. However whether they WILL and live long, is another question.

 

Sure you can exist outside of the system, but then the system does not need consider you, excepting for when you interact with the system. At which point you exist within the system.

 

So yes you can take proscribed actions, like dishonest debate tactics, within debate. However the recourse of doing such in a rigorous forum, should be such that the behavior is sought out, and eliminated by re-enforcement of proper behaviors. The rules and the agents supporting those rules, the stakeholders, should discourage those behaviors by implicitly and explicitly placing them outside the enforced system.

 

Take for instance in math. Sure I can make the statement of 3+3 = 10,001. However is this allowable? Sure, informally. However if I am using the agreed upon system, then no. Formally that statement is without merit in the system. therefore is ridiculed and outright rejected by those agreeing to the system.

 

So you can reject the agreement, but then you exist in international waters, and might be subject to extreme opposition.

[Turtle]

My assertion is supported by my discussions with my army friend. Now it is quite possible that dishonesty on his part, or on the part of his commanding officer(s) is at fault. In anycase. I want the assertion tested. However I am going to request that this be moved to an appropiate thread.

 

Your assertion is wrong, and Edella showed that with facts. Request denied. :D

 

Post Script: I suspect it is Clown's intention to use his reply as an example of unfairness in debate, and so appear to contradict the assertion made by my title. The problem with that is I have nowhere made any contradiction of facts in evidence such as Edella gave, nor have I espoused that strategy. Moreover, directing such action at others than me is unlikely to have the desired effect.

 

I have not suggested that one always use, or only use, subversive tactics in debate, rather that such use is relative to a specific context. My dismissive attitude toward Criminal's posts here bear on his specific claims and comments, particularly his initial assertion that debate and battle/war have no conection. Inasmuch as Criminal apparently still maintains that assertion and yet carries on inspite of examples supporting the association, I see no reason to take his arguments seriously.

 

I hope this clarifies my retort. :cup:

[Kriminal99]

Again the lack of connection between debate and war is rather obvious, people debate so war (of any magnitude) doesn't take place.

 

When people get sick of killing each other or want to avoid dying or losing loved ones over stupid or any arguments they talk it out rationally and with an honest intention to come to an agreement. It makes no sense under this system to pretend to talk instead of fight but then lie and manipulate etc.

 

People who do are a disease of society and risk the nonviolence pact, and are the cause of the violence that does occur in spite of any such nonviolence pacts.

 

Those countries (or parts of countries) that have community wide non violence pacts did not do so to promote (arguably) lesser forms of aggression such as lying, but rather to make it so even if you happen to win a fight without being signifigantly hurt or losing any loved ones, you still face the penalty of jail time if you started it.

 

Those conniving weasles that would hide behind this system to avoid physical conflict and yet use all manner of nonviolent coercive tactics are not only not meant to be protected by this system but some states in the US have already moved towards laws which are less effective at doing so. For example where I live in georgia, if a person provokes a fight with someone in any signifigant way, then he cannot claim self defense to keep from being prosecuted for fighting.

 

At first this might not seem like a big deal, but the effects of it are rather profound - If someone has used a fair amount of passive agressive tactics against you and you have collected some evidence, you can attack them and they will probably get in as much trouble as you. Of course you will go to jail too, and it is my personal opinion that scum such as that is never worth getting yourself in trouble for. A similar capability will always exist as long as people have freedom, you can kill people like that but then of course you must face the consequences of society for doing so. So already it just depends how pissed off you have made someone with deceptive tactics.

 

Maybe some day a more effective means of not protecting such behavior will be created. Additionally, educating people more with regards to philosophy and logic will go far to immunize people against this type of behavior. Once this has occured to a certain degree, the remaining people who act in such a manner will become social outcasts. As it is already, the most competitive people in society reject people who behave in such a manner.

 

In summary, the only difference between lying and putting a gun to someone's head to force them to do what you want is that when you lie people can't see the gun.

[Turtle]

Again the lack of connection between debate and war is rather obvious, people debate so war (of any magnitude) doesn't take place.

No it is not 'rather' (a 'relative' term) obvious. Not in general and cetrtainly not specifically in relation to this thread as evidenced by those who support the connection in their posts.

 

[

When people get sick of killing each other or want to avoid dying or losing loved ones over stupid or any arguments they talk it out rationally and with an honest intention to come to an agreement. It makes no sense under this system to pretend to talk instead of fight but then lie and manipulate etc.

It is a disturbing contradiction that you contest the connection between debate and battle and yet consistanly introduce violent imagery. Not all debates arise to prevent violence, e.g. debating the best materials for a construction project.

Additionally, educating people more with regards to philosophy and logic will go far to immunize people against this type of behavior. Once this has occured to a certain degree, the remaining people who act in such a manner will become social outcasts. As it is already, the most competitive people in society reject people who behave in such a manner.

 

An unsupported gross generalisation.

In summary, the only difference between lying and putting a gun to someone's head to force them to do what you want is that when you lie people can't see the gun.

 

Your summary is nothing more than an opinion; moreover, lying is only one of many subversive debate tactics.

[IDMclean]

Alright Robinhood.

 

Robinhood was a terrorist.

 

I hold lying to be immorally subversive. Assuming one follows (agrees to, and practices) formal systems of objective morality, reflectable action, and logic this would be so.

 

The principle of ahimsa is hurt by every evil thought, by undue haste, by lying, by hatred, by wishing ill to anybody.

 

Note that lying is intentionality to deceive.

[sebbysteiny]

The best I could say is that for insurance purposes or something, the US army does not wish to train standard infantry for sniping.

 

Aaaahhhh! How many times do I need to say it? The U.S. Army has snipers!

 

You might want to reread what I wrote. It's actual meaning may surprise you :D.

 

 

 

Dealing with the rest of the post, I think I might help by trying to sum up the issues between Turtle and Kriminal99 in the hope that I can, more often than not, impartially come down on one side at the expense of the other.

 

Again the lack of connection between debate and war is rather obvious, people debate so war (of any magnitude) doesn't take place.

No it is not 'rather' (a 'relative' term) obvious. Not in general and cetrtainly not specifically in relation to this thread as evidenced by those who support the connection in their posts.

 

1-0 to Kriminal99 in my view. I was not sure what you were objecting to here Turtle.

 

The connection between war and debate is obvious in my view. As Kriminal99 said, the only reason we debate things in this country is to prevent actions taken by force.

 

Take the houses of Parliament in the UK, arguably the first debating chamber in the world. The boxes are placed exactly 2 swords length appart. This is to symbolise the power of the sword being replaced with the power of the thinking mind.

 

In war, the person with the biggest weapons and best tactics wins. In debate, the person with the most convincing arguments win no matter what was done to make those arguments more convincing.

 

I have to say, sometimes when I listen to political speakers, not just in backward countries but in the US and UK, their rhetoric often comes very close to violent outbursts.

 

In relation to this post, this issue seems to me to be of critical importance. Unless we clearly know the PURPOSE of debate, I cannot see how we can come to a conclusion as to the legitimacy of certain debating tactics.

 

One other question is, are there any other purposes for debate other than as a means different from war of making political decisions?

 

I think there is one other. Improving understanding between the citizens. This will lead to increased social cohesion further reducing tensions. So debate 1) replaces war, and 2) reduces the causes of war.

 

Are we agreed?

 

It makes no sense under this system to pretend to talk instead of fight but then lie and manipulate etc.

 

1 - 1. Considering purpose 1) Just because debate is a substitute for war does not mean that dishonest debating tactics 'makes no sense'. They help one side win over the other. At least that isn't by dishonest military tactics.

 

I agree though that considering purpose 2) if one wants to improve understanding and come to an agreement, dishonest debating tactics can be a barrier to that. But then again, if the honest side loses many supporters, then an understanding is still reached that people are happy with even if it perhaps is not the most fair and just understanding.

 

It is a disturbing contradiction that you contest the connection between debate and battle and yet consistanly introduce violent imagery.

 

Huh. Why? Surely the merits of a case are independant of the metaphores they use to describe their points. In my view, such attacks aimed at the presentation rather than the substance of the argument are counter productive.

 

Not all debates arise to prevent violence, e.g. debating the best materials for a construction project.

 

2-1 to Kriminal. Your argument, Turtle, if I've understood you correctly, is that dishonest debating tactics are fair and respectable.

 

The type of debating you were talking about was, I assume, political debates rather than fact finding discussions. So is 'Debating the best materials for a construction project', (which seems to me to be an example outside the main thrust of this post), a substitute for war? It depends surely. If it is about who is the leader and who's vision is followed, then it is. If it is simply a matter of constructing a structure that is safe for all, then it is not. Either way, you lose.

 

If it is the former, then it is a substitue for war and your point is wrong. If it is the latter, in which case the very last thing you want is dishonest debating tactics that might fundamentally undermine the safety of those using the structure.

 

In summary, the only difference between lying and putting a gun to someone's head to force them to do what you want is that when you lie people can't see the gun.

 

Your summary is nothing more than an opinion; moreover, lying is only one of many subversive debate tactics.

 

Of course the summary is nothing more than an opinion. That's the purpose of a summary. The real question surely is, is his opinion right? I found the summary useful because I could not really understand the substantive points made before it. If my lessons learnt on English writing are correct, the reason many of your points, Kriminal99, were so confusing is that you used too many 'its, such a manner, this' type words making it extremely confusing as to what you intended those words to attach to.

 

But alas, I don't agree with your summary point. The reason they don't 'see the gun' is because it isn't there. Comparing the act of shooting to the act of lying is completely false. I personally would rather be lied to.

 

My summary. Kriminal99 wins regarding the purpose of debate as a substitute for war. But I saw no convincing arguments linking this purpose to the idea that unfair debating tactics are wrong. It certainly does not follow from any obvious deduction. Without that link, I think Turtle wins overall.

 

So although Kriminal99 is winning more battles, Turtle seems to be winning the war.

[sebbysteiny]

I'll now add my views.

 

I think that no tactic can be described as 'dishonest' if both sides are free to use it. I believe that if both sides are equally armed and equally skilled in debating, the winner will be the one who has truth on their side.

 

If a speaker dislikes being ridiculed and looking like a fool, which obviously undermines the probably quite reasonable points he was making, then he needs to learn how to deal with such tactics.

 

Debating is a job and people should learn to do their job properly.

 

So the real question is whether dishonest debating tactics affect the debate when both speakers are expert debators. I say they do not.

 

But I don't really like debating anyway. I don't think it fit for purpose of finding truth. I'm sick of the way politicions have (quite understandably) developed the skill of ducking and avoiding difficult questions. I myself have been trained to do that during my Israeli advocacy days. I had an answer to those acquard questions, but getting defensive loses debates, so it was more important to duck the issue and move onto a better issue than it was to explain why the issue was wrong as the latter would take too much time and you can only lose when on the defensive.

 

In the end, debating is all about sound biting, and unfortunately, the winner is often the one with the most catchy slogan that appeals to the most commonly shared values even if the real effects are the antithesis of what somebody who has those values would want.

 

In a court of law, however, the judge will simply step in and go 'Mr Blair, will you please answer the question'. For this reason, I much prefer fact finding tribunal style debates where one is not restricted to 2 minutes to explain life, the universe and everthing. Instead, you are given a full and fair hearing and if you can't respond to the questions of the other side, then it falls appart. In a court of law, there is very little room for unfair debating tactics to win the day as the substance is much more important than the style of delivery. The only exception is when one side's advocate completely outclasses the other, but such instances are rare.

 

So what's the relevance of my rant? Really, it's all about my belief that all sides can deal with the reality of debates so any unfair tactics balances out. Further, if you are caught out (eg found lying), your credibility will drop before you can say 'I resign'. And with so many media people scrutinising every word, lying, or being otherwise misleading, is extremely risky. So in this way, unfair debating tactics are often self regulating.

[Turtle]

Dealing with the rest of the post, I think I might help by trying to sum up the issues between Turtle and Kriminal99 in the hope that I can, more often than not, impartially come down on one side at the expense of the other.

 

.

.

.

 

So although Kriminal99 is winning more battles, Turtle seems to be winning the war.

 

Well Sebby, I must say that in my view your reputation deserves a boost for the first part of your reply that I have quoted above. :D

 

As to the last, while in the whole in my favor, I do have contestations. Before proffering them however, I wish to look for some links to validate what I intend to exposit. The game is afoot. :D

[Turtle]

As to the last, while in the whole in my favor, I do have contestations. Before proffering them however, I wish to look for some links to validate what I intend to exposit. The game is afoot. :thumbs_do

 

 

Here is one tidbit I had in mind to illustrate relative fairness, particularly in regard to someone held in high regard.

 

Tesla entered into a partnership with George Westinghouse of Pittsburgh to market the new system of power transmission. But Thomas Edison and his newly formed General Electric Company used every trick in the book to convince the public of DC's superiority.

 

On Aug. 6, 1890, a convicted ax murderer named William Kemmler was set to become the first man to die in the new electric chair at Auburn State Prison. Edison arranged for the illegal purchase of a used Tesla-Westinghouse generator and had it set up in the death house in order to demonstrate the danger of AC. Kemmler died horribly, in what the newspapers said was "an awful spectacle, far worse than hanging."

http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/tesla.html

 

Edison, in his public debate with Tesla & Westinghouse on the merits of AC vs. DC current, also held public exhibitions during which he electrocuted goats, horses, and other animals using AC to try and sway the public from Tesla's AC system. At the time, people went for AC ultimately because it was superior (more economical), not because of disdain for Edison's methods in regard to fairness. (I note neither man attempted to kill the other.)

 

So again, all is relatively fair in love and debate. It depends entirely on the circumstances. ;)