NationStates Jolt Archive

However, if every medic did this, it would result in a negative scenario.
Just ignoring the fallacy for a bit...who says that every medic would do that?

Obviously there would be medics who want to go, and others who don't. Indeed, if only those that want to be there actually are, you might see your medics perform better too.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice? Do you get off on calling people cowards, when you yourself have come up with a multitude of reasons for not joining the ranks of those in Iraq?

CH! I told you already! I CAN'T BECAUSE OF MEDICAL REASONS!!!! I already CONTACTED A RECRUITER and he TOLD ME that because I was physically diagnosed and was medicated for it, that I am INELIGABLE for military service.

Obviously there would be medics who want to go, and others who don't. Indeed, if only those that want to be there actually are, you might see your medics perform better too.

It is actually that way. It would have been his right to obtain an honourable discharge on grounds of conscience had he handled this differently.

I'll see if I can dig up the regulation. I remember reading about it.

Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/3722812.stm


Lord Justice Rix said Mr Khan would have been fully entitled to seek discharge from the RAF reserve on grounds of his conscientious objection under the terms of the Queen's Regulations and it was mysterious that he had not done so at an early stage.

I love how suddenly it is impossible for a court to be wrong.
If they looked at the evidence, as i'm sure they did, then they are indeed right in this case. Anyone who refuses to follow a legal deployment order deserves what he/she gets.

You are such a hypocrite.

Here the court is infallible. When it comes to abortion ....

CH! I told you already! I CAN'T BECAUSE OF MEDICAL REASONS!!!! I already CONTACTED A RECRUITER and he TOLD ME that because I was physically diagnosed and was medicated for it, that I am INELIGABLE for military service.

ADD does not make one ineligible for military service.

You are such a hypocrite.

Here the court is infallible. When it comes to abortion ....

I didn't say the court was infallible. I said that they were right in this case.

As for me being a hypocrit, you can most definitely believe that if you wish. No one is stopping you from having your opinions.

ADD does not make one ineligible for military service.

According to the recruiter it does since I was medicated for it. I talked to the recruiter personally and that is what he told me.

And I have ADD/ADHD.

CH! I told you already! I CAN'T BECAUSE OF MEDICAL REASONS!!!! I already CONTACTED A RECRUITER and he TOLD ME that because I was physically diagnosed and was medicated for it, that I am INELIGABLE for military service.

Try again, just don't tell them about it. Audie Murphy was turned down a few times too.

According to the recruiter it does since I was medicated for it. I talked to the recruiter personally and that is what he told me.

And I have ADD/ADHD.

http://www.help4adhd.org/en/living/workplace/military

ADHD is not disqualifying per se. Nice try.

By the way, my cousin with ADHD just graduated from Annapolis.

EDIT: And AD/HD is the official name under the DSM IV. ADHD and ADD and AD/HD are all the same thing. There are three types of AD/HD.

http://www.help4adhd.org/en/living/workplace/military

ADHD is not disqualifying per se. Nice try.

By the way, my cousin with ADHD just graduated from Annapolis.

EDIT: And AD/HD is the official name under the DSM IV. ADHD and ADD and AD/HD are all the same thing. There are three types of AD/HD.
Correct you are:

SUBJECT: Medical Waivers- Psychiatric Disorders (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:aBnoQcmGo7wJ:www.rightsite.usaac.army.mil/robo/projects/cc%2520help/psychiatrydisor.rtf+adhd+ineligible+us+army&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=10)

The Adult Psychiatry Consultant to the Army Surgeon General in Sep 01 recommended a change in medical qualification guidance for contracted ROTC cadets who are later diagnosed with ADD/ADHD while in ROTC. This guidance states:


(1) ROTC cadets who are recently diagnosed with ADD/ADHD and are receiving treatment and who are clinically stable should be retained. There is no time limit on the length of treatment that can be provided. Some MSIV cadets in the past sought a diagnosis of ADD in order to avoid commissioning.


(2) ROTC cadets covered in the above paragraph are considered qualified to attend Advance Camp (NALC).


(3) ROTC cadets who are currently receiving treatment for ADD/ADHD and are clinically stable and meet the retention standards under Chapter 3, AR 40-501, should be considered qualified for commissioning and attendance at OBC.


(d) ROTC cadets who are receiving treatment for ADD/ADHD and who also receive any special education services or accommodation at their college/university should be medically disqualified and disenrolled from ROTC.

However, when one refuses to join the army because one may or may not be medically fit to do so, they should be cautious about throwing out insults, such as:

As for Consciencous Objectors, they are cowards.

Therefor, him disobeying the order is one of idiocy and cowardice.

The order was indeed legal and therefor, is punishing this coward.

By disobeying a direct order. That's a sign of a coward.

Apparently, the court that convicted this coward said it was in fact legal.

However, this guy is a medical doctor in the british military. He has a duty to his fellow soldiers to patch them up. He decided not to. Coward.

Therefor, he is neglecting his duty and abandoning his fellow troops there. hence why I call him a coward.

They signed up to do the job and failing to follow orders to go somewhere because they don't agree with it makes them a coward.

If I had a friend who decided to refuse a legal order, I'd slap him and call him a coward for failing to do his duty as a member of the Armed Forces.

His refusal of a legal order makes him a coward regardless if he's decorated or not.

That makes him a coward regardless of his decorations.

Failing to follow a legal order is a good definition of a coward.

By disobeying, that makes him a coward.

However they were legal orders that he refused and in so doing, made himself a coward.

Most of those are from only one thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=477403

Kinda nauseating huh?

Kinda nauseating huh?
It's beyond the pale that those who set such high standards for their fellows should feel it fair to exempt themselves from the scrutiny of others.

It's beyond the pale that those who set such high standards for their fellows should feel it fair to exempt themselves from the scrutiny of others.
Kinda pathetic to say the least. :(

I can't speak for the British army, but I expect that the conditions are similar to what we have in the U.S. When you join the military in the U.S., you agree to be bound by the Unified Code of Military Justice. In other words, soldiers and sailors have rules and regulations to follow beyond what one would expect in civilian life. There's a thing called discipline that is essential to a military. Without it, the military would be as ineffective as a bunch of Arabs.
Thats so racist its not funny. They seem to seem to be effective enough to get the "greatest nation" to go to war.

I think people are much like politicians their beleifs and policies change.

Everyone should have the right to conscience objection.

What if it was your family you were ordered to kill, would you do it on orders?

The last thing you need is a soilder who is against the war.

He did the right thing to refuse to serve in that location, because it was against his convictions.

I think that an alternative would be having some type of contract clause stating that there is a fine for breach of contract.

Why waste a perfectly good doctor for 8 months.

I would if I could trust the person do 'alternate' service. Such as a medical, although sending the man there as part of the red cross may be an alternate form of service...

I think that two things are important. 1. that you understand what you are signing up for and 2. that individuals are not forced against there will to go against their moral convictions.

It would be fair to allow soilders to voluntarily leave the military at any time. This would weed out soilders who arn't prepared to give it their all. They would forfeit their pensions or something of the sort.

Doctors in the military get good pay and benifits too.

Try again, just don't tell them about it. Audie Murphy was turned down a few times too.

I told the recruiter I had it and he said that I was ineligable. That is what the recruiter said. My Lord God in Heaven! I said that already.

I told the recruiter I had it and he said that I was ineligable. That is what the recruiter said. My Lord God in Heaven! I said that already.

Then obviously he was mistaken. Nows your chance to try again. You can ascribe it to divine providence.

Then obviously he was mistaken. Nows your chance to try again. You can ascribe it to divine providence.

Indeed. If he quotes that article above, he's sure to get in; they can't disobey the laws, can they? Then he can serve all he wants and not be a coward and shoot 'dem A-Rabs.

I can't speak for the British army, but I expect that the conditions are similar to what we have in the U.S. When you join the military in the U.S., you agree to be bound by the Unified Code of Military Justice. In other words, soldiers and sailors have rules and regulations to follow beyond what one would expect in civilian life. There's a thing called discipline that is essential to a military.

+1 to that.

Then obviously he was mistaken. Nows your chance to try again. You can ascribe it to divine providence.

Do not mock my faith Nodinia.

And surely "Gawd" can only smile on his efforts to bring "Freedom and democracy" to the benighted heathens.

And surely "Gawd" can only smile on his efforts to bring "Freedom and democracy" to the benighted heathens.

:rolleyes:

He should have got ten years!!! You join the army to fight and take orders not to cry everytime a war comes up.

court marshalled, sure.
Shot? You have to be joking.

There's no conscientous objector clause in the British army?


He's a doctor for crying out loud.

What would he be conscientously objecting to?

Saving the lives of his fellow countrymen and innocent Iraqis caught in the middle?

He should have got ten years!!! You join the army to fight and take orders not to cry everytime a war comes up.
You may want to look at his service record before you claim that he crys every time a war comes up

I have a feeling he has done more tours then you have

Just ignoring the fallacy for a bit...who says that every medic would do that?

Not many medics would do that since most don't want to see their comrades die. Obviously this guy did, however, and you said that he was "right" to do so because he followed his conscience. Would the second medic to do that be right also? The third? The hundreth? The thousandth? There's no fallacy.

Not many medics would do that since most don't want to see their comrades die. Obviously this guy did, however, and you said that he was "right" to do so because he followed his conscience. Would the second medic to do that be right also? The third? The hundreth? The thousandth? There's no fallacy.
Claiming no fallicy does not make it so ...

Besides that it is a rather large leap to assume that this guy WANTED to see his comrades die

But whatever self justification you need

Not many medics would do that since most don't want to see their comrades die. Obviously this guy did...
That's silly. All he said was that he didn't want to take part in a crime. His intention is clear, and it has nothing to do with his comrades.

...however, and you said that he was "right" to do so because he followed his conscience. Would the second medic to do that be right also? The third? The hundreth? The thousandth? There's no fallacy.
Well, it's pretty much the definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy) of one.

And yes, the thousandth would still be acting by his own conscience. Circumstances might change, but the reasons are obviously not malicious, and so I don't see why I need to condemn another individual's decision.

Claiming no fallicy does not make it so ...

Look, if somebody says that if someone does "A", he/she is right, and 1000 people do "A," are they all right? Yes, according to the initial definition of "A" being right. If one medic disobeying orders is right, then why is it wrong for another to disobey orders? The real fallacy is saying nothing is wrong with refusing to obey orders.

Besides that it is a rather large leap to assume that this guy WANTED to see his comrades die

No, I'm sure the idea of his comrades die was morally abhorrent to him, and that's why he refused to take care of them and possibly save their lives.

snip


No, I'm sure the idea of his comrades die was morally abhorrent to him, and that's why he refused to take care of them and possibly save their lives.
If you refuse to learn about logical fallicies its not really my job to teach you ... browse the web sometime on them

Other then that it may very well be morally abhorent to see his comrades die ... it may just have been more abhorent to continue to aid and abed a moraly abhorent cause

That's silly. All he said was that he didn't want to take part in a crime.

Really? I must of skipped the law that said taking care of wounded soldiers is a crime. It doesn't matter if the war in Iraq was a crime (nobody was prosecuted or indicted for going to war, so I fail to see the illegality) or if he didn't agree with the war -- he had to do his duty.

Well, it's pretty much the definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope_fallacy#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy) of one.

No, it's not. A slippery slope argument is saying that "B" will inevitably happen after "A" does. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if "A" is right the first time, "A" will be right the second, third, etc., times. And if it's right all those times, that means that it's right for all the medics to refuse to obey orders. Obviously, that is wrong. There's a logical conclusion that you seem to be missing.

If you refuse to learn about logical fallicies its not really my job to teach you ... browse the web sometime on them

Stop saying that like a broken record player and think for once. A slippery slope argument says that one event will lead to another (if a cow jumps on my house, it will rain tomorrow). I'm saying something completely different -- if an action is correct the first time it is done, then all instances of that action will be correct. However, all instances of that action cannot be correct because they will lead to the army having no medics. Therefore, that action is incorrect.

it may just have been more abhorent to continue to aid and abed a moraly abhorent cause

What's the morally abhorrent cause? Trying to reconstruct Iraq? Trying to prevent Iraq from falling into civil war? Saving lives?

I must of skipped the law that said taking care of wounded soldiers is a crime.
Taking care of wounded soldiers is not a crime. However, if the good doctor fixes up a soldier and that soldier goes out and kills an Iraqi, then the good doctor just might feel that he is an accomplice to an illegal act, in an illegal war. I can see his justification to refuse his future services.

Taking care of wounded soldiers is not a crime. However, if the good doctor fixes up a soldier and that soldier goes out and kills an Iraqi, then the good doctor just might feel that he is an accomplice to an illegal act, in an illegal war. I can see his justification to refuse his future services.

And what if that Iraqi was in turn trying to kill him?

He's a doctor for crying out loud.

What would he be conscientously objecting to?

Saving the lives of his fellow countrymen and innocent Iraqis caught in the middle?

You done two tours of Iraq like he did yet?

You done two tours of Iraq like he did yet?


What does that have to do with anything?

Using that logic people who haven't served as POTUS shouldn't be able to criticize Bush.

Wainwright. That's the Name I couldn't remember. USMC, I guess you need to retract your statements.
No i don't. I know the law that i signed up to follow. I am not allowed to surrender the men under my command unless it is for the utmost importance. The only case where i would even consider it would be if my company was under attack by an enemy tank division. Anyway, if you look at the beginning of the argument, the original idea was that if you signed up were you expected to die if that meant following a legal order. And the answer is yes.

No i don't. I know the law that i signed up to follow. I am not allowed to surrender the men under my command unless it is for the utmost importance. The only case where i would even consider it would be if my company was under attack by an enemy tank division. Anyway, if you look at the beginning of the argument, the original idea was that if you signed up were you expected to die if that meant following a legal order. And the answer is yes.

That is true. Once you sign your name on the dotted line of a military contract of service, you are in essense, signing up to die when called upon to do so.

You done two tours of Iraq like he did yet?
I've done one in afghanistan and have an upcoming 6 monther is iraq and i saw he's not the kinda person that anyone would want in their military. Just b/c you served doesn't mean that you are a god. I met plenty of people in afghanistan that were doing anything but helping.

What does that have to do with anything?

Using that logic people who haven't served as POTUS shouldn't be able to criticize Bush.

Who are you to judge him? As a doctor in war zone, you treat people with horrendeous injuries as a living and obviously that's affected him. He's questioned the war and why British troops are there in the first place.

He's questioned the war and why British troops are there in the first place.

There are good ways to question the war and bad ways. Refusing to obey orders and refusing to take care of wounded soldiers is firmly on the bad side. A soldier can question, but he/she can't question by disobeying orders.

I still think he basically took a gamble and lost. After consideration I think the honourable thing for him to do would have been to resign his commission when war was declared.

There are good ways to question the war and bad ways. Refusing to obey orders and refusing to take care of wounded soldiers is firmly on the bad side. A soldier can question, but he/she can't question by disobeying orders.

Well, the net effect is he is out the military and cannot be deployed again anyway even if it he is going to gaol.

I still think he basically took a gamble and lost. After consideration I think the honourable thing for him to do would have been to resign his commission when war was declared.

I suspect they would have rejected it as getting new recruits in an environment knowing an unpopular war is going to happen is hard.

Who are you to judge him? As a doctor in war zone, you treat people with horrendeous injuries as a living and obviously that's affected him. He's questioned the war and why British troops are there in the first place.


Who am I to judge him?



How is that even relevant to this discussion?

If he's so upset and affected by all the injuries he should want to go to Iraq in order to help save lives.

I still think he basically took a gamble and lost. After consideration I think the honourable thing for him to do would have been to resign his commission when war was declared.

So it is honorable to join the military, obtain the pay and benefits etc. but as soon as you are asked to earn them, you quit. No. If you join up, you have stated that you will serve in times of conflict as required. There is no honour in getting the benefit without paying the cost.

There is no honour in getting the benefit without paying the cost.

He did serve several tours of duty in Iraq, so he did pay the cost.

So it is honorable to join the military, obtain the pay and benefits etc. but as soon as you are asked to earn them, you quit. No. If you join up, you have stated that you will serve in times of conflict as required. There is no honour in getting the benefit without paying the cost.

And there is no honour in doing something you don't believe in.

And there is no honour in doing something you don't believe in.

No, there is honor in doing something even if you don't agree with it. In fact, that's one of the most honourable things you can do. Kind of like Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

I still think he basically took a gamble and lost. After consideration I think the honourable thing for him to do would have been to resign his commission when war was declared.

In this case authorized but I'll agree with this statement.