Song lyric philosophy vol. 2

Hoth · Guitarist Gender: Joined: 10 Oct 2002

Just remember kiddies.

"There’s nothing you can do here so just leave

What will it take
To start all over
Start all over
Is it too late
To start all over
Start all over again"

Code Atom

Silver Adept · Otaku Lord Age: 42 Gender: Joined: 20 May 2003

I counter with Simpson:

"We all fall down now and again"

Tobias · *explodes* Age: 38 Gender: Joined: 17 Jan 2003

whiteypoker · Junior Otaku Gender: Joined: 30 Nov 2004

When Ike ran for president, he was sixty two. He was not elected on his ability to fight, granted he may have been an excellent soldier. The reason for his election seems to be that he was an amazing leader and had a genuine concern for world well being. I'm not saying he was or wasn't a good president, nor am I saying that the US should or should not have elected him. This is all moot since the discussion is of economical values.

We'll assume for a second that a 62 year old man is better suited to be a soldier than a 21 year old. It is still Socially inefficient to send Ike to war because he possess skills, leadership abilities, and experience that make his intellectual input more valuable than his ability to kill people in close quater combat.

Look at it this way:

If Ike or a soldier dies in combat, what have we as a nation lost?

Ike- A General with war experience
A man multiple nations can trust
A man that has the leadership to lead a country
A militarty stratigist
A soldier

Soldier- A soldier

Why risk having that brain power shot to hell when people with less valuable resources can stand in his place?

Excel Zero · Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:44 pm Post subject:

So in a sense you're saying that one should be judged on only one aspect o his character? We might have found him to be an amazing solider and we might have found someone even better as a president.

End of line

Excel

whiteypoker · Junior Otaku Gender: Joined: 30 Nov 2004

Not necessarily by his character, but by his unique and valuable abilities. It is entirely possible that Ike could have been the greatest soldier since Audy Murphy, but the stratigic and intellectual benefit lost, should he get shot in war, would surpass the benefit of a most extrordinary soldier.

It is also arguable, as you brought up, that the possibility remains that someone might be a far greater leader than Ike. I agree that this is entirely possible and all-together probable. What you have to consider here is whether or not that person is performing a task that society receives a greater benefit from than military leading-say he's a neurosurgeon or cardiologist or some other life saving technician. If the person better suited to lead is not performing a more valued task, it would indeed make sense that Ike is not the person for the job.

At any rate, whether or not Ike is the leader we need is really a moot point. He is better qualified, presumably and therefore less expendable than a run of the mill (poor) soldier who has little experience in life or the military.

Compare it like this...would you rather lose a finger or your whole arm?

Silver Adept · Otaku Lord Age: 42 Gender: Joined: 20 May 2003

It may or may not be wise to send Gen. Eisenhower to the battle lines. That's not quite what I meant - I was thinking more that unless the President would be willing to take up a weapon and put himself on the front lines for a war, regardless of whether he actually could, that war should probably be avoided.

As Simpson puts it: "Most mistakes I make, soon come back to haunt me" (Simpson, From the Rain)

whiteypoker · Junior Otaku Gender: Joined: 30 Nov 2004

ahhh...I gotcha...So, "If I were able and the most efficient choice, I would go to war" is a fair statement of your comment?

Silver Adept · Otaku Lord Age: 42 Gender: Joined: 20 May 2003

No. That's a misinterpretation. It's not a strictly utilitarian statement. There also has to be a belief in the justness of the fighting, one so strong that were he able, the President would take up arms on the front lines and help fight the war, risking himself to the enemy's bullets. If that conviction cannot be reached, then other methods should be sought to resolve the conflict.

whiteypoker · Junior Otaku Gender: Joined: 30 Nov 2004

I was assuming that if Ike had to make the choice to go to war based on efficency, then he would believe whole heartedly in it. Because someone that does not believe in the cause of the war does not fight as hard as someone who does belive, Ike could not say that he was the efficient choice for war.

I think its basically the same thing that you said, I just took into account the emotional aspect when turning it into something logical.

All in all, I think you're right about about presidents that don't believe in the war they start (if such one does exist). In general, it is a good policy to do unto others what you would want them to do to you. Well put Adept.