Of the ethicness of Killing Children and its dependence on context.

Now, see, killing children is seen as something horrible, on principle. Nevermind that this is an established old practice and an absolutely essential part of any good old fashioned genocide. Now, what we will be discussing in this thread is the acceptability, in the modern day of killing kids.

Now allow me to show you a piece of fiction that is heavily based on reality, and is treated almost like a documentary in Brazil. City Of God.

[[youtube:hk7JuMMXIiA&feature=related]]

Now, in Brazil's favelas especially, but in many other countries too, children will fucking kill you. They will shoot you with guns, they will stab you with knives, for money, for a bet, for bravado, For the Lulz. That's how much life sucks there. So a kid there is pointing a gun at you.

Apparently, as seen in other threads, in Irak and Afghanistan it's okay for a soldier to gun down a child who is, say, stealing their equipment. Which vaguely reminds me of Kaji's backstory in the Neon Genesis Evangelion manga, Second impact, world chaos, some kids steel food and supplies from a military base, they get found, one of them (Kaji) is captured, beaten up, made to give up his friends, who are captured and gunned down. He escapes in time. Now according to what (EDIT:some elements of) the military section of the troperdom has been telling us, there seems to be nothing particularly wrong with that. Whether such situations might result in guilt trips and PTSD for the soldiers and cost the government in therapy perhaps much more than the stolen equipment, is something left open for discussion.

edited 3rd Jan '11 9:27:47 AM by RawPower

Kids are just like humans, but smaller, dumber, and able to get out of being diagnosed with Cluster B disorders on a technicality. I don't think killing them involves particularly different rules than killing adults. Killing people in general already requires some sort of justification to be widely considered ethically permissible.

My stand: A child who is an active threat to you has forfeited the protection of his (or her) "child" status. A child aiming a gun at me is just as much of a threat as an adult aiming a gun at me.

edited 3rd Jan '11 9:38:26 AM by Madrugada

Obviously, killing children is a bad thing and best avoided, regardless of who the child happens to be. However, sometimes, bad things are unavoidable. Like when you're acting in self-defence against some wild-eyed pre-teen addict carrying an AK as big as she is.

My stand: A child who is an active threat to you has forfeited the protection of his (or her) "child" status. A child aiming a gun at me is just as much of a threat as an adult aiming a gun at me.

A very dumb adult and one you might easily manipulate into giving up if he don't freak out and shoot you first, but...

Anyone remember that scene from Michiko To Hatchin?

I'm not risking my well being for someone pointing a gun at me. At all.

Can you fucking drop it Raw? Shooting a kid is something that you never forget, some folks have real and lasting damage from that, even if said child was pointing a fucking AK at him. It was never said to be acceptable, but in a certain context of aiding the enemy, it is inevitable.

There are child soldiers everywhere in that region of the world. Some shooting AK's and RPG's like the adults, some who provide logistics, many who's mission it is to steal, and even more who's mission it is to spy on us, with the occasional suicide bombers as well.

edited 3rd Jan '11 3:21:48 PM by Barkey

Being an adult male in perfect health I actually find it vaguely offence that women, cripples, children, old people, pets ect should have a automatic greater claim to right of life then mine own.

If a war breaks out I'm going to be a bigger target not because these people are a superior to me, (if fact one could make a reasonable claims that i'm superior to them). But because they're non combatants and I'm a potential threat.

Child Soliders while a tragically are still threats, If your going to let them live on principle while being a Clear And Present Danger then why the hell aren't you doing the same to the the 19 year old with the rocket launcher who just join for health benefits?

edited 3rd Jan '11 5:06:32 PM by joeyjojo

In Vietnam, at least, the VC weren't above using the wounded as forced bombs. My Grandfather, who served in the Korean War, said that the North Koreans would march children, women, and cattle in front of their advancing troops knowing they would be cut down. If this happened, their press reported to the world that we were butchering civilians, but if we didn't fire on them, our forces would be overrun.

He said that it was difficult to do but they had to open fire.

In Vietnam, what is interesting, is that the difference was, at least according to my Uncle, is that the average Vietnamese person didn't care. He told me how a Huey, damaged in a battle, more or less crash landed in a rice paddy and the workers showed no response to it and just worked around the wrecked bird.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Post Thumping

Also, stealing shit from a military force will get you killed quickly.

I know France and Belgian armed forces were pretty much forced to have this level of retaliation because the locales viewed anything less as being weak.

Not to say that Imperialism is right but it was interesting to read about the Americans first experience of North Africa involving the looting of their supply dumps by locals. They quickly developed a "shoot on sight" policy given how brazen the locales came to be.

This post was thumped by the Merciless Hammer of Doom

This post was thumped by the Merciless Hammer of Doom

<Mod Hat ON>

The other posters are not the topic.

<Mod Hat OFF>

Self defence is self defence. Whoever points a gun is a fair game.

I do have a lot of problem with killing defenceless (adult of child - doesn't matter), but someone who is actively trying to kill you certainly doesn't count.

edited 3rd Jan '11 8:51:30 PM by Beholderess

joeyjojo, as an adult female, I'm vaguely offended at being granted some sort of "higher value" as a human than an adult male would have. I could understand it if the situation were such that the genetic imperative "protect females of childbearing age" was a high priority. But it's not in the part of the world I live in.

edited 3rd Jan '11 9:50:39 PM by Madrugada

I don't think you could ever really get over gunning down a kid but if they're going to kill you if you don't shoot back? You don't really have much choice in the matter.

Honestly, I didn't start this thread to admonish you guys, I just want to understand this as throughly as I can from second-hand information. Obviously I won't join a military and wait for an opportunity to shoot some kid just to find out what it feels like For Science!, so I prefer to directly ask. I think this forum is a safe place for you to share your experiences with us civvies, we're much less judgemental or unreasonable than other places in the net, and let's not talk about real life. While we will question you and may not avoid poking where it hurts, we all know each other and we know better than to look down on people just because they see things differently. There's no universally compelling moral argument, and there will always be a mind for whom an argument just isn't compelling enough.

I too am irritated by "Men Are the Expendable Gender".

edited 3rd Jan '11 11:45:07 PM by RawPower

we're much less judgemental or unreasonable than other places in the net

The problem is, it's generally frowned upon to tell war stories. I know I've let a few slip here and there, but asking "hey, how'd you kill this one guy?" is about as tactful and respectful as asking "yo, how many people have you killed?"

... I remember asking both questions. Sorry.

Do you even keep count? Do you have Bad Dreams? Have soldiers always had bad dreams about the people they kill? Is there such a thing as a free, remorseless kill? Sorry, only you guys can answer these questions so I let them hang in the air like this. Imagine It's for a Book.

edited 4th Jan '11 12:16:48 AM by RawPower

Goddamn it. Fine.

Depends on the person. Some do, some don't. Confirmed kills are recorded and a number can be recalled if necessary from your record. True warfighters do not think of this as some Call of Duty high score like civilians seem to. It is very disrespectful to ask how many people they have killed.

Depends on the person.

Depends on the person.

Depends on the person.

Yeah, so basically the point is if a kid's trying to kill you, you have every right to bump him/her off. But really, how many of us are actually going to run into a 5-year-old with a handgun?

13 is pretty common.

13 is practically an adult