View Single Post
  #519  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:24 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Congratulations on your well declared victory! Truly, few have declared a victory as resoundingly as yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
PS: Reading post #12 might make you take back your declaration of victory, so I'd recommend avoiding it.
Thanks for the further concession. It was obvious from post #12 that you'd lost the debate, but I thought it was an interesting subject, so was happy to continue it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Well, yeah. That goes without saying. But should the fact that Iím neither physically or psychologically cut out to be a soldier mean Iím morally obligated to keep my mouth shut if the Nazis come back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
IMO it means you should find a way to make sacrifices and contribute, should that occur.
You're granting an exception to someone outside of the scope of your OP and pretending it's an expansion covered within the statements of the original OP. It's not.

Let's be clear. A teacher who's physically capable of joining the army supports a military action that you think is unnecessary. That same teacher supports youth charities with their time and effort. They accept the premise that a US government decision to support a military action requires collective responsibility for all US citizens, and is willing to accept their portion of the collective cost, but thinks their current contribution to society doesn't require any further personal sacrifice. Are you willing to front up to that hypothetical teacher and call them a gutless coward to their face? I highly doubt you'd ever do so. And even if you did so, I fervently believe you'd be wrong.

The above scenario stacks the argument in my favour. The scenario with the person eating bon-bons on the couch going "War Yeah!" does the same thing, just from the opposite perspective. Your basic argument is that you want society to consider hawkishness to be equivalent to being in favour of child sex. You don't actually state where the limits of this hawkishness should be, but state "you are a gutless coward (even if the military action really is necessary!)". I reject your statement. Citizens should have the right to debate government policy, including military policy, freely without being subject to intimidation.