View Single Post
  #533  
Old 06-03-2019, 09:29 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
OK, I'm good then. Since I think voting, paying your taxes, and following the law is enough support for having an opinion on anything.
And if you agree that you truly believe that doing that is enough to support the wars that you want, then great.

On the taxes front, however, I see that we are not paying enough taxes to fund our govt as is. If you want a war, are you willing to see your tax rates go up to fund it?

You can certainly have an opinion on anything. The question isn't whether you can have an opinion, it is whether or not you can, in good conscience, express that opinion in public, knowing the consequences that will come if your opinion is favored, and whether you are willing to accept the burden of those consequences, or if you will allow others to shoulder it.
Quote:

Again, I'm good.
Great, so if someone goes in public, and says that anyone who advocates for the war without sacrificing anything of their own for it is a piece of shit, you will not be offended or ashamed?
Quote:
Vets hike a lot. Many use hiking and nature as a way of recovering from PTSD, and others just like to hike.
Hadn't thought of that, good point.
Quote:
You could use this line of reasoning about literally anything, since vets do all sorts of things.
That is actually what I said earlier.
Quote:
My belief is that your argument relies on faulty logic. I'm all for avoiding unnecessary wars; I think we're in complete agreement there. What I'm saying is that the idea of shaming people who disagree with you because they don't meet an ill defined and fundamentally subjective criteria about "support" is deeply flawed. It presumes to have privileged knowledge, insight into complex motivations, and the moral high ground when none of those things are apparent.
I still believe that you do not fully grasp the actual argument and proposal of using "shame" as a tool to decrease public support for unnecessary wars.

Simply adding the "meme" to the public sphere that advocacy for war without support for that war is shameful doesn't mean that *I* get to define subjective criteria. If anyone is criticizing you directly, it would be friends or family who *do* know what you advocate, and do know what you do to support what you advocate, not me, a random internet guy who doesn't know you from Adam.

The hope would be that the message would be internalized. That when you start considering beating the drum for war, you take stock of what you are doing to support the treasury and lives that are being expended. Some will step up and do more to support our military and returning troops. Some will rethink their position on the war. And some will whine and complain that someone said something mean to them on the internet.
Quote:
I think nearly everyone wants to eliminate unnecessary military conflict.
I don't know about that. If that were the case, then we wouldn't be staring at a potential Iran war here. I see many in public and in civilian life beating that war drum. I wouldn't mind throwing a mute on that percussion.
Quote:
Volunteering for the military or volunteering your time at a VA hospital or any other arbitrary criteria shouldn't be a benchmark to determine ridicule if that person draws the line in a different place than you do.
That is correct, and agrees with my argument.
Quote:
If you go down that route, I will dismiss anything you have to offer in the dialog because you're just promoting vitriol and name calling.
Right, and here we are back at the reason for this proposal, where you "presume[] to have privileged knowledge, insight into complex motivations, and the moral high ground".

I am promoting giving people a reason to think twice about their advocacy for unnecessary conflict. I am sorry if some feelings are hurt along the way if people are upset when they are asked to support what they advocate, as that is not the goal.

There are, in my mind at least, two parts to this proposal. What we have talked about fairly extensively here is about private civilians who advocate for war, but there is also the question of elected officials, political appointees, and public figures who advocate for war.

Do you have any problem with public figures who advocate for war being publicly called out and asked what sacrifices they have made in support of the war?

If you take the story that Nugent told about his draft dodging as true, and he called for war with Iran, would publicly criticizing him be acceptable, in your opinion?