Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:37 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You really are of the opinion that there is no discernable difference between Edward Gallagher or iiandyiiii in the way they would carry out a mission?

And, once again, it does come down to civilian leadership. If we have a warmongering public that elects warmongering leaders, we will be at war more often than if we have a more reserved public that elects more reserved leaders.
Of course there's a difference but you're drawing ridiculous comparisons. That dude is a sadistic murdering bastard and in no way representative of average hawkish military members.
  #502  
Old 06-01-2019, 07:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I don't need to read your mind, I'm reading your actions and words.
Well I bow to your superior reasoning capability, apparently of such magnitude that you can predict my future actions with certainty.
  #503  
Old 06-02-2019, 04:46 AM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't see it so much as needing to do self promotion, or be called a gutless coward, but that it is said that if you do not sacrifice something of your own while asking others to make a sacrifice, then you can make your own judgement as to whether or not you are doing enough.

Small groups or friends, where one says, "Yeah, go kick those [ethnic slur]'s ass!", and the reply from a friend being, "And what are you willing to sacrifice for that war?"

The idea, in my mind, at least, is less to call out people, and more to make them think. Less to shame them in public, and more give their friends and acquaintances the tools to shame them in private.
I do realise you're not wholeheartedly endorsing the OP, but with the above bolded statement, you're more or less arguing against it. The OP wants to make the societal view of hawkishness equivalent to that towards being pro-child sex. What you're proposing is so different from the OP, it's barely in the same ballpark.

From the OP:
Quote:
If your proposed military action comes to pass and you choose not to join them, you are a gutless coward (even if the military action really is necessary!).
<snip>
Further, I believe such cowardice should lead to public shame and humiliation

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
my pretty pink princess pony
First you want a pony, now you want a pretty pink princess pony. Geez, talk about moving goalposts!
  #504  
Old 06-02-2019, 10:27 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Of course there's a difference but you're drawing ridiculous comparisons. That dude is a sadistic murdering bastard and in no way representative of average hawkish military members.
You implied that they were the same, just cogs in the machine. I am pointing out that they are not the same, and that there is a spectrum.

Gallagher may be the worst (that we know about), but that doesn't mean that he's that much of an outlier.

Having iiandyiiii's in the system helps to balance things towards restraint against unnecessary violence.

If the only people that joined the military were people who were pro-war, what balance would there be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I do realise you're not wholeheartedly endorsing the OP, but with the above bolded statement, you're more or less arguing against it. The OP wants to make the societal view of hawkishness equivalent to that towards being pro-child sex. What you're proposing is so different from the OP, it's barely in the same ballpark.
The first part was his opinion. One that I do share. That advocating for a war of choice that you could fight in, but don't, means that you are asking others to risk them and theirs so that you and yours don't have to, gutless coward is a kinder label than I would use. This is his personal opinion, and why he is making this proposal. This is not the proposal itself.

The second part is the proposed policy, that people should be shamed and humiliated for this. As far as public figures go, I have no problem with this. Trump is a gutless coward (though saying that is an insult to gutless cowards), Bolton too. Any of the elected representatives or political appointees that beat the drum for war who have never seen, nor have any desire to see, the horrors that a war truly is are gutless cowards, and IMHO, can and should be called out for being so.

As far as private individuals, I don't see that he is calling for them being walked down the streets naked while chanting "shame" and throwing rotten fruit at them. But if we change the mindset so that calling for others to risk themselves while you hold down the couch leads your friends and family to think poorly of you, then this would be effective.

My goal, and I think iiandyiiii's as well, is not to shame or humiliation people, but to get people to think twice about their support for unnecessary wars. I think that that is what some of you have been reading into this, as many have made statements to the effect that it is looking for an excuse to get to shame and humiliate people that we don't like, and that is not the case. The goal is to reduce support for unnecessary wars of choice, and the proposal was a consideration as a tool in that kit to help towards that goal.

Whether that is an effective tool or not is up for debate, (I, for example, am not entirely convinced), but all the projection of motivations as to the purpose of the tool has obscured that the tool is not the ends, it is not the goal, it is simply a means towards an ends.






First you want a pony, now you want a pretty pink princess pony. Geez, talk about moving goalposts! [/QUOTE]
  #505  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:09 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Ok, iiandyiiii is better than a murderous psycho, you got me there. The problem is, we aren't discussing who I would rather have staring at screens for the navy. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of an antiwar person actively assisting the war machine while simultaneously calling for a public shaming of people who support military action.
  #506  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:23 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm talking about the hypocrisy of an antiwar person actively assisting the war machine while simultaneously calling for a public shaming of people who support military action.
I think it would be very interesting, if there were a thread focused on it, to discuss the morality and ethics of an anti-war person (and I'm not 100% anti-war, just anti-war for unnecessary wars of choice, which have been the vast majority of military actions in the last few decades) working for the military, whether in a civilian or active duty role.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-02-2019 at 11:24 AM.
  #507  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:29 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
You implied that they were the same, just cogs in the machine. I am pointing out that they are not the same, and that there is a spectrum.

Gallagher may be the worst (that we know about), but that doesn't mean that he's that much of an outlier.

Having iiandyiiii's in the system helps to balance things towards restraint against unnecessary violence.

If the only people that joined the military were people who were pro-war, what balance would there be?


The first part was his opinion. One that I do share. That advocating for a war of choice that you could fight in, but don't, means that you are asking others to risk them and theirs so that you and yours don't have to, gutless coward is a kinder label than I would use. This is his personal opinion, and why he is making this proposal. This is not the proposal itself.

The second part is the proposed policy, that people should be shamed and humiliated for this. As far as public figures go, I have no problem with this. Trump is a gutless coward (though saying that is an insult to gutless cowards), Bolton too. Any of the elected representatives or political appointees that beat the drum for war who have never seen, nor have any desire to see, the horrors that a war truly is are gutless cowards, and IMHO, can and should be called out for being so.

As far as private individuals, I don't see that he is calling for them being walked down the streets naked while chanting "shame" and throwing rotten fruit at them. But if we change the mindset so that calling for others to risk themselves while you hold down the couch leads your friends and family to think poorly of you, then this would be effective.

My goal, and I think iiandyiiii's as well, is not to shame or humiliation people, but to get people to think twice about their support for unnecessary wars. I think that that is what some of you have been reading into this, as many have made statements to the effect that it is looking for an excuse to get to shame and humiliate people that we don't like, and that is not the case. The goal is to reduce support for unnecessary wars of choice, and the proposal was a consideration as a tool in that kit to help towards that goal.

Whether that is an effective tool or not is up for debate, (I, for example, am not entirely convinced), but all the projection of motivations as to the purpose of the tool has obscured that the tool is not the ends, it is not the goal, it is simply a means towards an ends.
Thanks, this is a generally accurate representation of my position. "Shame and humiliation" is meant to be a tool that might be effective in some instances in order to help make our culture and society less tolerant and accepting of dumb wars. It certainly wouldn't be the only tactic, and it would probably be most effective against public figures -- it's just another tool in the tool belt, rhetorically speaking.
  #508  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:52 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Ok, iiandyiiii is better than a murderous psycho, you got me there.
I think that's the nicest thing I've ever seen you say about another poster.
Quote:
The problem is, we aren't discussing who I would rather have staring at screens for the navy. I'm talking about the hypocrisy of an antiwar person actively assisting the war machine while simultaneously calling for a public shaming of people who support military action.
You see it as hypocrisy, as you make assumptions as to the motives and motivations, and find them at odds as to the other assumptions that you have made.
  #509  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:34 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
I am certainly not making any more assumptions than iiandyiiii as he condemns the gutless cowards.
  #510  
Old 06-02-2019, 12:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I am certainly not making any more assumptions than iiandyiiii as he condemns the gutless cowards.
What assumptions do you think I'm making?
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #511  
Old 06-02-2019, 03:08 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What assumptions do you think I'm making?
You are making the assumption that Trump did not volunteer to go to Vietnam due to his cowardice, but because he was truly physically unfit for duty due to his serious medical condition.

You further assume that Trump's personal Vietnam, sex in the 80's, was not truly the same level of sacrifice that those without the resources to avoid the draft were asked to make.
  #512  
Old 06-02-2019, 03:39 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The first part was his opinion. One that I do share. That advocating for a war of choice that you could fight in, but don't, means that you are asking others to risk them and theirs so that you and yours don't have to, gutless coward is a kinder label than I would use. This is his personal opinion, and why he is making this proposal. This is not the proposal itself.
I want the people who join the military to be people who believe that they can be successful in the military. There are many people who honestly believe they'd be terrible in the military. I think we should trust their beliefs, and they shouldn't be intimidated into joining. There are also people who have chosen career paths outside the military because they'll be more successful in those paths, than inside the military. Again, I think we should respect their judgement.

You seem to be in favour of people supporting the military in other ways than joining, but that is flat out not what the OP says. Regardless, there are hundreds of noble charities that don't support the military. It's great if someone supports the VFW. It's also great if someone supports the local women's shelter, or the youth centre that gives kids a safe space outside of gangs. I don't think the former is any more virtuous than the either of the latter. And I don't think someone should be choosing the charity they want to support based on fear of intimidation of being called a gutless coward.

Quote:
The second part is the proposed policy, that people should be shamed and humiliated for this. As far as public figures go, I have no problem with this. Trump is a gutless coward (though saying that is an insult to gutless cowards), Bolton too. Any of the elected representatives or political appointees that beat the drum for war who have never seen, nor have any desire to see, the horrors that a war truly is are gutless cowards, and IMHO, can and should be called out for being so.

As far as private individuals, I don't see that he is calling for them being walked down the streets naked while chanting "shame" and throwing rotten fruit at them. But if we change the mindset so that calling for others to risk themselves while you hold down the couch leads your friends and family to think poorly of you, then this would be effective.

My goal, and I think iiandyiiii's as well, is not to shame or humiliation people, but to get people to think twice about their support for unnecessary wars. I think that that is what some of you have been reading into this, as many have made statements to the effect that it is looking for an excuse to get to shame and humiliate people that we don't like, and that is not the case. The goal is to reduce support for unnecessary wars of choice, and the proposal was a consideration as a tool in that kit to help towards that goal.

Whether that is an effective tool or not is up for debate, (I, for example, am not entirely convinced), but all the projection of motivations as to the purpose of the tool has obscured that the tool is not the ends, it is not the goal, it is simply a means towards an ends.
The end justifies the means? It's okay to commit evil now, because the evil will result in good tomorrow? Is that really your argument?

Regarding "not to shame or humiliation people", I won't speculate to your goals, but if you're claiming that's not a goal of the OP, you're ignoring the actual statement of the OP:
Quote:
I believe such cowardice should lead to public shame and humiliation
You're also speaking about "unnecessary wars of choice". Is the US support, via military strikes, of the Kurdish forces in Syria an unnecessary war of choice? I believe that's an example of US military force where you'll find people if favour of the action, and people opposed to the action. That's fine. Each side should get their say. The premise of the OP is that the people opposed to the action, assuming he believes it's an unnecessary war/military action, should have their say. People supporting that action should only speak up if they're in or willing to join the military, or maybe make some nebulous sacrifice. I think that premise is fundamentally wrong. Both sides should have their say, and both sides should recognise that society as a group needs to accept responsibility for the consequences of what the government ultimately decides. I'm not disagreeing with your objection towards someone who shirks that responsibility. I disagree with someone who wants a war, but doesn't want to pay for it, or someone who thinks it's unnecessary to fully support veterans dealing with physical or psychological wounds. However, I disagree with the idea that you have to have "skin in the game" to support a military action. And, restating myself, I think it's an affront to free speech to support the concept that it's okay to oppose some given military action, whether you have "skin in the game" or not, but it's forbidden, at the risk of being shamed and humiliated as a "gutless coward" to support that same military action unless you have "skin in the game".
  #513  
Old 06-02-2019, 03:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
You seem to be in favour of people supporting the military in other ways than joining, but that is flat out not what the OP says.
I followed up with numerous posts in which I made it clear that IMO there are many non-cowardly ways to sacrifice and contribute aside from active duty service.
  #514  
Old 06-02-2019, 03:59 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I followed up with numerous posts in which I made it clear that IMO there are many non-cowardly ways to sacrifice and contribute aside from active duty service.
So you're stepping back from your original argument. Thanks for conceding that you're wrong.
  #515  
Old 06-02-2019, 04:03 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
So you're stepping back from your original argument. Thanks for conceding that you're wrong.
Congratulations on your well declared victory! Truly, few have declared a victory as resoundingly as yours.

PS: Reading post #12 might make you take back your declaration of victory, so I'd recommend avoiding it.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-02-2019 at 04:05 PM.
  #516  
Old 06-02-2019, 04:35 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I want the people who join the military to be people who believe that they can be successful in the military. There are many people who honestly believe they'd be terrible in the military. I think we should trust their beliefs, and they shouldn't be intimidated into joining. There are also people who have chosen career paths outside the military because they'll be more successful in those paths, than inside the military. Again, I think we should respect their judgement.
As do I, though I will point out that many join the military for the purpose of paying for college these days. I wouldn't intimidate them into joining, and if you think that that is what is being discussed, then you have most certainly missed something along the way.
Quote:
You seem to be in favour of people supporting the military in other ways than joining, but that is flat out not what the OP says. Regardless, there are hundreds of noble charities that don't support the military. It's great if someone supports the VFW. It's also great if someone supports the local women's shelter, or the youth centre that gives kids a safe space outside of gangs. I don't think the former is any more virtuous than the either of the latter.
I do think that if someone is supportive of war, they should choose something that is actually supportive of the war. If you are against homelessness, and you put your charity time and money into animal rights, then that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Both are noble, sure, but only one has anything to do with what you claim to be for.

That said, there are many, many, many ways to help with our military or the veterans, and many of them overlap quite easily with whatever other charity you may have been thinking of.
Quote:
And I don't think someone should be choosing the charity they want to support based on fear of intimidation of being called a gutless coward.
Nor do I, nor anyone else in this thread, for that matter.
Quote:

The end justifies the means? It's okay to commit evil now, because the evil will result in good tomorrow? Is that really your argument?
Is that what I said? Do you throw this up any time anyone says anything about any sort of means? My car is a means to the end of getting to work, does that make my car evil, in your eyes?

Are you claiming that the idea of asking people to be accountable for what they ask other s to do is an evil act? Did I say anything about "justifying", or any of the other bull that you have accused me of here?

Why would you do that, I wonder?
Quote:
Regarding "not to shame or humiliation people", I won't speculate to your goals, but if you're claiming that's not a goal of the OP, you're ignoring the actual statement of the OP:
So, you are one of those who believe that the goal is to shame or humiliation people, not to reduce support for unnecessary wars?

If you are convinced of your view that the point of this is to shame and humiliate, there is little that can be used to dissuade you from the position that you have chosen to take contrary to what has been posted. I am not sure that there is much reason to continue with this thread, as you have already convinced yourself of the motives of the OP.
Quote:

You're also speaking about "unnecessary wars of choice". Is the US support, via military strikes, of the Kurdish forces in Syria an unnecessary war of choice? I believe that's an example of US military force where you'll find people if favour of the action, and people opposed to the action. That's fine. Each side should get their say. The premise of the OP is that the people opposed to the action, assuming he believes it's an unnecessary war/military action, should have their say. People supporting that action should only speak up if they're in or willing to join the military, or maybe make some nebulous sacrifice.
That's not what he said.
Quote:
I think that premise is fundamentally wrong.
I agree that the strawman that you have build up here is fundamentally wrong, but I do not see how it relates to what was actually proposed.
Quote:
Both sides should have their say, and both sides should recognise that society as a group needs to accept responsibility for the consequences of what the government ultimately decides. I'm not disagreeing with your objection towards someone who shirks that responsibility. I disagree with someone who wants a war, but doesn't want to pay for it, or someone who thinks it's unnecessary to fully support veterans dealing with physical or psychological wounds. However, I disagree with the idea that you have to have "skin in the game" to support a military action. And, restating myself, I think it's an affront to free speech to support the concept that it's okay to oppose some given military action, whether you have "skin in the game" or not, but it's forbidden, at the risk of being shamed and humiliated as a "gutless coward" to support that same military action unless you have "skin in the game".
So, if you are sitting there watching Fox News, and you are watching the build up to war, and you say, "Yeah, lets go get some!", and your friend says to you, "And are you doing anything to help with this ,"getting of some"?" he has just committed an affront to free speech?

That, to me, is a premise that is fundamentally wrong.
  #517  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:03 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If you are against homelessness, and you put your charity time and money into animal rights, then that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Both are noble, sure, but only one has anything to do with what you claim to be for.
People are for and against lots of things. The list of things I support and campaign against pretty much excludes the possibility that I could devote significant time or money to any one exclusively.

Again, you are making huge assumptions about people's motivations.
  #518  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:10 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
People are for and against lots of things. The list of things I support and campaign against pretty much excludes the possibility that I could devote significant time or money to any one exclusively.
There is no reason why you would be asked to do anything exclusively.
Quote:
Again, you are making huge assumptions about people's motivations.
I make no assumptions as to anyone's motivations. What assumptions are you claiming that I am making?
  #519  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:24 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 518
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.
  #520  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:41 PM
Wrenching Spanners is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 518
Quote:
The end justifies the means? It's okay to commit evil now, because the evil will result in good tomorrow? Is that really your argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Quote: Is that what I said?
Yes

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
the tool has obscured that the tool is not the ends, it is not the goal, it is simply a means towards an ends.
  #521  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:49 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Yes
And where did I say *anything* about justification?

My point was that you were claiming that the goal was to humiliate people.

The goal is to reduce support for unnecessary wars.

Just because I said "means towards an ends" does not have anything to do with justification of evil, or even justifying it at all. Just clarifying that that is not the goal, as you were insisting it was.

A screw is a tool, a means to an end to hold a piece of drywall to a stud. If it is an evil screw, it is not justified by its job. But the fact that it has a job to do does not make it evil.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 06-02-2019 at 05:53 PM.
  #522  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:54 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What assumptions do you think I'm making?
You're the one accusing me of fantastical leaps of intuition and mind reading, why don't you tell me what those are first?
  #523  
Old 06-02-2019, 06:34 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
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.

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.
Ahh, I was unaware of rules like this. I thought I was just a guy laying out an idea, and then expanding my thoughts when some other things were brought up. You know, kind of like a discussion -- an exchange of ideas and thoughts. But if these are the rules, then congratulations once again!

Quote:
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.
I'd certainly consider situations like this on a case-by-case basis, as I said as early as post #22.

Quote:
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.
Thank you for your thoughts! I agree with your last sentence.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 06-02-2019 at 06:37 PM.
  #524  
Old 06-02-2019, 06:36 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You're the one accusing me of fantastical leaps of intuition and mind reading, why don't you tell me what those are first?
I humbly withdraw any such accusations. If you think I'm making assumptions, I'm interested in learning what those are.
  #525  
Old 06-02-2019, 06:43 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
What I said was that I'm not making any more assumptions than you. I made some rather reasonable assumptions based on the words you said and the rather realistic assumption that you aren't quitting your job because you've been convinced by my argument. Are you saying you've made no, absolutely zero, assumptions whatsoever about the gutless cowards you want to shame?
  #526  
Old 06-02-2019, 06:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
What I said was that I'm not making any more assumptions than you. I made some rather reasonable assumptions based on the words you said and the rather realistic assumption that you aren't quitting your job because you've been convinced by my argument.
I wasn't aware you were making this argument. Are you saying that it's hypocritical for someone who opposes unnecessary wars of choice to work for the US military as a civilian or on active duty?

Quote:
Are you saying you've made no, absolutely zero, assumptions whatsoever about the gutless cowards you want to shame?
I probably am making some assumptions about public figures like Trump and Bolton (i.e. that they're lying about why they avoided service as younger men), but I'm not sure about any assumptions I'm making about the hypothetical hordes of unnamed cowards. If you think I have, please let me know.
  #527  
Old 06-02-2019, 07:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I wasn't aware you were making this argument. Are you saying that it's hypocritical for someone who opposes unnecessary wars of choice to work for the US military as a civilian or on active duty?
.
Seriously? You've already responded to another post of mine in this thread where I made that specific accusation. Could you tone down the "ironically stupid" tactic? It's bleeding into the non-ironic.
  #528  
Old 06-02-2019, 07:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Seriously? You've already responded to another post of mine in this thread where I made that specific accusation. Could you tone down the "ironically stupid" tactic? It's bleeding into the non-ironic.
I thought you were making it hypothetically. If you are actually making this argument seriously, then I disagree with the argument.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #529  
Old 06-02-2019, 07:21 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I do think that if someone is supportive of war, they should choose something that is actually supportive of the war. If you are against homelessness, and you put your charity time and money into animal rights, then that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Both are noble, sure, but only one has anything to do with what you claim to be for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There is no reason why you would be asked to do anything exclusively.
OK, please explain these two quotes to me. I support a particular military effort - exactly how much of my charity time and money do I need to devote to supporting the military (apparently paying my taxes isn't enough) to justify not calling me a coward? And can you tell me what form that charity time and money would be in to "support the military"? I still want to be able to volunteer with Search and Rescue, building hiking trails, and cancer research.
  #530  
Old 06-02-2019, 11:09 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Ahh, I was unaware of rules like this. I thought I was just a guy laying out an idea, and then expanding my thoughts when some other things were brought up. You know, kind of like a discussion -- an exchange of ideas and thoughts. But if these are the rules, then congratulations once again!
You should have known

Clause B paragraph 4 of the unwritten rules of internet debate clearly state that if you make a proposal, then any consideration of feedback or criticism to change or improve the proposal means that you have lost the internetz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
OK, please explain these two quotes to me. I support a particular military effort - exactly how much of my charity time and money do I need to devote to supporting the military (apparently paying my taxes isn't enough) to justify not calling me a coward?
Well, how much do you think is necessary to support the wars you support? It's up to you. If you hear that there are people out there that think that those who advocate war without being willing to support it themselves are not being well thought of, will you get angry at them because you don't think that they will think well of you because you advocate a war you will not sacrifice for?

It's not up to me, it really is up to you. Shame is not something given, it is something taken. If you would feel shame after advocating for war because someone asks what you are doing to support it, then you know that you are not doing enough.
Quote:
And can you tell me what form that charity time and money would be in to "support the military"?
Whatever form you find best suites your abilities to assist in the war that you want your country to wage.
Quote:
I still want to be able to volunteer with Search and Rescue,
Great, that sounds like that would free up other able bodied individuals to assist in other parts of the war effort.
Quote:
building hiking trails,
Well, we all want things, but part of sacrifice is not getting what we want. Nothing wrong with building hiking trails, but if you want to ask others to go to war, maybe you would feel better knowing that you were doing something that is less of a luxury
Quote:
and cancer research.
Vets get cancer too.

...

It was hard to unpack the assumptions that are made in those questions, I doubt I will go through that effort again, and I would appreciate it if you would make the assumption that I am debating in good faith, and that the goal is reducing support for unnecessary wars, and that we are discussing the effectiveness and practicality of using "shame" as a method of doing so, as well as being open to determine the effective scope and uses of it. The assumption that I want to use this as some sort of way of abrogating free speech or humiliating my opponents does not have any relevancy to the discussion.
  #531  
Old 06-03-2019, 07:50 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Well, how much do you think is necessary to support the wars you support? It's up to you.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It's not up to me, it really is up to you. Shame is not something given, it is something taken. If you would feel shame after advocating for war because someone asks what you are doing to support it, then you know that you are not doing enough.
Again, I'm good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Vets get cancer too.
Vets hike a lot. Many use hiking and nature as a way of recovering from PTSD, and others just like to hike. You could use this line of reasoning about literally anything, since vets do all sorts of things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The assumption that I want to use this as some sort of way of abrogating free speech or humiliating my opponents does not have any relevancy to the discussion.
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 think nearly everyone wants to eliminate unnecessary military conflict. 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. 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.
  #532  
Old 06-03-2019, 07:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
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.
This is another part of the fundamental disagreement -- whether one believes that vitriol and name calling should ever be utilized. I think, in limited circumstances, they can be useful tools -- Nazis (and Nazi-supporters) can be called Nazis; abusers of women or children can be called abusers of women or children; cowards can be called cowards; etc. YMMV, but I think this is a tool that is very frequently misused but still can be useful and effective in limited circumstances.
  #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?
  #534  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:21 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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?
I certainly won't be offended or ashamed, I have no reason to be. I will simply dismiss their opinion as being uninformed.
  #535  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:44 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
I certainly won't be offended or ashamed, I have no reason to be. I will simply dismiss their opinion as being uninformed.
Which you have the right to do, just as they can dismiss your* uninformed opinions about the war you* want.

*ETA: royal you

Last edited by k9bfriender; 06-03-2019 at 10:45 AM.
  #536  
Old 06-03-2019, 10:48 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
I hate to quote myself, but we've talked about the private side of this rather extensively, and I would actually be very interested in your opinion on this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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?
  #537  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:18 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I hate to quote myself, but we've talked about the private side of this rather extensively, and I would actually be very interested in your opinion on this:
Taking active steps to avoid the draft is a perfectly legitimate subject of criticism; public or private. I would extend that to calling someone a hypocrite or supporting their decision, depending on the scenario.

But it has little to do with someone not volunteering for the military. Public figures shouldn't be required to make arbitrary sacrifices in order to justify their political leanings, any more than private citizens.
  #538  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:46 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Yet again, Titletown
Posts: 22,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
Taking active steps to avoid the draft is a perfectly legitimate subject of criticism; public or private. I would extend that to calling someone a hypocrite or supporting their decision, depending on the scenario.
And I forgot to add, even if they are hypocrites they might be correct in their stance on any particular military situation. Being an asshole doesn't mean you're not right.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017