Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 05-30-2019, 05:28 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm willing to consider any rhetorical tactic that might reduce warmongering. On the face of it, I don't think this one would be effective, because of the incredible prestige (which is ultimately superficial, considering how veterans are discarded after service in so many ways, but still very influential and powerful) our society places on those who volunteer for military service, but I'm certainly willing to consider it.
Don't get me wrong - I don't subscribe to this tactic because I think it's wrong. It also wouldn't work. I feel the same way about what you're suggesting.

In identifying the two separate issues - the character of the person making the case for war; versus the actual case for war, the latter is far far more important. I see the former as irrelevant. Ideas should always be judged on the merits, regardless of who is advancing them. Granted who is advancing them could color them more or less persuasive, but the merits should always win out. Your proposal doesn't do that.
  #452  
Old 05-30-2019, 05:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Don't get me wrong - I don't subscribe to this tactic because I think it's wrong. It also wouldn't work. I feel the same way about what you're suggesting.

In identifying the two separate issues - the character of the person making the case for war; versus the actual case for war, the latter is far far more important. I see the former as irrelevant. Ideas should always be judged on the merits, regardless of who is advancing them. Granted who is advancing them could color them more or less persuasive, but the merits should always win out. Your proposal doesn't do that.
My proposal would be a supplement to merit-based arguments. I wouldn't advocate that my tactic be the only one to engage in -- I favor a kitchen sink approach. "Honorable" arguments + whatever else that might work, rhetorically speaking. It's that bad a situation. I wouldn't be advocating for this tactic if we weren't in dire straits.
  #453  
Old 05-30-2019, 05:40 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'm willing to consider any rhetorical tactic that might reduce warmongering.
You say this - that you are willing to consider any rhetorical tactic. But have you considered that the tactic you are suggesting may be counterproductive to your goals? In that what you are suggesting may increase what you are trying to reduce? It's not always just a matter of trying anything, but some things may make things actually worse. That seems to be missing from your calculus.
  #454  
Old 05-30-2019, 05:42 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
You say this - that you are willing to consider any rhetorical tactic. But have you considered that the tactic you are suggesting may be counterproductive to your goals? In that what you are suggesting may increase what you are trying to reduce? It's not always just a matter of trying anything, but some things may make things actually worse. That seems to be missing from your calculus.
That's possible. If I saw good reason to believe so, I'd gladly withdraw this tactic. It wouldn't change my beliefs about cowardice, but I'd cease to advocate it as an anti-war social tactic.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-30-2019 at 05:42 PM.
  #455  
Old 05-30-2019, 05:53 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's possible. If I saw good reason to believe so, I'd gladly withdraw this tactic. It wouldn't change my beliefs about cowardice, but I'd cease to advocate it as an anti-war social tactic.
This is what everyone convinced of their own plan despite people telling them it won't work always say, and, basically, like you it's impossible to convince them otherwise. Especially since, as you acknowledged, it will never happen on any level except in your own mind or folks who are like minded...so, it will be like libertarians, eternally convinced they are right and it would work, despite any evidence to the contrary, since it will never happen, so no one can PROVE it won't work. Hell, we still have communists (and in fact it seems to be gaining popularity with younger people) despite the vast evidence that it doesn't work. THIS time will be different, of course...

__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #456  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:06 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,852
Come the revolution, comrade...
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #457  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
This is what everyone convinced of their own plan despite people telling them it won't work always say, and, basically, like you it's impossible to convince them otherwise. Especially since, as you acknowledged, it will never happen on any level except in your own mind or folks who are like minded...so, it will be like libertarians, eternally convinced they are right and it would work, despite any evidence to the contrary, since it will never happen, so no one can PROVE it won't work. Hell, we still have communists (and in fact it seems to be gaining popularity with younger people) despite the vast evidence that it doesn't work. THIS time will be different, of course...

So you're saying that because "people" are telling me my plan won't work, I should abandon it?

If so, I'll consider it.
  #458  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:35 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So you're saying that because "people" are telling me my plan won't work, I should abandon it?

If so, I'll consider it.
Why no...I'd be astonished if, at this point you even considered it, let alone actually abandoned it. That was my point. You've been given reasoned (and some unreasoned, admittedly) arguments against your idea, but you persist because you know it's the right thing and nothing can sway you from that. I just wanted to chime back in so you know some are still following the thread, as the responses had narrowed in the last few pages.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #459  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Why no...I'd be astonished if, at this point you even considered it, let alone actually abandoned it. That was my point. You've been given reasoned (and some unreasoned, admittedly) arguments against your idea, but you persist because you know it's the right thing and nothing can sway you from that. I just wanted to chime back in so you know some are still following the thread, as the responses had narrowed in the last few pages.
Thank you for bestowing your wisdom (or is it psychic abilities?) upon me. I may not quite have the intellect to understand your undoubtedly correct proclamations -- surely you have the powerful brain to determine which arguments are correct and which are not, and which posters cannot be swayed -- but despite my incapability in understanding, I am grateful. Unfortunately, apparently as you've put it, I'm incapable of being swayed from my position -- undoubtedly because I lack some of your superior mental abilities -- but good on you for trying!

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-30-2019 at 06:43 PM.
  #460  
Old 05-30-2019, 07:21 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Thank you for bestowing your wisdom (or is it psychic abilities?) upon me. I may not quite have the intellect to understand your undoubtedly correct proclamations -- surely you have the powerful brain to determine which arguments are correct and which are not, and which posters cannot be swayed -- but despite my incapability in understanding, I am grateful. Unfortunately, apparently as you've put it, I'm incapable of being swayed from my position -- undoubtedly because I lack some of your superior mental abilities -- but good on you for trying!
He doesn't need "psychic abilities", he's got 10 pages of you demonstrating it.
  #461  
Old 05-30-2019, 07:23 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
He doesn't need "psychic abilities", he's got 10 pages of you demonstrating it.
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
  #462  
Old 05-30-2019, 09:12 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That doesn't in any way address the question. For instance CarnalK was telling iiandyiiii that he was "the problem" and many other insulting things that fall just short of invoking a moderator's attention. There are some who would take exception to that, and choose to no longer voice their opinion due to concerns of being attacked like that.

Do you think that CarnalK's intent was to get iiandyiiii to shut up?
It was merely a rhetorical tactic. I'm trying to shame iiandyii into stopping his support for the American war machine. Thought it'd be easy because supposedly he's anti-war but I guess sacrificing that pension is too much to ask. Well, hopefully his shame campaign is more successful.
  #463  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:12 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It was merely a rhetorical tactic. I'm trying to shame iiandyii into stopping his support for the American war machine. Thought it'd be easy because supposedly he's anti-war but I guess sacrificing that pension is too much to ask. Well, hopefully his shame campaign is more successful.
And I see iiandyiiii's proposal as a rhetorical tactic as well.

Now, I am on record on my first post in this thread that I don't think that this tactic will work. But, that's my only objection to it. If I thought it would actually be effective in preventing us from building a public case for unnecessary wars, I'd endorse it.

The comparison to advocating for child sex is not off point. I'm not going to start a thread in GD "Should adults be allowed to have sex with 6 year olds?", not only because I don't actually want to discuss it, but because I would rightly be thought of in a rather bad way for even broaching the topic.

You can see the opposite effect with racism. Talking about racist views was just fine for quite some time, and it was prevalent. For a little while in more recent times, racists were shamed if they brought their racist views into the public sphere, and it did seem as though racism was on the decline. Now that it is no longer shameful (and that they have little shame), the public discussion of racist views is on the rise, as is racism itself.

I don't see it catching on in the public sphere. In small groups or one on one, the idea can be used with effect. "We should go blow up those people and take their stuff." "Are you prepared and willing to make any sacrifices towards this war effort?" This isn't really public shaming, but it is a form of "shame", but private. Having your ideals questioned in private, pointing out contradictions and asking them to puth their money where their mouth is, may have some effect. In public, people will have a harder time backing down and reconsidering their views.

As far as people being in the military, I'm fine with that. We do need a standing military, and I'd generally rather have people who are hesitant to use force against sovereign nations than those who are gung-ho to go kick some ass. Having a strong military actually means that we don't *need* to use it. Carry a big stick and all that. Actually using it in unnecessary wars is the problem. Having it, and having people in it, is not.
  #464  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:21 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
I'll add that the best targets for this tactic, IMO, are public figure chickenhawks like Trump, John Bolton, and others like them. Not necessarily from candidates for office, but from partisan attack-dog figures -- I'd like to see a sustained rhetorical campaign of accusations of cowardice against these figures just like there was a sustained rhetorical campaign of accusations of corruption and dishonesty against Hillary Clinton. From radio, print media, TV talking heads, social media gurus, etc.
  #465  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:33 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I thought he was pretty clear about it being about wars of choice (profit).
I believe your thought is contradicted by this line 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!).
(My bolding)
  #466  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:35 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I believe your thought is contradicted by this line from the OP:


(My bolding)
My personal feelings about cowardice covers both necessary and unnecessary wars. My feelings about using this as a rhetorical tactic to influence policy is about the unnecessary wars. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this clear if I haven't before.
  #467  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:41 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
As far as people being in the military, I'm fine with that. We do need a standing military, and I'd generally rather have people who are hesitant to use force against sovereign nations than those who are gung-ho to go kick some ass. Having a strong military actually means that we don't *need* to use it. Carry a big stick and all that. Actually using it in unnecessary wars is the problem. Having it, and having people in it, is not.
The U.S. military is designed to project power and be an interventionist force worldwide. Some would say that's a good thing for the world order but it's precisely this design that makes optional wars so tempting and easy to implement. If you are against optional wars, you should be against the structure of the U.S. military and I would think morally obliged not to aid its function. If the reserves were only called up for actual emergencies, rather than say occupying Iraq, then joining the reserves would be defensible. But that isn't the case.

In short, being part of an organization that's main function is projecting power worldwide is incompatible with an antiwar morality.

Last edited by CarnalK; 05-31-2019 at 09:44 AM.
  #468  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:46 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I'll add that the best targets for this tactic, IMO, are public figure chickenhawks like Trump, John Bolton, and others like them. Not necessarily from candidates for office, but from partisan attack-dog figures -- I'd like to see a sustained rhetorical campaign of accusations of cowardice against these figures just like there was a sustained rhetorical campaign of accusations of corruption and dishonesty against Hillary Clinton. From radio, print media, TV talking heads, social media gurus, etc.
Downside of that is that those people are not really your description of able bodied men able to go to war.

You ask Bolton if he'll pick up a rifle and go fight with the troops that he is sending, and he can rightly remind you that he's an old man that would just get in the way.

"I would go fight, but my fighting days are past. " Even if he never had any fighting days in his past.
  #469  
Old 05-31-2019, 09:53 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The U.S. military is designed to project power and be an interventionist force worldwide. Some would say that's a good thing for the world order but it's precisely this design that makes optional wars so tempting and easy to implement. If you are against optional wars, you should be against the structure of the U.S. military and I would think morally obliged not to aid its function. If the reserves were only called up for actual emergencies, rather than say occupying Iraq, then joining the reserves would be defensible. But that isn't the case.

In short, being part of an organization that's main function is projecting power worldwide is incompatible with an antiwar morality.
Ah, the ol' "I couldn't avoid the temptation" defense. Always a good idea to blame it on the ones who tempt you to sin, rather than the sinner.

Now, to be fair, I considered joining the military, as it was the only way I could see I could pay for college, but I ended up choosing not too, partly because I'm not a fan of authority figures, but also largely because I don't want to ever have to kill someone, and joining the military seemed to be something that would increase the chances that I would have to kill someone.

But, that is where quite a bit of this "volunteer" army comes from. From people who see no options for advancement above flipping burgers.

Do you feel the same way about iiandyiiii drawing a paycheck from being a part of the military industrial complex as someone who works for GE or Boeing? How about a company that supplies parts to GE or Boening? What about the miners who mine the material that gets smelted and refined into parts that GE or Boening use to make weapons and weapon delivery systems?
  #470  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:01 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
It's not a defense and I have no idea why you would think I was making a defense. I'm describing reality.

I have no problem with some kid joining the army to avoid flipping burgers. If he calls himself antiwar though, he's full of shit.
  #471  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:06 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Downside of that is that those people are not really your description of able bodied men able to go to war.



You ask Bolton if he'll pick up a rifle and go fight with the troops that he is sending, and he can rightly remind you that he's an old man that would just get in the way.



"I would go fight, but my fighting days are past. " Even if he never had any fighting days in his past.
Bolton and Trump are chickenhawks (and cowards) because of past actions, not because they don't currently serve in the military, IMO.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #472  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:21 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's not a defense and I have no idea why you would think I was making a defense. I'm describing reality.
I thought you seemed to be defending the advocates for war based on the idea that having people in the military "makes optional wars so tempting and easy to implement". That having people in the military is the bigger problem than people advocating to send that military in to break things and kill people.

If that is not what you meant, I apologize for the miscommunication, but then I must admit that I am not able to grasp what it *is* that you meant.
Quote:

I have no problem with some kid joining the army to avoid flipping burgers. If he calls himself antiwar though, he's full of shit.
I would agree that a pacifist joining the military for a college degree would be full of shit, but being anti-unnecessary-war doesn't make you pacifist.
  #473  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:33 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
I can't understand the confusion. The U.S. military is set up to quickly put damage anywhere in the world, thus it's easy for a political faction with a bug up its ass to quickly start damaging something elsewhere in the world. Just like you're more likely to wash sheets if you have a washing machine rather than having to do it by hand. If you thought people wash sheets too much and they are killing the environment, then maybe you shouldn't work for Maytag?

Last edited by CarnalK; 05-31-2019 at 10:36 AM.
  #474  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:35 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I can't understand the confusion. The U.S. military is set up to quickly put damage anywhere in the world, thus it's easy for a political faction with a bug up its ass to quickly start damaging something elsewhere in the world. Just like you're more likely to wash sheets if you have a washing machine rather than having to do it by hand. If you thought people wash sheets to much and they are killing the environment, then maybe you shouldn't work for Maytag?
Do you feel that the US nuclear stockpile works as a deterrent against nuclear war, or as a temptation into it?
  #475  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:45 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Well, the US started the game rolling on nukes, so it is a little bit of whitewashing to describe it entirely as a deterrent driven strategy but sure, it was a deterrent. But the MAD theory behind the nuclear arsenal really has little to do with the strategy, scope and practice of American non-nuclear forces.
  #476  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Whether it's relevant or not, I do believe the US military should be significantly smaller.
  #477  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:58 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Whether it's relevant or not, I do believe the US military should be significantly smaller.
Lol, yeah that's relevant. You really think the military could be as big as it was if people like you actually stood by their principles? If everyone who thought "I want to defend my country but I don't want to be in optional wars" merely waited for the country to be threatened before they joined the military, don't you think that would have an effect?
  #478  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:00 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, the US started the game rolling on nukes, so it is a little bit of whitewashing to describe it entirely as a deterrent driven strategy but sure, it was a deterrent. But the MAD theory behind the nuclear arsenal really has little to do with the strategy, scope and practice of American non-nuclear forces.
If we hadn't gotten the ball rolling on that, then someone would have, and I'm not upset that we were the first ones to play with them. I think that others may have used them even more responsibly.

But, as to MAD, it's not exactly *mutually* assured destruction if we go to conventional war with another country, it's just *their* assured destruction (other than nuclear powers, which goes back to MAD). This does have the effect of keeping the peace across the world a bit. And, the post WWII period has been one of the least violent times in history, so I would say that it does work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Whether it's relevant or not, I do believe the US military should be significantly smaller.
Our military does a number of things that are not in the killing people and breaking things categories, and I wouldn't mind having a large force that does these other things.
  #479  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:03 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Now, I am on record on my first post in this thread that I don't think that this tactic will work. But, that's my only objection to it. If I thought it would actually be effective in preventing us from building a public case for unnecessary wars, I'd endorse it.

The comparison to advocating for child sex is not off point. I'm not going to start a thread in GD "Should adults be allowed to have sex with 6 year olds?", not only because I don't actually want to discuss it, but because I would rightly be thought of in a rather bad way for even broaching the topic.
You would agree that there’s a range of military actions that range from necessary to unnecessary, correct? If Canada starts genocidal killing of all its French speakers, I believe we’d all be pretty appalled. I would support expelling Canada from NATO and then the remaining NATO nations, including the US and UK, banding together to stop the genocide through military action. Going to the other extreme, I would oppose a US invasion to take over the Alberta oil fields. Military action supporting the Syrian rebellion against the Assad regime is going to fall somewhere in the middle.

Suppose a young, able-bodied person is opposed to the hypothetical Canadian genocide, but feels they have no military aptitude. Should they be allowed to oppose it without being subject to social shaming, or not? Now move to the military action in Syria. Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, including children. Pretty horrific right? Is it okay to support airstrikes to discourage chemical weapons attacks? Part of the rebellion against Assad came from the Kurds, who are allies of the US. The US conducted military actions in support of the Kurds, including air strikes and on-the-ground support. Is it okay to support backing up US allies in opposition to a murderous regime? Increase the level of military action and support and you’re going to reach a point where I think the US use of military force would be going too far. I don’t think a full-scale US invasion of Syria could be successful and would oppose that. However, other people might think that Assad is so evil that the invasion is justified. I think those people are entitled to their opinions, and should have the opportunity to express them without being shamed, just the same as I think someone supporting military intervention against genocide is entitled to their opinion. Ultimately I want everyone discussing and considering the potential outcomes and costs of military action and deciding if the desired outcome is achievable and probable, and if it’s worth the cost. Shaming people into not expressing their opinions by branding them as gutless cowards prevents that discussion.
  #480  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:14 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If we hadn't gotten the ball rolling on that, then someone would have, and I'm not upset that we were the first ones to play with them. I think that others may have used them even more responsibly.

But, as to MAD, it's not exactly *mutually* assured destruction if we go to conventional war with another country, it's just *their* assured destruction (other than nuclear powers, which goes back to MAD). This does have the effect of keeping the peace across the world a bit. And, the post WWII period has been one of the least violent times in history, so I would say that it does work.
So, the ability to beat the living shit out of almost any country in the world is a good thing, world peace-wise. And the fact that the U.S. does indeed occasionally beat the living shit out of countries is a completely disconnected fact for you. OK. Thank you for insightful wisdom.

Last edited by CarnalK; 05-31-2019 at 11:17 AM.
  #481  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:26 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
You would agree that there’s a range of military actions that range from necessary to unnecessary, correct? If Canada starts genocidal killing of all its French speakers, I believe we’d all be pretty appalled. I would support expelling Canada from NATO and then the remaining NATO nations, including the US and UK, banding together to stop the genocide through military action. Going to the other extreme, I would oppose a US invasion to take over the Alberta oil fields. Military action supporting the Syrian rebellion against the Assad regime is going to fall somewhere in the middle.
Building international coalitions is a way to show that a war is necessary and has support. If a country is willing to send its men in to danger, then it can be inferred that that country is making a good faith sacrifice in order to prevent what it sees as unacceptable actions of a sovereign nation.
Quote:
Suppose a young, able-bodied person is opposed to the hypothetical Canadian genocide, but feels they have no military aptitude. Should they be allowed to oppose it without being subject to social shaming, or not?
Do they have nothing at all to sacrifice to assist in the war that they want?
Quote:
Now move to the military action in Syria. Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, including children. Pretty horrific right? Is it okay to support airstrikes to discourage chemical weapons attacks? Part of the rebellion against Assad came from the Kurds, who are allies of the US. The US conducted military actions in support of the Kurds, including air strikes and on-the-ground support. Is it okay to support backing up US allies in opposition to a murderous regime? Increase the level of military action and support and you’re going to reach a point where I think the US use of military force would be going too far.
I think that the more we stir the pot, the more problems we cause, and the worse things get. If someone thinks that we should be firing (very expensive) missiles at infrastructure and people on the other side of the world, and they think that their only obligation is to stand up for the anthem, then they are willing to spend our treasury and ask our people to risk their lives in order to bring harm to others, but not willing to do anything themselves? That's pretty shitty.
Quote:
I don’t think a full-scale US invasion of Syria could be successful and would oppose that. However, other people might think that Assad is so evil that the invasion is justified. I think those people are entitled to their opinions, and should have the opportunity to express them without being shamed, just the same as I think someone supporting military intervention against genocide is entitled to their opinion. Ultimately I want everyone discussing and considering the potential outcomes and costs of military action and deciding if the desired outcome is achievable and probable, and if it’s worth the cost. Shaming people into not expressing their opinions by branding them as gutless cowards prevents that discussion.
I think that part of the problem here is that we are just so used to the idea of others going off and sacrificing themselves so that we can sit on our couches and eat bonbons is so ingrained that it has become normalized. Wars of choice are *entertainment* to us now. We sit and we watch as the smart bomb hits its target, and we applaud and cheer the bravery of our men and the power of our innovations, and then we grab another handful of cheetos.

That the very idea that asking people to be held accountable for their advocacy to send others into war gets such push back, such an anathema to the culture that we have developed tells me that it is not the size or the readiness of our military that gets us involved in wars, but the detachment and the apathy of the american public.
  #482  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:27 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Lol, yeah that's relevant. You really think the military could be as big as it was if people like you actually stood by their principles? If everyone who thought "I want to defend my country but I don't want to be in optional wars" merely waited for the country to be threatened before they joined the military, don't you think that would have an effect?
Possibly. Sounds like it might be worth a thread, if you're interested in actual discussion rather than just points scoring or whatever.
  #483  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:30 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
So, the ability to beat the living shit out of almost any country in the world is a good thing, world peace-wise. And the fact that the U.S. does indeed occasionally beat the living shit out of countries is a completely disconnected fact for you. OK. Thank you for insightful wisdom.
I know people with advanced degrees in martial arts. They can beat the shit out of 99% of the population. Having one as a bouncer means less violence, not more. The fact that they occasionally have to engage in violence is not due to their skills, but due to the nature of the job. If there is someone with less skills, then more people usually end up getting hurt in order to keep things peaceful.
  #484  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:37 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I know people with advanced degrees in martial arts. They can beat the shit out of 99% of the population. Having one as a bouncer means less violence, not more. The fact that they occasionally have to engage in violence is not due to their skills, but due to the nature of the job. If there is someone with less skills, then more people usually end up getting hurt in order to keep things peaceful.
Bull-fucking-shit. I have trouble even believing this is a real life anecdote. I have taken martial arts, met others who have and have seen bouncers who have that as a hobby. In no fucking way do I trust a guy who takes martial arts to be sparing in his use of those skills. Some do but others definitely do not and in fact take bouncing jobs so they can "practice real world".

Last edited by CarnalK; 05-31-2019 at 11:38 AM.
  #485  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:45 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Possibly. Sounds like it might be worth a thread, if you're interested in actual discussion rather than just points scoring or whatever.
Cute. The whole point of this thread is your awesome strategy to score points on the warmongers but we wouldn't want to dilute that with my point scoring on your attitude.
  #486  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:05 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Do they have nothing at all to sacrifice to assist in the war that they want?
What would you suggest? That they go around virtue-signalling about volunteering in the VA to avoid some stranger labelling them a gutless coward? "I support this military action and I am entitled to support this military action because I donated £100 to Help for Heroes."?

Quote:
That the very idea that asking people to be held accountable for their advocacy to send others into war gets such push back, such an anathema to the culture that we have developed tells me that it is not the size or the readiness of our military that gets us involved in wars, but the detachment and the apathy of the american public.
I agree that the American government does not do enough to inform the public about the military actions the US is involved in, the goals of those actions, whether those goals are being achieved, and the costs and consequences of those actions. I also think there's not enough Congressional debate and oversight. There should be a collective responsibility of the entire nation towards military actions, and the aftermath of those actions. So yes, detachment and apathy are problems. However, I doubt you're going to solve that problem by going around calling people gutless cowards.

Last edited by Wrenching Spanners; 05-31-2019 at 12:05 PM.
  #487  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Cute. The whole point of this thread is your awesome strategy to score points on the warmongers but we wouldn't want to dilute that with my point scoring on your attitude.
I will be here, ready for actual discussion, if you decide you're interested enough to start a thread about it.
  #488  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Bull-fucking-shit. I have trouble even believing this is a real life anecdote. I have taken martial arts, met others who have and have seen bouncers who have that as a hobby. In no fucking way do I trust a guy who takes martial arts to be sparing in his use of those skills. Some do but others definitely do not and in fact take bouncing jobs so they can "practice real world".
Maybe you just don't hang out with very responsible people. Yeah, I know some people who are good at hurting people who enjoy hurting people, and I don't spend much time with those sort, but there are those who actually take the shit seriously.

If you say you know people who don't use their skills responsibly, I won't call you a liar. The fact that you call me a liar because I do know people that use their skills responsibly only speaks to the company you keep and the way that it colors your perceptions of others.
  #489  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:23 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
What would you suggest? That they go around virtue-signalling about volunteering in the VA to avoid some stranger labelling them a gutless coward? "I support this military action and I am entitled to support this military action because I donated £100 to Help for Heroes."?
There have been numerous options discussed in this thread. Are you asking for a recap, or did you actually miss them?
Quote:

I agree that the American government does not do enough to inform the public about the military actions the US is involved in, the goals of those actions, whether those goals are being achieved, and the costs and consequences of those actions. I also think there's not enough Congressional debate and oversight. There should be a collective responsibility of the entire nation towards military actions, and the aftermath of those actions. So yes, detachment and apathy are problems.
You have any suggestions?
Quote:
However, I doubt you're going to solve that problem by going around calling people gutless cowards.
I agree.
  #490  
Old 05-31-2019, 02:37 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Social shaming has certainly been used for evil in the past. I'm in favor of social shaming for actual bad things (i.e. child molestation, warmongering), and against it being used for things that aren't bad.

This really just comes down to people's feelings about warmongering. I think it's really, really awful and highly damaging to society. You and some other folks, apparently, do not. That's the source of our disagreement. Unless you think it's wrong to shame child molesters, then it's not about social shaming -- we all appear to agree that social shaming is appropriate in some instances. It's just about whether warmongering qualifies.
No, there are multiple points of disagreement here. First among them is the idea that *YOU* get to decide what constitutes warmongering. Second is the idea that once you have so decreed, you are justified in attacking the character of a segment of the population without any actual insight into that character, based only on an arbitrary criteria of being military or some vague notion of what constitutes "substantial sacrifice." (And you still haven't addressed the problem of numbers or what kind of things you think half the population could do to fulfill your criteria either.)

Finally, I take issue with the notion that there's no difference between the emergent phenomena of social shaming that naturally arises when a large or overwhelming majority of the population holds an opinion (as in your child molestation example), and a campaign to wilfully organize and institute public shaming as a weapon to effect a particular policy goal. While the first is simply a by-product of society itself, the second is nothing more than maliciously hurtful manipulation that you attempt to justify merely by the ends you hope to achieve.

Its callous disregard for the harm it does to the individuals it targets, coupled with the further stifling of public debate by substituting personal attack for any discussion based on merits makes this tactic borderline sociopathic.
  #491  
Old 05-31-2019, 03:17 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAH66 View Post
No, there are multiple points of disagreement here. First among them is the idea that *YOU* get to decide what constitutes warmongering.
As much as I might like to be all-powerful, I don't actually believe that anyone should do something just because I say so.

Quote:
Second is the idea that once you have so decreed, you are justified in attacking the character of a segment of the population without any actual insight into that character, based only on an arbitrary criteria of being military or some vague notion of what constitutes "substantial sacrifice." (And you still haven't addressed the problem of numbers or what kind of things you think half the population could do to fulfill your criteria either.)
I would generally go on a case-by-case basis, and the thrust of this thread has been about personal interactions, not insults directed at broad swaths of strangers. More like in one's day to day life, if they come across these cowardly (in my view) attitudes, then I'm advocating that they call them out.

Quote:
Finally, I take issue with the notion that there's no difference between the emergent phenomena of social shaming that naturally arises when a large or overwhelming majority of the population holds an opinion (as in your child molestation example), and a campaign to wilfully organize and institute public shaming as a weapon to effect a particular policy goal. While the first is simply a by-product of society itself, the second is nothing more than maliciously hurtful manipulation that you attempt to justify merely by the ends you hope to achieve.
This is a thoughtful and reasonable criticism and I thank you for offering it.

Quote:
Its callous disregard for the harm it does to the individuals it targets, coupled with the further stifling of public debate by substituting personal attack for any discussion based on merits makes this tactic borderline sociopathic.
This seems like hyperbole, but thank you nonetheless.
  #492  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:05 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
There have been numerous options discussed in this thread. Are you asking for a recap, or did you actually miss them?
A recap please. The two categories of suggestions I noticed were supporting veterans and monetary payments. Both of which I referenced.

The underlying question, which I guess I needed to make more explicit, is should the people making the alternate sacrifices, or for that matter, the people in the military, parade their sacrifices/service? I'm curious about the determination process of deciding if someone is a gutless coward or not. Does a member of the military need to state their profession before stating support for a military action? Is a nephew in the military sufficient to be in favour of a military action without being called a gutless coward? Is a 1% of income donation to a military cause sufficient, or does it need to be 10%? Will the shamer be asking the hawk a polite checklist of questions before determining if he's a gutless coward or not? (BTW, these questions are directed at the debaters on side with the OP's argument, not you specifically.)

Quote:
You have any suggestions?
None good I'm afraid. My ideal suggestion is to elect leaders who believe in accountability. Unfortunately, I believe that's as difficult as hell.
  #493  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:44 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
A recap please. The two categories of suggestions I noticed were supporting veterans and monetary payments. Both of which I referenced.
Was this your "reference?"
Quote:
That they go around virtue-signalling about volunteering in the VA to avoid some stranger labelling them a gutless coward? "I support this military action and I am entitled to support this military action because I donated £100 to Help for Heroes."?
If so, then that is not a reference, that is being petty about it. Why would you choose to call it virtue signaling?

No, virtue signaling is making a big deal about getting pissy at someone for not standing for the anthem. Helping out returning vets that are injured by the wars that we chose to enter is actually helping. Paying a higher tax that actually pays for the costs associated with war is actually helping. Your "referenced" examples were caricatures of what is being spoken in this thread. If that is what you actually think that we are talking about, then no wonder you are confused. But I have no idea where you would be coming from talking shit about people who are actually willing to support our troops in real ways as opposed to the "virtue signalling" of putting a "I support our troops" sticker on your gas guzzling SUV.

If you really think that that sort of thing is virtue signalling, while interrupting a service member at dinner to say "Thank you for your service" is patriotic, then we are far to far apart to ever come to any sort of agreement or consensus on this, or really any topic.
Quote:

The underlying question, which I guess I needed to make more explicit, is should the people making the alternate sacrifices, or for that matter, the people in the military, parade their sacrifices/service? I'm curious about the determination process of deciding if someone is a gutless coward or not. Does a member of the military need to state their profession before stating support for a military action? Is a nephew in the military sufficient to be in favour of a military action without being called a gutless coward? Is a 1% of income donation to a military cause sufficient, or does it need to be 10%? Will the shamer be asking the hawk a polite checklist of questions before determining if he's a gutless coward or not? (BTW, these questions are directed at the debaters on side with the OP's argument, not you specifically.)
If you need to quantify your patriotism, then you are not a patriot. These questions are pretty much irrelevant to anyone who is actually looking to decrease the number of wars of choice we engage in.
Quote:


None good I'm afraid. My ideal suggestion is to elect leaders who believe in accountability. Unfortunately, I believe that's as difficult as hell.
Of course it is, as they are elected by people who are apathetic and disengaged from the wars we are fighting. If you wish to elect better leaders, but don't do so by starting with the people, then you are just wishing, and as long as you are wishing, could you wish me up a pony too?
  #494  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:52 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
No, virtue signaling is making a big deal about getting pissy at someone for not standing for the anthem. Helping out returning vets that are injured by the wars that we chose to enter is actually helping. Paying a higher tax that actually pays for the costs associated with war is actually helping. Your "referenced" examples were caricatures of what is being spoken in this thread. If that is what you actually think that we are talking about, then no wonder you are confused. But I have no idea where you would be coming from talking shit about people who are actually willing to support our troops in real ways as opposed to the "virtue signalling" of putting a "I support our troops" sticker on your gas guzzling SUV.
Virtue signalling is performing a positive act, and then promoting yourself for performing that positive act. I don't automatically decry the self-promotion, but I do have kneejerk scepticism towards it. I have much more respect for a Habitat for Humanity volunteer that shows up 50 weekend days a year, than a politician that shows up for two hours to gets his picture taken holding a hammer. I admire someone who volunteers to help injured veterans. I don't mind if they want to promote themselves, to virtue signal, if their volunteerism is sincere. But my admiration is slightly higher for the people who do the volunteering and go modestly about their way. What I object to is the idea that the modest volunteers need to do the self-promotion, or face being called gutless cowards.

Also, going back to my original objection to the OP's premise, why is someone who volunteers to support injured veterans more virtuous than someone who wants to build housing for the poor? More so, why should someone who is good at building houses, but poor at nursing wounded people, be forced into the latter because they want to express an opinion about US military actions?

Regarding increasing the tax burden to pay for military interventions, I think that's a sound idea. If a full-scale invasion of Iran is likely to cost 3.7 trillion dollars, I think the American people should know that they're signing up for a per-person average cost of $10,000 to support the invasion. That's part of the collective responsibility that I do support.

Quote:
as you are wishing, could you wish me up a pony too?
I wish for you a pony.
  #495  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Maybe you just don't hang out with very responsible people. Yeah, I know some people who are good at hurting people who enjoy hurting people, and I don't spend much time with those sort, but there are those who actually take the shit seriously.

If you say you know people who don't use their skills responsibly, I won't call you a liar. The fact that you call me a liar because I do know people that use their skills responsibly only speaks to the company you keep and the way that it colors your perceptions of others.
I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying it's massive bullshit to extrapolate from some honorable martial artists you know that we should trust random people trained in violence to be wise in their violence usage. My doubting the reality is only in that if you've met a few martial arts trained people, I have a hard time believing you didn't meet a few assholes you are forgetting to mention.

Last edited by CarnalK; 05-31-2019 at 08:18 PM.
  #496  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:25 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Virtue signalling is performing a positive act, and then promoting yourself for performing that positive act. I don't automatically decry the self-promotion, but I do have kneejerk scepticism towards it. I have much more respect for a Habitat for Humanity volunteer that shows up 50 weekend days a year, than a politician that shows up for two hours to gets his picture taken holding a hammer. I admire someone who volunteers to help injured veterans. I don't mind if they want to promote themselves, to virtue signal, if their volunteerism is sincere. But my admiration is slightly higher for the people who do the volunteering and go modestly about their way. What I object to is the idea that the modest volunteers need to do the self-promotion, or face being called gutless cowards.
Maybe we operate under slightly different definitions. I see virtue signalling as performing a positive act specifically for the purpose of being seen performing that act. Like your politician example.

You know what you do to help out in society, and that's what's important.

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.

If someone is set back by this, then they may think, "Hey, I am asking others to sacrifice, so I should step up my game and contribute something of my own." Or, even better, IMHO, is, "Hey, that is quite the sacrifice that I am asking people to make, more than I am willing to make myself, maybe I will rethink my support for this war."

Public figures and politicians can, IMHO, be called out in public. Their record on what they have done and what they call for is out there for all to see, and they put themselves into the spotlight to be judged and criticized.
Quote:
Also, going back to my original objection to the OP's premise, why is someone who volunteers to support injured veterans more virtuous than someone who wants to build housing for the poor? More so, why should someone who is good at building houses, but poor at nursing wounded people, be forced into the latter because they want to express an opinion about US military actions?
9% of the homeless are veterans, and wars of choice are probably not going to help that figure.
Quote:
Regarding increasing the tax burden to pay for military interventions, I think that's a sound idea. If a full-scale invasion of Iran is likely to cost 3.7 trillion dollars, I think the American people should know that they're signing up for a per-person average cost of $10,000 to support the invasion. That's part of the collective responsibility that I do support.
Maybe we should start a thread on "How to discourage public support for unnecessary wars of choice."
Quote:

I wish for you a pony.
And I'll get my pretty pink princess pony (pony pony pony) about the same time as we get world peace.

[QUOTE=CarnalK;21674363]I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying it's massive bullshit to extrapolate from some honorable martial artists you know that we should trust random people trained in violence to be wise in their violence usage.

I'll happily admit to selection bias. I worked my way through it seems half the bars in Cincinnati while trying to pay for college. (Never as a bartender, I was still too socially anxious for that, but as the best bar back any of them had ever had). I got passed around by word of mouth, and mostly dealt with the better run ones.

As for this, it was not me forgetting to mention, as I did, indeed, mention.
Quote:
My doubting the reality is only in that if you've met a few martial arts trained people, I have a hard time believing you didn't meet a few assholes you are forgetting to mention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yeah, I know some people who are good at hurting people who enjoy hurting people, and I don't spend much time with those sort,
I am not extrapolating anything, I am saying specifically that a bouncer who can perpetuate violence effective but restrains that violence is far more effective than a bouncer who uses violence irresponsibly, no matter the skill.

Like it or not, the US has been the bouncer for Club Earth since WWII. On the whole, I'd say we did more good than harm, but we certainly have done some harm. This proposed invasion of Iran would be solidly in the harm column, IMHO. We are becoming less effective and more irresponsible with our use of force.

I'm not saying that the US is a great bouncer, and I fear that we are becoming a worse bouncer. My point in all of this is that we should be *that* bouncer. That should be our ideal.

So, it seems as though you have answered your question, that of why someone who is anti-unnecessary war should join the military apparatus. When you are talking about sparing violence, if you want utilities to be restrained, who would you rather have involved in the military apparatus, Edward Gallagher or iiandyiiii?
  #497  
Old 06-01-2019, 04:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
Since I assume iiandyiii will follow orders like a good boy, it matters little to me that we have an antiwar cog in the machine that effectively functions like any other cog. I remain rather strongly of the opinion that an antiwar person working for the U.S. military is not letting his morals get in the way of a paycheck.
  #498  
Old 06-01-2019, 04:41 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Since I assume iiandyiii will follow orders like a good boy, it matters little to me that we have an antiwar cog in the machine that effectively functions like any other cog. I remain rather strongly of the opinion that an antiwar person working for the U.S. military is not letting his morals get in the way of a paycheck.
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.
  #499  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Since I assume iiandyiii will follow orders like a good boy, it matters little to me that we have an antiwar cog in the machine that effectively functions like any other cog. I remain rather strongly of the opinion that an antiwar person working for the U.S. military is not letting his morals get in the way of a paycheck.
Another Doper mind-reader! I commend you for your special powers. I hope you use them for good and not evil.
  #500  
Old 06-01-2019, 05:32 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,167
I don't need to read your mind, I'm reading your actions and words.
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 02:20 PM.

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