Make up your mind. Either I automatically dismiss everyone who disagrees with me, or I don’t.
I haven’t actually done it, so that you’re arguing against me as if I had makes it a straw man.
I said that if someone has an immediate knee-jerk emotional response that precludes them from thinking rationally about the issue, then that is evidence that they’re conditioned to respond that way. Is that not true?
THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS SAYING THAT EVERYONE IS SO CONDITIONED, OR THAT THE ONLY WAY TO ARRIVE AT THOSE VIEWS IS THAT CONDITIONING.
Can you guys read that sentence until it sinks in? You are throwing endless straw men at me because you don’t comprehend that.
My only point in including that line was to perhaps make some people become introspective if they indeed did have that thought-terminating reaction.
Of course. I’m the one that’s been harping the distinction this entire time, and you’re the one claiming that I made no such distinction.
Yes, I know! This is what I’m saying. I have no idea how you aren’t comprehending it.
You are essentially restating the things I’ve already clearly said, and then admonishing me for holding the opposite position, which I clearly do not.
No, you’re the one who lacked comprehension, but that’s fodder for another discussion altogether.
You’re the one who said that if people disagree with you, it is really good evidence that they’ve been brainwashed. Oh sure, your words do allow for some possibility that they may have other reasons for disagreeing. However, the fact that you consider their disagreement to be “a really good piece of evidence” that they’ve been brainwashed means that you consider that to be unlikely.
Weasel words. As I said, you technically allow for the possibility that they have may have some non-brainwashy reason for disagreeing with you… yet you claim that if they do disagree, this is strong evidence that they have indeed been brainwashed. Oh sure, your statement falls short of claiming absolute proof, but you do declare that if people disagree, then we should regard their view with suspicion; after all, they’ve probably had that belief forcibly drummed into them!
I would be doing that only if I said “all people that are strongly supportive of the military are brainwashed”, which I did not say or even imply. I did use the word “most”, and I think that’s true - but that in no way precludes people from having pro-mlitary positions which derive from something other than conditioning.
Of course you can. You can simply say “I believe that we should support the military [to whatever degree] because of [whatever reason]” - if you present a rational argument then you necesarily are already past the unthinking, knee-jerk reaction I mentioned.
I didn’t mean that it has nothing to do with it - but that it’s not an argument or a necesary part of my argument. It makes no sense to dismiss that line and ignore the rest of my post.
It’s useful in so far as it may provoke a moment of introspection as some of the people reading it realized “I did indeed have a completely emotional reaction to the idea”
I don’t see anything in there about “immediate knee-jerk” responses. Nor do I see anything in the rest of your original post addressing knee-jerk responses. You clarified yourself in subsequent posts but don’t blame me anyone else for taking your original words at face value.
SenorBeef, what is the logical way of treating someone who disagrees with your viewpoint? Should we consider their reasons for disagreeing before passing judgment? Or should we state upfront that their views should be held in suspicion; after all, if they agree, then this is surely strong evidence that their way of thinking has been warped?
This is why Odesio has accused you of poisoning the well. He’s right.
It made no sense to include that line if you wanted a discussion. I don’t want to hijack this thread so this is the last I will write about the last line of your post. If you wish to speak more about it, feel free to take it to the Pitt.
Odesio’s words almost exactly echo what I said in that other discussion we had. In that discussion, I said that people can only respond to the words that you actually use. They can’t be blamed for failing to respond adequately to the content of subsequent postings which employ non-equivalent phrasing.
I think SenorBeef raised an interesting point to consider:
If you immediately feel uncomfortable with someone not patriotically declaring gratitude to the military, it’s probably worth examining your motivation.
That’s all I read. Maybe it would’ve been better if he’d added a little nuance for the sensitive people.
No, I didn’t. I said that if people were uncomfortable with what I was saying, that it’s evidence that they’re conditioned. Do you typically become uncomfortable if someone says something that runs contrary to your rationally held views? It’s that emotional reaction that’s an indication of conditioning.
This is entirely of your creation. I did not and do not indicate that people coming to a different conclusion than I do about this issue is an indication that they’ve come to their position through conditioning rather than rationality. I said that an emotional response that intuitively makes them reject what I’ve had to say without considering it is evidence that they’ve come to their position through conditioning.
The key point here is that I’m not at all talking about which side of the issue someone has decided to be on. I’m talking about whether they consider the issue rationally or if they react to it emotionally.
You’re wrong. For example, if someone said that they had absolute faith in the military because dozens of their ancestors have dedicated their entire lives to it, I wouldn’t accuse them of being brainwashed by a modern effort to deliberately breed jingoism.
Really? A +1 post? So you can feel like you’re ganging up on me? Pathetic.
Again, I spoke of discomfort. People shouldn’t react with emotional discomfort with someone who disagrees with them on a position they’ve come to hold rationally. This is different from something like social discomfort from being in the presence of some guy spouting off offensive stuff. I’m talking about having an emotional discomfort with even evaluating the counterargument to a position you hold. That’s evidence that you did not come to your position rationally.
Do you think I’m lying now? You say my position is inconsistent. Am I just making it up? What am I saying now that runs contrary to what I said in the first place?
Again, missing the point entirely. People can state their reasons for disagreeing or state their argument, and it can be evaluated at that point. I have not dismissed anyone’s argument, pre-emptively or otherwise.
I was simply stating that if you were uncomfortable thinking about this subject, you should consider what that means.
[/quote]
You can go ahead and re-state the same straw man a thousand times and you won’t be any more correct. I have not precluded anyone who disagreed with me from having a rational viewpoint.
I didn’t do anything to stop a discussion. People can go ahead and list all of the rational reasons for why they’re super grateful towards the military.
I don’t even know wtf you’re talking about specifically. Certainly nothing I said in that thread could constitute “poisoning the well”. It’s lame to hint at how I’ve been in other threads, especially when it’s just adding more straw men. If you want to bring it up for discussion, pit me.
In absolute terms, I have no idea. In relative terms, I guess I know it when I see it. Instinctively, you probably do as well. If every day were Veteran’s Day and we never recognized others that risk their lives for our safety, I’d say that things were improperly unbalanced. It seems that every football game that I watch involves a thanks to the military. Policemen and firemen are never mentioned. I would assert that relative to policemen and firemen, the appreciation for the military is out of proportion.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Also, keep in mind that while there is a superficial resemblance between police work and military work, during war time, the military has to put up with everyday living conditions that no policeman every has to deal with. And during the really intense wars, like WWII, they get put their lives on the line like no cops have to do.
[/quote]
This is certainly true for some members of the military. But IIRC, only a small portion of the military are in actual combat positions and another small percentage are actually deployed. They deserve recognition for their service. We don’t draw any distinction between those that risk their lives and those that don’t.
I work for an electric company as a System Administrator. When bad weather comes, news crews praise the linemen that get out and get power restored. I would be extremely uncomfortable garnering any appreciation from the public at large for the work that the linemen do. Maybe those in non-combat positions feel the same way. I don’t know.
Some part of me wishes that things had stayed the way they were.
I understand the point that SenorBeef is making. At first, I felt bad about even bringing this question up for debate. I’m not sure where those feeling of guilt originated.
People feign respect for soldiers due to social conditioning and propaganda but most don’t really mean it when it comes to actions – pay, benefits, supporting dumb wars, etc. Republicans try to paint themselves as fervent military supporters but will happily boo a gay one or one who doesn’t support whatever war is going on. Dems don’t soldiers when they do soldiery things like killing, maiming, torturing, making a string of ears, etc.
This was exactly what I was hinting at - there’s such a great social pressure on this issue that people become uncomfortable to even question their own view on the subject. Which leads to emotional and conditioned feelings on the subject rather than ones that were rationally derived, since people are too uncomfortable to even really think about it.
Which, again, isn’t to say that there aren’t rational reasons to be very supportive of the military.
But the conditioning leads to the “You oppose the war? WHY DON’T YOU SUPPORT THE TROOPS?” style of bullshit. Which was the intent behind the people (as mentioned, Fox News among others).
Perhaps that is what you read, but it’s not what he said. If that were all he said, then I doubt that many would disagree with him.
Rather, his claim is that if people disagree with him, this is strong evidence that because of society’s indoctrinatino, these people are blindly devoted to the military and consider questioning their sacrifice to be a “forbidden thought.”
As we’ve been pointing out, that effectively amounts to saying that if you disagree with his view, your rationale for doing so is suspect, and that this is pretty darned good evidence that he’s right.
You are repeating the same thing over - exactly - that I have very specifically addressed. You are wrong. I have provided more than enough explanation as to why you are wrong, so for you to continue on in this way is to deliberately attempt to mischaracterize my argument. You are not being intellectually honest.
You seem to have a grudge against me, so by all means pit me and we can go further with this. Otherwise I’m just going to ignore your misrepresentations about my posts from here on out.
I don’t have any reverence for the military at all. It’s a useful tool that has been used for evil too often for my liking. I worry about the people around me who buy into the veneration.
I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who are vets. And some of them are dicks, & the others know they are dicks. I don’t think not serving makes you a mortal dick, & serving doesn’t make you a saint; so why would I venerate servicemen?
I’m addressing the claim that you originally made, not the subsequent revision in which you retroactively inserted such terms as “knee-jerk” and “automatically.” As Odesio demonstrated, you are now defending a claim which is quite a bit different from the one which you originally posted. Let’s not pretend that the two are logically equivalent.
The addition of such modifiers does not help your case anyway. Of course it’s wrong to have blind devotion to the military. Of course there will be people who reject your claims in a knee-jerk fashion. The same can be said of practically any issue, whether it’s politics or reviews of the latest Muppet flick. The existence of such people does not, by any stretch of the imagination, amount to strong evidence that you’re right. Heck, one could just as easily conclude that they see something you don’t, and that their devotion is therefore pretty good evidence that you’re wrong.
So, blind devotion is wrong. Wanna expand? Do they get the same amount of devotion as people who risk their lives for their country in other ways?
How about being grateful to people who went to Iraq to protect their country, only to find that the war there wasn’t really protecting their country, rather it was costing their country lives and money?
Cool.