# Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 20, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250 "2019-05-20T19:45:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/341 "2019-05-29T18:08:00Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So then is your assertion that my advocacy is “an affront to free speech” an attempt to “intimidate” me into not expressing my opinion? If not, then why do you get to call my words “an affront to free speech” without there being any harm to my free speech, but my calling other people negative descriptors is “an affront to free speech”? Humiliation. You want to humiliate people into not stating their opinion. From the OP: > [@](#): > > “I believe such cowardice should lead to public shame and humiliation (by society, not law or government). I believe that this would be an effective societal deterrent.” I’m attempting to out-debate you, not humiliate you. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > IMO nothing I’m saying does any harm to free speech… and neither does anything you’re saying. People are free to speak, including being free to call other people cowards, and using this right to free speech is not and cannot be “an affront to free speech”. > > In other words, how can speech possibly be “an affront to free speech”? Intimidation through humiliation, or the threat of humiliation is a form of bullying. Sometimes bullying works. Shutting somebody up by bullying them is denying them their right to freely state what they believe. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/342 "2019-05-29T18:12:24Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Did you read the part in the post that you quoted about supporting his taxes going up to pay for it? Yes. So say the healthy young hawk supports increasing taxes to pay for the war he thinks is necessary, but still doesn’t want to enlist. According to the OP he is still a coward. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Wrenching\_Spanners](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecb155/32.png) [@Wrenching\_Spanners](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wrenching_Spanners)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/343 "2019-05-29T18:15:28Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Society doesn’t get to use force. Society can’t restrict your speech, as long as government has a monopoly on force. And speech isn’t a restriction on speech. That you might get called names isn’t a restriction on speech, any more than suggestions that I shouldn’t call people names is a restriction on speech. Speech does not and cannot restrict speech. So if I get on the train and a young non-white man is singing along to urban or ethnic music, and I say “Stop that \ music you fucking \”, I wouldn’t be attempting to restrict his speech? I’m certainly not going to do such a thing, but I would absolutely categorise such an attempt as using speech to restrict speech. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/344 "2019-05-29T18:16:03Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > Humiliation. You want to humiliate people into not stating their opinion. > > From the OP: > > I’m attempting to out-debate you, not humiliate you. If this is so, I don’t see what it has to do with restricting free speech. “Person X should be publicly shamed and humiliated because of Y” is speech. It’s not a restriction on speech – it’s stating an opinion. > [@](#): > > Intimidation through humiliation, or the threat of humiliation is a form of bullying. Sometimes bullying works. Shutting somebody up by bullying them is denying them their right to freely state what they believe. I disagree. Pro-child-molestation advocates have generally stayed silent through the years because of fear of social consequences (humiliation, social exile, etc.). Same with some white supremacy advocates (although many of those have spoken up in spite of social consequences, of course, and IMO there should be much more thorough public opprobium against white supremacy advocacy). I don’t believe white supremacists have been bullied, nor advocates of eliminating age-of-consent laws. They’ve determined that public sentiment finds their opinions odious and unacceptable, and have learned that there are strong social consequences to advocating for these things. IMO, warmongering for unnecessary wars of choice should be odious and unacceptable just like these other things. Part of that would be treating advocates of warmongering similarly to how we treat advocates of white supremacism or eliminating the age of consent. I don’t see that as bullying. If you see all of that as bullying, then I guess we have different definitions and understandings of bullying. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/345 "2019-05-29T18:16:54Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Society doesn’t get to use force. Society can’t restrict your speech, as long as government has a monopoly on force. And speech isn’t a restriction on speech. That you might get called names isn’t a restriction on speech, any more than suggestions that I shouldn’t call people names is a restriction on speech. Speech does not and cannot restrict speech. Alright. If speech does lead to the use of force, say a vigilante roughs up the cowardly war hawk, you would be against that? ETA: Against the use of force, that is. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/346 "2019-05-29T18:18:44Z")
> [@Wrenching\_Spanners](#): > > So if I get on the train and a young non-white man is singing along to urban or ethnic music, and I say “Stop that \ music you fucking \”, I wouldn’t be attempting to restrict his speech? I’m certainly not going to do such a thing, but I would absolutely categorise such an attempt as using speech to restrict speech. In this hypothetical scenario you’re being a racist asshole, but you’re not restricting speech. “Shut the F up” is not restricting speech. These are just instances of cantankerous (and/or racist) speech. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/347 "2019-05-29T18:19:46Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Alright. If speech does lead to the use of force, say a vigilante roughs up the cowardly war hawk, you would be against that? > > ETA: Against the use of force, that is. > > ~Max Absolutely. And such an act of violence should be prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/348 "2019-05-29T18:20:23Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I don’t think that’s what he is saying, I think what he is saying is that if you expect others to sacrifice , but that you are not willing yourself, then your opinion should not count as much as someone who is. And yet a university professor who has studied social, economic, and political issues in the trouble zones of the world is much more likely to have a useful opinion than someone serving as a foot soldier. That professor may choose not to serve for any variety of reasons, including the desire not to get shot, but his opinion is probably more useful than a foot soldier who doesn’t understand the larger issues. Yes, the foot soldier is putting more on the line, but I want to listen to the professor. So should you. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/349 "2019-05-29T18:23:18Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > And yet a university professor who has studied social, economic, and political issues in the trouble zones of the world is much more likely to have a useful opinion than someone serving as a foot soldier. That professor may choose not to serve for any variety of reasons, including the desire not to get shot, but his opinion is probably more useful than a foot soldier who doesn’t understand the larger issues. > > Yes, the foot soldier is putting more on the line, but I want to listen to the professor. So should you. This doesn’t actually conflict with anything I’ve said. Someone can be very logical, accurate, and correct, and still be a coward, IMO. And such a professor wouldn’t necessarily be a coward – if they’re honorable, then I’d hope they’d make some sort of sacrifice and contribution towards the war effort, which could involve many things beyond simply joining the military. If that professor spent some of their spare time volunteering at a VA hospital, for example, then I certainly wouldn’t call them a coward. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/350 "2019-05-29T18:36:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This doesn’t actually conflict with anything I’ve said. Someone can be very logical, accurate, and correct, and still be a coward, IMO. And such a professor wouldn’t necessarily be a coward – if they’re honorable, then I’d hope they’d make some sort of sacrifice and contribution towards the war effort, which could involve many things beyond simply joining the military. If that professor spent some of their spare time volunteering at a VA hospital, for example, then I certainly wouldn’t call them a coward. Why do you care if they’re a coward, as long as their opinion is valid? IMO, calling the professor a coward is likely to make them less willing to voice their opinion, meaning that we’ll have poorer information when trying to decide a critical public policy. The validity of their opinion doesn’t change regardless of their moral failings. Either they are valid opinions and we should base policy on them, or they are invalid and we shouldn’t base policy on them. _What additional value do you get by attacking the morals of the source in this case?_ IMO, you are more apt to silence valid analysis and end up getting more people killed. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/351 "2019-05-29T18:48:14Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Why do you care if they’re a coward, as long as their opinion is valid? I want to shift society towards being less tolerant of war and warmongering – especially wars of choice. I think this could be one rhetorical tactic that might help make this happen, even if it’s in a small way. > [@](#): > > IMO, calling the professor a coward is likely to make them less willing to voice their opinion, meaning that we’ll have poorer information when trying to decide a critical public policy. > > The validity of their opinion doesn’t change regardless of their moral failings. Either they are valid opinions and we should base policy on them, or they are invalid and we shouldn’t base policy on them. _What additional value do you get by attacking the morals of the source in this case?_ IMO, you are more apt to silence valid analysis and end up getting more people killed. This is a risk and a valid criticism of the rhetorical tactic I’m suggesting. Yes, someone with good input might be less likely to contribute their opinion. I’m willing to accept that risk because currently our society is so accepting and tolerant of warmongering. Basically, I think we’re in dire straits, and it’s very easy to get into dumb wars because of how society views war. I’m willing to accept this kind of risk because it’s so damn important that we move society away from this tolerance of war, lest we repeat the mistakes of the aughts and get into another colossal mistake in the middle east, resulting in catastrophic loss of life and wealth (again). ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/352 "2019-05-29T18:58:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes, someone with good input might be less likely to contribute their opinion. I’m willing to accept that risk because currently our society is so accepting and tolerant of warmongering. I’m not, as I think good information is essential for making informed decisions. And because I don’t share your opinion about warmongering. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/353 "2019-05-29T19:07:04Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > And yet a university professor who has studied social, economic, and political issues in the trouble zones of the world is much more likely to have a useful opinion than someone serving as a foot soldier. That professor may choose not to serve for any variety of reasons, including the desire not to get shot, but his opinion is probably more useful than a foot soldier who doesn’t understand the larger issues. > > Yes, the foot soldier is putting more on the line, but I want to listen to the professor. So should you. I’m sure his opinion is well informed, but if he advocates for sending others out to fight, while not being willing to make any sacrifice of his own, then his opinion is biased because it is his opinion that it is worth the cost that others pay, but it is not worth it for him to pay. That’s really what it comes down to here, is that it is always easier to run up a big bill if you don’t have a part in footing it. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/354 "2019-05-29T19:13:11Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > I’m not, as I think good information is essential for making informed decisions. And because I don’t share your opinion about warmongering. I think that knowing where opinions are coming from is essential to evaluating whether or not those opinions are useful for making informed decisions. And you don’t think that we are too easy to go to war? Without looking it up, name the countries we currently involved in hostilities in. Now look it up. Surprised? Yes, we are too easy to go to war. We are too easy to send people out to go hurt other people in order for those people to do what we want them to do. Some of it may even be necessary, but it is hard tell which are the “good” wars, when so many of our actions do not have “good” outcomes. Even well intentioned actions often end up having some pretty dire consequences. There may be wars that I would support, but until the violence that we are projecting to the rest of the world cools down by a few magnitudes, I’m pretty sure that any violence we beget will only beget more violence. If ending violence is the goal, war is _not_ the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/355 "2019-05-29T19:23:50Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I think that knowing where opinions are coming from is essential to evaluating whether or not those opinions are useful for making informed decisions. Biases are important to consider, this is true. But we expect the military to be controlled by civilians in the US for a reason. Someone not joining the military (or being willing to make ill-defined sacrifices) making decisions on where we deploy forces is a good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t want the military or people who are willing to fight wars being solely responsible for making decisions about going to war. For the same reason I want civilians in charge of the police. Do you want law enforcement policy set by police or people who want to be police officers only? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/356 "2019-05-29T19:29:44Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I’m sure his opinion is well informed, but if he advocates for sending others out to fight, while not being willing to make any sacrifice of his own, then his opinion is biased because it is his opinion that it is worth the cost that others pay, but it is not worth it for him to pay. > > That’s really what it comes down to here, is that it is always easier to run up a big bill if you don’t have a part in footing it. What if the professor pays taxes and is eligible for the draft? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/357 "2019-05-29T19:33:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Absolutely. And such an act of violence should be prosecuted. And what if your accusation of cowardice convinces people to threaten the hawk? If the hawk receives death threats, but is not actually assaulted? Do you decry the threat-mailers? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/358 "2019-05-29T19:38:57Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > And what if your accusation of cowardice convinces people to threaten the hawk? If the hawk receives death threats, but is not actually assaulted? Do you decry the threat-mailers? > > ~Max Yes, that’s also against the law (with good reason) and should be prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/359 "2019-05-29T19:45:28Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Biases are important to consider, this is true. But we expect the military to be controlled by civilians in the US for a reason. Someone not joining the military (or being willing to make ill-defined sacrifices) making decisions on where we deploy forces is a good thing, not a bad thing. I don’t want the military or people who are willing to fight wars being solely responsible for making decisions about going to war. Nor do I > [@](#): > > For the same reason I want civilians in charge of the police. Do you want law enforcement policy set by police or people who want to be police officers only? Once again, police are different than soldiers, but, in that case, I do think that anyone who wants more police presence, but votes against a police levy has little value to their opinion on police matters. > [@Max\_S](#): > > What if the professor pays taxes and is eligible for the draft? > > ~Max Then what? > [@Max\_S](#): > > And what if your accusation of cowardice convinces people to threaten the hawk? If the hawk receives death threats, but is not actually assaulted? Do you decry the threat-mailers? > > ~Max I am against both acts and threats of violence. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250/360 "2019-05-29T20:50:47Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Then what? Then does the [DEL]hawk[/DEL] professor deserve to be shamed? ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supporting-military-action-that-you-are-able-but-not-willing-to-participate-in-is-extremely-cowardly/834250.md?page=19)