In my opinion, liberty is the freedom to do something so long as you do not deny other people’s freedom to do something. Would you agree, or care to offer a better definition?
~Max
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
Sounds like a good definition to me. I don’t believe what I propose denies anyone else’s freedom.
Good, now we have to define what is just. Would you say that a valid criticism is justified, while an invalid criticism is unjustified?
~Max
In general, sure.
Now then, you will not deny that I have the freedom to express my opinion without fear of retaliation, no matter the source. This is the right to freedom of speech.
Liberty does not guarantee freedom of speech in all cases. For example, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire would lead to physical harm, and would unjustly infringe on people’s freedom of physical safety. Do you agree?
~Max
What does “fear of retaliation” mean? If you mean legal restriction, than yes (barring very rare cases like threats of violence and yelling “fire” and the like). But people are free to respond (“retaliate”) with speech of their own, including very negative speech.
Sounds like you want speech free from consequence of that speech, which is an entirely different thing than freedom of speech.
I know how it is, I’ve seen many conservatives make the same mistake when they, with absolutely no sense of self awareness, claim that we shouldn’t have the right to criticize racists.
No, actually I want to say public debates would ideally have speech free from invalid (ad-hominem) retaliation, but for some reason I can’t think straight and show how this follows from the general principle of liberty.
~Max
If people aren’t free to make “invalid” or ad-hominem criticisms, then those folks don’t really seem to have liberty to me.
Let me try again. Ideally I would have the freedom to speak without fear of retaliation from anyone. That is what I consider the freedom of unfettered speech, not to be confused with the constitutional principle. We don’t have that freedom, but ideally I would have it and you wouldn’t, just like every other freedom.
That’s why we go for liberty instead. I have the liberty to speak, but I don’t have the liberty of unfettered speech because that would mean you do not have the freedom to speak back at me. I have the freedom to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but I do not have the liberty to do so unless there is actually a fire, and I can be imprisoned for that speech. Do you agree with this?
~Max
I don’t think I follow this. Maybe you should just get to the final point you’re trying to make. “Free speech” in my understanding means freedom to say what you want (barring a very few things already discussed) without legal consequence. It doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, such as losing one’s friends or even one’s job (though anti-discrimination laws can protect certain types of speech, most prominently religious speech, from employer retaliation).
Well the point is that you should not be using ad-hominem attacks in the theater of public debate unless there is consensus that you are justified in doing so. And in this case, your calling someone a coward is only possibly justified if the debate were already resolved in your favor - if the war or military action is unnecessary. Therefore, you are jumping the gun and your proposal is assuming the conclusion, therefore invalid and undeserving of support.
~Max
I don’t see why this should be the case.
I was about to write something long, but it turns out my argument still stands without that sentence.
~Max
I don’t see why this should be the case either (depending on what you mean by “resolved”). It should already be “resolved” that starting a war with Iran would be unnecessary (much worse than unnecessary, in fact).
But sir, the entire public debate is whether the war with Iran is necessary or not. The fact that debate isn’t shut down, as it would be for the subject of child molestation or genocide, is evidence enough that the issue is far from resolved.
~Max
That debate is over, for decent and intelligent and informed Americans.
iiandyiiii, am I to understand that you will jump into a debate with the attitude that you are right, and people who disagree with you are indecent, unintelligent, or uninformed? Do you even consider the possibility that you are wrong?
~Max
Not for the vast majority of issues. But there are a tiny number in which the other side are indeed “indecent, unintelligent, or uninformed” IMO. Presumably, you’d agree with me for certain issues - advocacy for white supremacy, for colonialism, for torture, and a few others.
I understand your theory, but it has issues…
*As you stated, not everyone who backs military decisions or those who join the military are able to be “on the front lines” as it were.
*If everyone was on the front lines of the military, there wouldn’t be anyone to cook for them, medically care for them, manage them, or do all the office work that military needs in order to be organized.
*Not all people are suited for “front line” activities, mentally or physically, even though they back the military and those who join. That doesn’t make them cowards.
And the biggest issues with your theory…
*Not all people who apply for the military are accepted. That doesn’t make them cowards.
*Not ALL military positions are actual military enlisted jobs, they are civil service jobs. These people back those who actually DO get enlisted. That doesn’t make them cowards.
My personal opinion is, that the military is a voluntary organization, and those who have the gumption to attempt to enlist are worthy of the backing of those who cannot or don’t. That doesn’t make them cowards.
What about organizations like the USO? They help active troops by providing a “bit of home” as well as entertainment to on-duty personnel out in the fields. They aren’t enlisted military personnel, but they are out there doing what they can to help these enlisted people.
Are they cowards?
Your theory has it’s credits, it also has a lot of “holes” in it.