I think if you read carefully, you’ll find that I’ve addressed these holes (at least the ones that you bring up) in various posts. It’s really about contribution and sacrifice. If someone is in favor of a war, but aren’t willing to find some way that involves real sacrifice to make a real contribution, then I think it’s reasonable to criticize them harshly. If they’re young and healthy (and not a single parent) then that generally means joining the military, or at least trying. If they are rejected, then they could find some other way. There are many other paths, for them and others, that involve real sacrifice and real contribution.
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
Ideally we would all be enlightened geniuses who are willing and able to determine and follow the best course forward for ourselves and for humanity.
We don’t live in an ideal world. There will be criticism of points made and ideas offered, not all of them valid, not all of them fair, and there will be disagreement on which of those criticisms are invalid and unfair. The only way to prevent those is to control what people are allowed to say by use of govt force.
I’ll take invalid criticisms entering the public sphere over requiring govt approval of speech any day, thank you very much.
And the problem with that is…
What YOU consider sacrifice and contribution is not necessarily other peoples definition of it.
Perception and definition are different to everyone, and subject to many different discrepancies.
Now, if you are talking about all the snowflakes out there, the arm-chair whiners, and the toddler-tantrum throwing self-entitled millennial’s and such…then yes, I agree with you.
Someone doing nothing more than bitching, whining, and complaining about everything without ever DOING something to change the problems they complain about, or constantly “change their minds” to fit whatever perception they are trying to make in order for people to praise them for their lethargy, and never standing behind anything they preach or say…
In other words, HYPOCRITES…
Then yes, again I agree with you.
As far as running out to a front line with a gun to shoot the opposition, not everybody wants to be in that situation, but does stand behind those who do this for us.
My opinion is that law should stipulate–
all kids who are mentally and physically able, should have to spend one year in a military boot camp after graduating high school. They would at least get a taste of military life, and some may like it, some may not. At least they would have a learning experience and possibly come out with some manners and etiquette skills.
Yup, no rude loudmouths ever come out of the military!
Yes, but I am not arguing that the government should prevent Mr. iiandyiiii from calling people cowards. I am opining that Mr. iiandyiiii should not do so because his name-calling is invalid.
~Max
Maybe a bit rude, especially in certain venues, but not invalid. If someone points at the other side of the world and cries “Charge”, and then goes back to their couch to eat bon-bons and watch the fighting on Fox News, a gutless coward is one of the kinder things I can think of to call them.
Not necessarily for colonialism (whatever that means) and torture. I don’t have an opinion on those issues, just as I don’t have an opinion on an unspecified military action.
By entering a debate with the “holier than thou” attitude you just confessed to, it would seem you debate in bad faith. To then present invalid arguments makes your participation in such a debate more unwelcome. If you do not consider healthy, open debate to be liberty, and vitriol in debate to be counter to liberty, realize that you are denying society the freedom to make an informed decision. In your own words, this is justified because the security of that society is at stake.
Your calling someone a coward accomplishes little unless 1) they are actually a self-conscious coward and quit the debate due to your insult or 2) somebody inflicts or threatens to inflict harm upon them (physical harm, or firing them from their job). You are banking on the chance that their freedom to participate in unfettered speech will be curtailed, and for invalid reasons - you assume that you are right and they are wrong therefore cowards. Is this not a restriction upon liberty?
Can you still deny the pretentious nature of your proposal? Can you deny valuing security over liberty?
~Max
But isn’t it?
The hawk thinks the war is necessary to protect the nation. The hawk pays taxes at the very least and has some stake in the country’s military actions. The hawk has not admitted, or possibly denied that he would dodge a draft. But the hawk has no intention of joining the military.
Without assuming the war is unnecessary, how is the hawk being cowardly?
~Max
If he actually thought it was necessary, he would be willing to make some sort of personal sacrifice in the name of the war.
If he is not willing to make some sort of sacrifice, then he only thinks that it is necessary for others to make sacrifices for the war he wants.
As I said, gutless coward is a kinder epithet than I would use for someone like that.
I have to agree. So many are demonstration such a rhetorical tool would be better off out of their hands.
To make this analogy more complete, just as there are instances where you concede military force might be justified, there are aspects of how society deals with child molestation that are fuzzier and unresolved if you get into the finer details of age of consent laws, sex offender registries, and the available statistical data.
Aside from it being on the correct side of the overarching issue, and while this doesn’t keep me awake at night, I think the public discourse in the states over some of these ambiguities is not very good and could be improved without sacrificing the value of the social stigma. There was a debate last year over sex offender registries. The woman arguing against how they are used was bringing facts to the table. The woman in favor of them was generally relying on emotional arguments, pertaining to the subject. And I do see connection between reasoning that isn’t necessarily based in facts and how risk may be assessed by many in society. The stigma can shut down conversations altogether; if that’s going to happen they should at least give a truthful answer to justify that rather than mythical information.
If it’s possible there can be a connection between strong social shaming and de-prioritization of facts, how might that translate to this discussion? The shamers may be susceptible to propaganda that abandons factual basis for its premises. While I’m no authority, I sense that’s happened for awhile with some anti-war organizations. That probably can carry unintended consequences, some of which might keep me up at night. The truth will set you free. The best reason for military action to be stigmatized is a respect for suffering and the respect for suffering is why, unfortunately, the answer can not always be “no”. I definitely agree, it should been more rare.
I do consider open debate to be consistent with liberty, but so is vitriol. In fact, just about every type of discourse is consistent with liberty – honest and open debate; ad-hominem attacks; cruel personal digs; and much more.
I don’t believe I’ve presented any “invalid arguments”.
Hoping, if I am hoping (and I’m not sure I would be), isn’t a restriction on liberty or anything else. The possibility that a boss might not like something you say, and then fire you for it, is not a restriction on liberty (except for a very few cases that are already protected by law).
As for “invalid”, I don’t plan to call any individual a coward unless I believe I have very good reason for it.
I don’t care about this whether it’s true or not.
Certainly. Our understanding of liberty remains far apart.
I just have to add this anyone and i mean anyone who would support any type of military action based on lies and propaganda needs a quick reality check State Dept. Spox Laughs Off Idea Of Briefings Being “An Exercise Of Transparency And Democracy” - YouTube
“How about a little fire Scarecrow?” This is precisely what I meant when I spoke of people just trying to score rhetorical points.
Interesting that you equate familial responsibility with little more than being a provider. The reason I chose that particular example is because it was one I personally struggled with over the course of my career, and it never had anything to do with being ‘the breadwinner.’ I knew that there would be enough family support that I didn’t need to worry about them wandering the streets with no food or shelter. Being a husband and a father carries its own set of duties and responsibilities that go well beyond throwing food on the table, and I worried that in fulfilling my military responsibilities I risked not being there when I was really needed. I worried about it a lot actually, at least until my kids were grown. Most of the men and women I knew with families did, and I knew more than a handful of people that got out because it was just too hard on their families. I stayed in, but if my luck had gone differently and I *had *failed my family in some crucial way because I was deployed, I would have had to face the certain knowledge that among our 2-million-plus troops there were literally thousands of others who were just as capable of doing that job.
Maybe in your universe service to one’s country is an “automatic win” over someone’s responsibility to their family. If so, good for you and your black and white view of the world, because a lot of us don’t have everything so cut and dried. Personally, I would never denigrate those people who left the service for the sake of their families. Nor would I look down on anyone who never joins up in the first place for the same reason. And I sure as hell would never characterize them as believing they are “more deserving” of staying home.
Let me be as clear as I can be about my position so that whatever argument you make might be one that addresses my actual point of view, rather than taking something from my anecdotes above and building another caricature:
“I judge my responsibility as a mother/father/spouse to be far more important than my responsibility to don a uniform because I think this war is a just one,” is perfectly valid, and has neither cowardice nor entitlement at its core. Neither does factoring in the relative needs of those relying on you when you weigh that choice.
I signed up for this, and so did you and every other person who enlisted post-draft. In a country of 325 million or so, even with 2 million people in the service, there’s no way it could ever be otherwise. Unless you think only the military and veterans should be able to make the decision to go to war, the numbers mean these decisions will always rest in the hands of a majority of people who never chose the military.
The thing is, I don’t pretend to know what drove their choices. I don’t assume they are cowards. I don’t assume they think they are better than the military. While I respect people who serve or have served, I don’t think less of people who haven’t, and I don’t think that’s the only valid qualification for having an opinion on matters that involve war or military action.
Hawk-shaming might be emotionally satisfying, but a far more effective means of stopping dubious military involvement would be Congress growing a pair* and taking back its war-making powers. No troop involvements without a war declaration by Congress except in the direst emergencies (and even then, a war declaration required ASAP).
*of whatever gonads are applicable.
I’d be hopeful that a change in attitude could motivate Congress to do this kind of thing. Rarely, if ever, does Congress lead the public on an issue, in my understanding of history.
I expect to have wood and paper products available for purchase for my convenience but I expect other people to risk their lives as lumberjacks.
I support police and firefighter action but am not willing to participate. I expect my municipal leaders to set wages such that people want to undertake a mutually beneficial trade of money and bennies for labor and danger. I do not support forcing anyone into these positions.
Some day, people may decide it’s not worth signing up to potentially commit violence against whomever the clowns in DC direct them against. But until then, people seem happy to keep signing up and enabling the current system.
None of this appears to address the actual arguments made in this thread, that I can tell. It does repeat a few of the irrelevant arguments made against, IIRC.
Does your expectation to have wood and paper products available mean that you would support imprisoning or even executing a lumberjack who says, “That tree looks too dangerous, I refuse to cut it down.”
Does your expectation to have wood and paper products available mean that you would support imprisoning or even executing a lumberjack who decides that this job is too hard and dangerous and quits to take up basket weaving?
Does your expectation to have wood and paper products available mean that you would support sending in lumberjacks to cut down a tree in the middle of a town or city, with the knowledge that that tree will fall and destroy part of the community, and probably kill a few civilians in the process?
I presume that you do not. If my presumption on this is correct, then you do indeed hold a different set of standards, in kind and degree, of the commitment and loyalty of those who bring you the wars that you want than those who bring you your 2x4’s.
And if he thought it was necessary to go to war, yet unnecessary for him to contribute? Not out of cowardice but an honest opinion that his personal contribution is unnecessary?
~Max