Two siblings; one decides to become a soldier, one decides to become a police officer. They have identical viewpoints towards military intervention in Elbonia. Is the soldier entitled to express her opinion because she has skin in the game, but the police officer is unentitled?
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
Everyone is entitled to say anything they like. I would criticize the second if they are able to provide a significant sacrifice and contribution towards the war effort they support but choose not to. The form of that sacrifice and contribution can vary in many ways, but I’d be highly critical (including the possibility of using harsh personal negative descriptors like “cowardly”) of anyone who supports a war, and is able to provide some significant sacrifice and contribution, but chooses not to.
And I will completely ignore that criticism because it’s IMO hypocritical, illogical, and unproductive. I suspect most people will do the same.
Just curious, what about a husband and wife? Say the husband enlists but the wife, though she is physically able to enlist, intends to remain stateside? Where do you draw the line?
~Max
Your terse disagreement provides me no information as to why you think my position is wrong, but I thank you for your thoughts.
My line is my own judgment. I don’t plan to call people cowards willy-nilly based on the most superficial of information. I’d evaluate each scenario on their own merits. I’ve already mentioned things like child care and other exceptions.
Do I have to join the army or make some sacrifice if I just support bombing a country back to the stone age, without any ground troops involved?
You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do. That sounds like mass murder of civilians, and if someone suggests mass murder of civilians then I would probably call them a monster.
I am speaking in the context of your proposed shaming system. I am well aware I can do what I want to do.
I just answered – if someone suggested mass murder of civilians, I would probably call them a monster. Hopefully others would too. Advocating for mass murder of civilians should have some social consequences, IMO.
Do you disagree?
I am just trying to make sure I understand. Proposing ground troops without sacrifice makes you a coward, proposing missile strikes do not?
I think I’ve explained my position with very simple, straight forward and easy to understand answers in the last few posts, even though this isn’t quite a black and white issue. You asked me some questions and I answered. Do you agree or disagree with any parts of my posts?
Uh, yes I agree that wanting to bomb a country into the stone age is monstrous. I was using hyperbole. I just wanted to see if you were only concerned about the deaths of American soldiers when performing your cowardice calculus.
My “cowardice” calculus, as described in this thread, extrapolates my personal feelings to what I think might potentially resonate widely with the American public. I think mass murder of civilians is far, far worse a “sin” than personal cowardice (which is quite common and probably almost everyone is guilty of it at least occasionally). But I think the American people, in general, don’t put that much value on the lives of people in foreign countries (especially brown people, Muslims, and other non-white, non-Christian groups), even though they should. They/we do, however, put a lot of value on the notion of not being cowardly, in my experience.
I’d favor considering all rhetorical approaches, including approaches meant to highlight the human suffering caused by war (and especially wars of choice). I think this is one potential rhetorical tactic that might possibly resonate with a lot of generally pro-war Americans, if it were widely deployed.
But I don’t put it forward with any expectation that it’s likely to become a widespread piece of anti-war rhetoric. I just wanted to see what other Dopers thought about it. Thank you for taking part.
Then he is wrong. IF you are specifically defining his contribution as volunteering for the front lines, then sure, that may not be necessary. But if he doesn’t think that even his taxes should go up to pay for it, that he should not have anything asked of him, then he is asking for others to sacrifice so that he doesn’t have to.
Entitled has nothing to do with it, and I think that is why people seem to have an issue with the idea that people who want others to sacrifice for them, but are unwilling to sacrifice themselves should be taken less seriously when they point to yet another war of unnecessity and yell “charge”. They are free to express their opinion. I am also free to feel that their opinion is somewhere between lazy and craven malingering.
I specifically meant contribution as in everything except what is legally required, eg: taxes and complying with a mandatory draft notice.
~Max
Free speech is an entitlement, aka a right, and it has everything to do with this thread. People should generally be able to express their opinions, especially in discussions or debates of important matters. Sometimes people refrain from doing so out of politeness, due to a desire to conform, or in order to avoid conflict. iianyiiii is advocating the humiliation and shame of people who have hawkish views towards military conflicts that he doesn’t agree with. He wants to intimidate people into not expressing their opinions because of the threat of being called a coward. He wants to essentially say join up or shut up. That’s an affront to free speech.
I think it takes every bit as much courage to be a police officer as it does to be a soldier. I hold the same opinion about nurses, teachers, social workers, and several other professions. I think a movement to try to intimidate any of those people from expressing their opinion about a military conflict, whether it’s hawkish or dovish, is wrong. I think they are every bit as entitled to their opinion as someone in the military.
Right now, US Africa Command is conducting operations in Africa against terrorist groups including Al Shabaab and Boko Haram. These operations include military strikes by aircraft and Special Forces groups. I’m in favour of these operations because I think those two terrorist organisations are evil. I’d imagine that most of the US favours these operations, including many young, able-bodied men and women who’ve chosen professions besides the military. I thoroughly disagree with the idea that those people should be shouted down as cowards for stating their support for these military strikes because the military isn’t their chosen profession.
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”?
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”?
When you determine whether a freedom or liberty is being affronted or restrained, why do you distinguish between society and government? Government is, after all, the “official” arm of society. I may not threaten to slap a war hawk with my right hand, but somehow it is all-right to slap him with my left? I do not understand.
~Max
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.
Did you read the part in the post that you quoted about supporting his taxes going up to pay for it?
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.
I also don’t think he says join up or shut up. I am not in the military, and yet, he has never told me to shut up. Of course, I was pretty much against all the wars in my lifetime (gulf war 1 is harder to say, as I was about 10 at the time, and didn’t have an informed opinion), with WWII the last war that I would have supported, and I would have volunteered had I not gotten drafted first.
Telling someone that their opinion is crap, and that they are crap for holding it is not an affront to free speech, whether or not that criticism is valid, it is only an affront to the deceptive caricature of free speech in which speech is free of the consequences of that speech.
I don’t know if it requires any more courage to be a soldier than it takes to be a dog groomer. I do know, however, it requires far more commitment to be a soldier than to be a dog groomer. If one of my employees quits, may I imprison her, or even execute her if it were a particularly busy day?
Once again, they are entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to my opinion of them. Why do you say that I shouldn’t be allowed to use my freedom of speech to express my opinion?
Of course they shouldn’t be shouted down as cowards for not joining the military. However, if they express their opinion that the military needs to go here and do this, and go there and do that, while not being willing to sacrifice anything of their own, then their opinion, IMHO, is crap.