And what if your accusation of cowardice causes people to write nasty letters to his employer, demanding his removal and threatening a boycott? I take it this is fine with you because it is legal.
~Max
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
Wait, so all I have to do to avoid being called a coward is to pay my taxes? And if needed, support a tax increase to pay for military costs? I think that eliminates 99.99% of the people in question.
FYI, Max, most people find this "socratic method " of arguing a point obnoxious as hell.
We’ve been over this. Now, iiandyiiii and I are not of one mind on this, and though I agree with his desire to decrease the willingness of our citizens to send people off to fight in unnecessary wars for profit, I do not speak for him.
If he points to the other side of the world and goes back to his life unaffected, then I do consider him to be one who asks others to sacrifice so that he doesn’t have to. iiandyiiii and I have said that there are other things that he can do other than actually join up and go fight in the war. There are other things that you can sacrifice in order to assist those you would send into danger.
You say he pays his taxes, but is he advocating paying greater taxes to support the war, or is he lobbying for a tax cut? If he volunteering his time or his services or at least his financial support to help the veterans that are left from previous wars, as well as to prepare to assist the vets that will be coming back from this one, or is he keeping his time and resources to himself?
Many americans stand up for the national anthem, and say, “Well, I’ve done my part.” Too many americans. It is easy to make non-substantive jingoistic overtures that mean nothing. It is harder to actually sacrifice something.
What should he do? I don’t know, there have been many options in this thread. But if it is something that he would be doing anyway, then that’s not a sacrifice. If it is throwing some meaningless lip service to returning soldiers, “I thank you for your service”, but isn’t actually doing anything to make their service or return to civilian life better, then that’s not any help.
That’s why I like the idea of a war tax, but it would be fought tooth and claw by the same cohort that wants to go to war and thinks that standing for the anthem is all they have to pay for it.
So, you would be supportive of going back to the tax rates of WWII or immediately after whenever he are engaged in hostilities? You think that 99.99% of the people in question would be?
If you are correct, then my view of humanity is far too cynical, but my cynicism does think that you are off by at least 2/3rds of the country.
In all fairness, the chicken-hawks are exceptionally generous with offers thoughts and prayers.
It’s partially because long posts are harder to manage during the day when I’m switching between computers. I’ll stop.
~Max
That is legal and I wouldn’t condemn it. People are allowed to write letters to companies and tell them their feelings about them. That’s a form of speech.
Care to get to the point?
No. Why would I support that arbitrary and illogical policy? I support paying what policies cost, however.
Well, what happens if he gets fired and has to take a new minimum wage job to survive, and he no longer has the luxury of appearing on your radio show without losing his job and letting his kids starve?
Or if he is threatened by the boss, off-the-record, that he will be fired if he ever participates in the debate again?
Or if his landlord evicts him and nobody else in town will let him rent, therefore he cannot continue participating in the debate?
Somewhere down the line, he could effectively lose the freedom to participate in debate. At no point does he feel like a coward - the hawk thinks the military action is necessary to protect the country. It would appear that a series of totally legal actions by private individuals can restrict the freedom to debate.
The worst part is that it seems you are counting on this to happen. If the hawk quits because of threats, or assault, you denounce the threaten-makers and vigilantes. If the hawk shows up the very next day as usual, your social shaming fails to make war any less likely.
~Max
All of this is already possible with a wide variety of stances that the public generally finds despicable. I believe that warmongering for unnecessary wars of choice is equally despicable as most of these other things, and thus I would be fine with them all being treated similarly by society.
For a few reasons, the first of which, as I said before, is to discourage wars of choice.
But, as far as how much, you say you support paying what policies cost, are you saying that you can accurately account for all the costs incurred by going to war?
Currently, taxes are not enough to fund basic govt functions, so a war on top of that is no even close to paid for.
But, I am saying that we go to war, we go to a very high tax rate until we have paid for that war. If it only take a year, then great, tax rates go back down. If it takes a decade, then that’s how long taxes stay high.
It’s not arbitrary nor illogical if you are actually thinking that these wars are necessary, it is only arbitrary and illogical if you do not want to pay for them yourself.
But that kind of shaming is acceptible because society has a consensus that acts such as child molestation or genocide are beyond the pale. You don’t enjoy the consensus of society as evidenced by the ongoing national debate and news cycles concerning military action in Iran. So that is not a valid dismissal of my concerns, in my opinion.
~Max
IMO it’s acceptable because these acts are beyond the pale, not because of societal consensus. Apparently that’s the point of our disagreement.
Beyond the pale in your opinion.
Let’s say it is certain that calling this dude a coward will result in him being unable to show up for the next debate. Just assume this for the sake of argument. You, the hawk, and I all know about this.
Now here am I, undecided on the sidelines, and you ask whether it’s OK to call him a coward. I want an honest debate, and if I’m not convinced today I want an open debate at the next meeting too. So right before the debate, you come over and ask me “hey should I call this hawk a coward?”
I don’t yet agree with you that the war is beyond the pale. That’s what the debate is supposed to convince me of. Why would I say “yes” to this proposal? Then I lose out and have to make my decision with only one side presenting their arguments.
~Max
If it were certain, we’d be in such a different world that I don’t know what I’d think. It’d involve a massive amount of rethinking, were the world that different.
Here’s the thing. I wouldn’t say “yes” if there was a slight chance of him being unable to return.
I heard your opening statement. You think this war is an atrocity - Iraq 3.0. I heard his opening statement. He thinks we’re about to get nuked. I’m not convinced yet because nobody has presented their arguments. That’s what the debate is for.
You want to waste your debate time on an invalid argument? Name-calling is invalid. It makes no sense to me to begin with. I want the full position of both sides so I can make an informed opinion here, I don’t want to sit through a shouting match.
But you come to me and say, “I am right so I had better call him a coward and maybe he will rethink his position, or you will see that he is a coward and come to my side”. And I say “that’s not a valid argument and it won’t convince me. Maybe you will scare him off, or maybe he will call you names in return, then I miss out on the debate I want. So no.”
~Max
I got to wonder, why did you join the military iiandyii? Since before your birth, basically every American military intervention has been a “war of choice”. Were you just ignorant and patriotic when you signed up?
Eta: But you still work for them. I don’t get it.
You still don’t get it. It’s not about a lack of opportunity for debate. It’s not even so much about who is right. You’re worried you’ll miss out on a good debate presented by a chicken-hawk? Don’t be. There will be plenty of opportunity for argument presented by those advocating for war and willing to make the sacrifice.
This is not about you missing out on being informed through public debate of pro/anti-war arguments. This is about people owning and following through on the courage of their convictions once they’ve decided.
I signed up for a variety of reasons, and my views were profoundly different then as compared to now. But I don’t think there’s a conflict between being generally anti war (especially anti wars of choice) and working for the military. I believe that we should have a military, and that military needs to be supported. More war would probably help my career, but that’s obviously not enough for me to support more war (though I’m doing fine as is, and my current job is such that it will be around regardless of whether we go into more wars or not, so I certainly don’t believe I’m taking a particularly brave stance).