They’re not personal. They would apply to any anti-war military employee who calls people cowards for not joining the military.
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
I stand with you against calling people cowards for not joining the military. I have no plans to engage in such a simplistic and dumb exercise.
That’s what this whole thread is about. If you disagree with someone on the justness of a war, you want to call them a coward if they don’t sign up/make a similar sacrifice. All while cashing a military paycheck whether you agree with the war or not.
Perhaps you should consider not slinging juvenile insults and calling people names?
That’s different than what you just said, and even this is an oversimplification of my position. I believe it’s cowardly and well worth criticizing to advocate that others risk their life for a war that one is unwilling to make any sacrifice and significant contribution towards. Presumably you disagree with this.
Let me guess - your next post will say that this doesn’t contradict anything you’ve said.
I’ll save you the trouble - it does.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps you are incapable of seeing nuance and detail in writing. If you read the words carefully, you’ll see that those are actually two different things being said.
Hope this is helpful!
I mostly think you are holding people to higher standards than you hold yourself. Yes, it’s theoretically reasonable for an anti-war person to work for the military. But not the U.S. military and not for someone well aware of their missions over the last few decades.
That’s possible, and I thank you for this reasonable criticism. If you want to discuss it further, I hope you’ll open a thread about it.
It is possible for someone to be anti-war and still be in the military.
I would not level any invalid criticism, such as an ad-hominem accusation of cowardice. Especially not if such an invalid criticism reduces his chance of staying in the debate. To count on that chance is bad faith if I ever saw it.
~Max
Yes, but calling someone a coward is invalid by definition unless they somehow supported their position by saying they are not a coward. Even then, merely advocating for a necessary war without expressing a desire to enlist or contribute more than as required by law does not (in my opinion) constitute cowardice.
I still don’t have any reason reason to agree with you at all.
~Max
In your opinion is an accusation of cowardice always an “ad-hominem” and/or always invalid?
It is usually, but not always, irrelevant to the debate (an argumentum ad hominem) over whether the military action is justified. Whenever it is relevant, that is only as a response to an invalid argument such as “you should listen to me because I am not a coward”.
And then the accusation itself can be invalid. I do not believe a person advocating for what they believe to be a necessary war is a coward because they have no intention of contributing more than is required by law. If the war is actually unnecessary, but the person does not know/recognize such, they are not acting cowardly. They might be wrong, but they are not a coward. That is my opinion though, I understand you think differently but I do not understand why.
~Max
If the premise the accusation stems from is false, then yes.
iiandyiiii, your “do as I say, not as I do” pontification resonates about as well as it always does.
And thank you for your service and your support of the military in its many & varied duties, tasks and facets.
I’m not sure what your second sentence is referring to, but thank you for your thoughts.
I am capable of seeing where someone contradicts himself.
I already mentioned that name-calling is easier than rational thought. I prefer the second, you apparently the first. I guess your next move is to say that our world views are too far apart, and therefore you can simply wave away any argument you can’t counter.
Regards,
Shodan
Please, by all means, let me know if I do. I try to be very careful when making my arguments – I purposefully try to lay out the nuance and details rather than a single-sentence summation, when possible, and then I make a point of challenging the usually incorrect summations that other posters sometimes try to make later, because the nuance and detail are vital parts of my position. Leaving out that nuance and detail mischaracterizes my position. But I make mistakes sometimes, and I welcome the opportunity to try and improve myself.
I don’t believe you’re accurately describing my position and posts here, but thank you for contributing your thoughts.
And what if you criticized them in a way that you thought was valid, but they thought was invalid and accused you of ad-hominems and declared that if you didn’t stop with the invalid criticisms, then they would have to leave the debate, therefore, you are imfrinign on his freedom of speech?
Is the mere declaration that a criticism is invalid enough to invalidate it? Is the mere threat that a criticism may make them uncomfortable to continue to push their views in public enough to keep silent in the name of freedom of speech?
Except that’s a purposely misleading caricature of what people are advocating. If that’s what you think everyone supporting the use of the military wants, then your judgement on their moral flaws is equally wrong.
Other than that, exactly the same.