I don’t believe you are accurately describing the position of civilians who advocate for some uses of military force, but thank you for erroneously calling them cowards.
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
Well, one statement is iiandyiiii being against calling someone a coward simply for not joining the military.
And the other is iiandyiiii being for calling someone a coward for advocating for war and not joining the military.
So, they are non-contradictory
Except that’s an entirely incorrect caricature of what is being advocated in this thread. It is not people supporting the use of military, it is people supporting taking that military to war.
And if you think that war is anything other than what I described, then please tell me what you think war is.
I don’t think that you are accurately describing the position of the people in this thread, but thank you for erroneously being patronizing about it.
Either I recant the invalid criticism or I ask how it is invalid. I’m not perfect and I make mistakes. If he cannot show how it is invalid I might ask the moderator to help out.
That being said the only time an argumentum ad hominem might be valid is in response to an argumentum ad hominem, and even then it is probably better just to point out how irrelevant the original argument was.
~Max
I thought it was any (aggressive or assertive) military action, but even if it is just war that doesn’t change my position.
~Max
And if you do not agree with why they say it is invalid, will you simply accept their position? And what is this with moderators? We are not talking about a formal moderated debate setting. Is that where you do most of your political discussions? What if, as in 99% of political discussions, there is no moderator? What if there is, but the moderator doesn’t side with you?
And if for instance in this very thread between a few posters, one was leveling criticisms at the other that the other did not feel was valid, is that an attempt to shut them up? Is that infringing on their freedom of speech if they are concerned that reasonable ideas will be met with invalid criticism?
Okay, so when I was called a terrorist sympathizer because I demonstrated against Iraq War II, would responding that my critics are cowards have been acceptable there?
I thought he was pretty clear about it being about wars of choice (profit).
If I am accused of making an invalid argument I will certainly reconsider my position, and hopefully recognize the error if it exists.
If there is no moderator, I only have the options of admitting I was wrong, asking why I was wrong, asking to agree to disagree, or ending the debate on a sour note.
Then I apologize and move on, even if I do not agree. I might complain about it after the fact. Usually in moderated debates each side agrees to abide by the moderator’s judgement. I did so when I signed up for this message board, although I don’t remember doing so, I re-read the terms a couple months ago when I started participating.
No, I like to give everybody the benefit of the doubt.
Probably not, but it could be. If you were to call me a coward on these boards I don’t think there’s any chance that I would quit. After all, incitement to violence isn’t allowed and we are all very clear on that rule. But “social shaming” implies publicly outing or naming people, or if the person is already public just organizing a large group to “shame”. It doesn’t take a big stretch to see a large shaming operation result in actual physical harassment or death threats, especially if the person doing the name-calling has a large following.
Probably not, it depends on the atmosphere. It doesn’t sound like you were having a debate, not like the debates we have here or in town halls.
As I said then, that’s assuming the conclusion. If everybody, including the hawk, agrees that the war is a war of choice and unnecessary, call him a hypocrite or coward until your voice gives out. It won’t advance the debate, but then again the debate is already settled - the war is unnecessary.
~Max
Ravenman identified two separate issues in post #15 - the character of the person making the case for war; versus the actual case for war. You seem to be focused on the former so I’ll ignore the latter. Your stated purpose in attempting to shame a person is to reduce wars of choice, right? That’s the veneer being employed to justify name calling and shaming.
What actions do you think contribute more towards wars of choice? Armchair advocacy, or actually joining and signing up to be a member of the military?
If reducing wars of choice is the primary objective, name calling is a pretty ineffective tactic. But if the US had to institute a draft each time it wished to engage in any significant military action, that would go a long way to reducing wars of choice. Having sufficient numbers of volunteers to make a draft unnecessary is a significant facilitator in the prosecution of wars of choice. You should be deriding those who volunteer for the military as propagating warmongering through actions, rather than the person who only does so through words.
And if you find no error, but are still accused of making an invalid argument?
And that is how they wear you down. Eventually, you end the debate on a sour note, and then they send people off to war.
The moderators here are to keep things civil, not to judge the merits or validity of an argument. If I were to insult you personally, then a mod would step in and ask me politely to stop. If I were to make an invalid argument, no mod is going to say anything about that.
That doesn’t in any way address the question. For instance CarnalK was telling iiandyiiii that he was “the problem” and many other insulting things that fall just short of invoking a moderator’s attention. There are some who would take exception to that, and choose to no longer voice their opinion due to concerns of being attacked like that.
Do you think that CarnalK’s intent was to get iiandyiiii to shut up?
I don’t remember him saying anything about doxing, just shaming. If you are sitting around in your church group, and someone says, “We should go blow up those [insert ethnic slurs here].” And you ask, “have you any plans or willingness to serve or sacrifice yourself in order to blow up those people?” And they say “Hell no! That’s what they signed up for.”
Would it be acceptable to call them a coward? Social shaming does not imply in any way publicly outing or naming people. That’s something that you just made up. Social shaming is shaming people in social contexts.
Very little of public discourse is in formal debates like here or in town halls. If you are only talking about rules for debating in forums like this or in town halls, then you are fundamentally misunderstanding the very nature of this.
Just because it is unnecessary doesn’t mean that it it isn’t wanted. Some people like to see other people getting blown up, and that’s their justification. Some people want to have gas be a bit cheaper, and that’s their justification.
A necessary war is, IMHO one that defends ourselves or allies against hostile belligerents. Anything else is a war of choice, it is unnecessary. It may be justifiable on its merits that we get more out of that war than what we put into it, but it is not necessary, only convenient.
So the hawk knows that our country is not in any danger from this country, but it has resources that we want to take and are not willing to trade for. He advocates going to war in order to attain these resources. He agrees it is unnecessary, but still is willing to send other people out to sacrifice in order to attain these resources.
For instance, here is an example of an attempt at social shaming:
Do you think that that has a place in public discourse?
I’m willing to consider any rhetorical tactic that might reduce warmongering. On the face of it, I don’t think this one would be effective, because of the incredible prestige (which is ultimately superficial, considering how veterans are discarded after service in so many ways, but still very influential and powerful) our society places on those who volunteer for military service, but I’m certainly willing to consider it.
Don’t get me wrong - I don’t subscribe to this tactic because I think it’s wrong. It also wouldn’t work. I feel the same way about what you’re suggesting.
In identifying the two separate issues - the character of the person making the case for war; versus the actual case for war, the latter is far far more important. I see the former as irrelevant. Ideas should always be judged on the merits, regardless of who is advancing them. Granted who is advancing them could color them more or less persuasive, but the merits should always win out. Your proposal doesn’t do that.
My proposal would be a supplement to merit-based arguments. I wouldn’t advocate that my tactic be the only one to engage in – I favor a kitchen sink approach. “Honorable” arguments + whatever else that might work, rhetorically speaking. It’s that bad a situation. I wouldn’t be advocating for this tactic if we weren’t in dire straits.
You say this - that you are willing to consider any rhetorical tactic. But have you considered that the tactic you are suggesting may be counterproductive to your goals? In that what you are suggesting may increase what you are trying to reduce? It’s not always just a matter of trying anything, but some things may make things actually worse. That seems to be missing from your calculus.
That’s possible. If I saw good reason to believe so, I’d gladly withdraw this tactic. It wouldn’t change my beliefs about cowardice, but I’d cease to advocate it as an anti-war social tactic.
This is what everyone convinced of their own plan despite people telling them it won’t work always say, and, basically, like you it’s impossible to convince them otherwise. Especially since, as you acknowledged, it will never happen on any level except in your own mind or folks who are like minded…so, it will be like libertarians, eternally convinced they are right and it would work, despite any evidence to the contrary, since it will never happen, so no one can PROVE it won’t work. Hell, we still have communists (and in fact it seems to be gaining popularity with younger people) despite the vast evidence that it doesn’t work. THIS time will be different, of course…
Come the revolution, comrade…
So you’re saying that because “people” are telling me my plan won’t work, I should abandon it?
If so, I’ll consider it. 
Why no…I’d be astonished if, at this point you even considered it, let alone actually abandoned it. That was my point. You’ve been given reasoned (and some unreasoned, admittedly) arguments against your idea, but you persist because you know it’s the right thing and nothing can sway you from that. I just wanted to chime back in so you know some are still following the thread, as the responses had narrowed in the last few pages. 
Thank you for bestowing your wisdom (or is it psychic abilities?) upon me. I may not quite have the intellect to understand your undoubtedly correct proclamations – surely you have the powerful brain to determine which arguments are correct and which are not, and which posters cannot be swayed – but despite my incapability in understanding, I am grateful. Unfortunately, apparently as you’ve put it, I’m incapable of being swayed from my position – undoubtedly because I lack some of your superior mental abilities – but good on you for trying!
He doesn’t need “psychic abilities”, he’s got 10 pages of you demonstrating it.