Of course there’s a difference but you’re drawing ridiculous comparisons. That dude is a sadistic murdering bastard and in no way representative of average hawkish military members.
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
Well I bow to your superior reasoning capability, apparently of such magnitude that you can predict my future actions with certainty.
I do realise you’re not wholeheartedly endorsing the OP, but with the above bolded statement, you’re more or less arguing against it. The OP wants to make the societal view of hawkishness equivalent to that towards being pro-child sex. What you’re proposing is so different from the OP, it’s barely in the same ballpark.
From the OP:
First you want a pony, now you want a pretty pink princess pony. Geez, talk about moving goalposts! 
You implied that they were the same, just cogs in the machine. I am pointing out that they are not the same, and that there is a spectrum.
Gallagher may be the worst (that we know about), but that doesn’t mean that he’s that much of an outlier.
Having iiandyiiii’s in the system helps to balance things towards restraint against unnecessary violence.
If the only people that joined the military were people who were pro-war, what balance would there be?
The first part was his opinion. One that I do share. That advocating for a war of choice that you could fight in, but don’t, means that you are asking others to risk them and theirs so that you and yours don’t have to, gutless coward is a kinder label than I would use. This is his personal opinion, and why he is making this proposal. This is not the proposal itself.
The second part is the proposed policy, that people should be shamed and humiliated for this. As far as public figures go, I have no problem with this. Trump is a gutless coward (though saying that is an insult to gutless cowards), Bolton too. Any of the elected representatives or political appointees that beat the drum for war who have never seen, nor have any desire to see, the horrors that a war truly is are gutless cowards, and IMHO, can and should be called out for being so.
As far as private individuals, I don’t see that he is calling for them being walked down the streets naked while chanting “shame” and throwing rotten fruit at them. But if we change the mindset so that calling for others to risk themselves while you hold down the couch leads your friends and family to think poorly of you, then this would be effective.
My goal, and I think iiandyiiii’s as well, is not to shame or humiliation people, but to get people to think twice about their support for unnecessary wars. I think that that is what some of you have been reading into this, as many have made statements to the effect that it is looking for an excuse to get to shame and humiliate people that we don’t like, and that is not the case. The goal is to reduce support for unnecessary wars of choice, and the proposal was a consideration as a tool in that kit to help towards that goal.
Whether that is an effective tool or not is up for debate, (I, for example, am not entirely convinced), but all the projection of motivations as to the purpose of the tool has obscured that the tool is not the ends, it is not the goal, it is simply a means towards an ends.
First you want a pony, now you want a pretty pink princess pony. Geez, talk about moving goalposts!
[/QUOTE]
Ok, iiandyiiii is better than a murderous psycho, you got me there. The problem is, we aren’t discussing who I would rather have staring at screens for the navy. I’m talking about the hypocrisy of an antiwar person actively assisting the war machine while simultaneously calling for a public shaming of people who support military action.
I think it would be very interesting, if there were a thread focused on it, to discuss the morality and ethics of an anti-war person (and I’m not 100% anti-war, just anti-war for unnecessary wars of choice, which have been the vast majority of military actions in the last few decades) working for the military, whether in a civilian or active duty role.
Thanks, this is a generally accurate representation of my position. “Shame and humiliation” is meant to be a tool that might be effective in some instances in order to help make our culture and society less tolerant and accepting of dumb wars. It certainly wouldn’t be the only tactic, and it would probably be most effective against public figures – it’s just another tool in the tool belt, rhetorically speaking.
I think that’s the nicest thing I’ve ever seen you say about another poster. 
You see it as hypocrisy, as you make assumptions as to the motives and motivations, and find them at odds as to the other assumptions that you have made.
I am certainly not making any more assumptions than iiandyiiii as he condemns the gutless cowards.
What assumptions do you think I’m making?
You are making the assumption that Trump did not volunteer to go to Vietnam due to his cowardice, but because he was truly physically unfit for duty due to his serious medical condition.
You further assume that Trump’s personal Vietnam, sex in the 80’s, was not truly the same level of sacrifice that those without the resources to avoid the draft were asked to make.
I want the people who join the military to be people who believe that they can be successful in the military. There are many people who honestly believe they’d be terrible in the military. I think we should trust their beliefs, and they shouldn’t be intimidated into joining. There are also people who have chosen career paths outside the military because they’ll be more successful in those paths, than inside the military. Again, I think we should respect their judgement.
You seem to be in favour of people supporting the military in other ways than joining, but that is flat out not what the OP says. Regardless, there are hundreds of noble charities that don’t support the military. It’s great if someone supports the VFW. It’s also great if someone supports the local women’s shelter, or the youth centre that gives kids a safe space outside of gangs. I don’t think the former is any more virtuous than the either of the latter. And I don’t think someone should be choosing the charity they want to support based on fear of intimidation of being called a gutless coward.
The end justifies the means? It’s okay to commit evil now, because the evil will result in good tomorrow? Is that really your argument?
Regarding “not to shame or humiliation people”, I won’t speculate to your goals, but if you’re claiming that’s not a goal of the OP, you’re ignoring the actual statement of the OP:
You’re also speaking about “unnecessary wars of choice”. Is the US support, via military strikes, of the Kurdish forces in Syria an unnecessary war of choice? I believe that’s an example of US military force where you’ll find people if favour of the action, and people opposed to the action. That’s fine. Each side should get their say. The premise of the OP is that the people opposed to the action, assuming he believes it’s an unnecessary war/military action, should have their say. People supporting that action should only speak up if they’re in or willing to join the military, or maybe make some nebulous sacrifice. I think that premise is fundamentally wrong. Both sides should have their say, and both sides should recognise that society as a group needs to accept responsibility for the consequences of what the government ultimately decides. I’m not disagreeing with your objection towards someone who shirks that responsibility. I disagree with someone who wants a war, but doesn’t want to pay for it, or someone who thinks it’s unnecessary to fully support veterans dealing with physical or psychological wounds. However, I disagree with the idea that you have to have “skin in the game” to support a military action. And, restating myself, I think it’s an affront to free speech to support the concept that it’s okay to oppose some given military action, whether you have “skin in the game” or not, but it’s forbidden, at the risk of being shamed and humiliated as a “gutless coward” to support that same military action unless you have “skin in the game”.
I followed up with numerous posts in which I made it clear that IMO there are many non-cowardly ways to sacrifice and contribute aside from active duty service.
So you’re stepping back from your original argument. Thanks for conceding that you’re wrong.
Congratulations on your well declared victory! Truly, few have declared a victory as resoundingly as yours. 
PS: Reading post #12 might make you take back your declaration of victory, so I’d recommend avoiding it.
As do I, though I will point out that many join the military for the purpose of paying for college these days. I wouldn’t intimidate them into joining, and if you think that that is what is being discussed, then you have most certainly missed something along the way.
I do think that if someone is supportive of war, they should choose something that is actually supportive of the war. If you are against homelessness, and you put your charity time and money into animal rights, then that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Both are noble, sure, but only one has anything to do with what you claim to be for.
That said, there are many, many, many ways to help with our military or the veterans, and many of them overlap quite easily with whatever other charity you may have been thinking of.
Nor do I, nor anyone else in this thread, for that matter.
Is that what I said? Do you throw this up any time anyone says anything about any sort of means? My car is a means to the end of getting to work, does that make my car evil, in your eyes?
Are you claiming that the idea of asking people to be accountable for what they ask other s to do is an evil act? Did I say anything about “justifying”, or any of the other bull that you have accused me of here?
Why would you do that, I wonder?
So, you are one of those who believe that the goal is to shame or humiliation people, not to reduce support for unnecessary wars?
If you are convinced of your view that the point of this is to shame and humiliate, there is little that can be used to dissuade you from the position that you have chosen to take contrary to what has been posted. I am not sure that there is much reason to continue with this thread, as you have already convinced yourself of the motives of the OP.
That’s not what he said.
I agree that the strawman that you have build up here is fundamentally wrong, but I do not see how it relates to what was actually proposed.
So, if you are sitting there watching Fox News, and you are watching the build up to war, and you say, “Yeah, lets go get some!”, and your friend says to you, “And are you doing anything to help with this ,“getting of some”?” he has just committed an affront to free speech?
That, to me, is a premise that is fundamentally wrong.
People are for and against lots of things. The list of things I support and campaign against pretty much excludes the possibility that I could devote significant time or money to any one exclusively.
Again, you are making huge assumptions about people’s motivations.
There is no reason why you would be asked to do anything exclusively.
I make no assumptions as to anyone’s motivations. What assumptions are you claiming that I am making?
Thanks for the further concession. It was obvious from post #12 that you’d lost the debate, but I thought it was an interesting subject, so was happy to continue it.
You’re granting an exception to someone outside of the scope of your OP and pretending it’s an expansion covered within the statements of the original OP. It’s not.
Let’s be clear. A teacher who’s physically capable of joining the army supports a military action that you think is unnecessary. That same teacher supports youth charities with their time and effort. They accept the premise that a US government decision to support a military action requires collective responsibility for all US citizens, and is willing to accept their portion of the collective cost, but thinks their current contribution to society doesn’t require any further personal sacrifice. Are you willing to front up to that hypothetical teacher and call them a gutless coward to their face? I highly doubt you’d ever do so. And even if you did so, I fervently believe you’d be wrong.
The above scenario stacks the argument in my favour. The scenario with the person eating bon-bons on the couch going “War Yeah!” does the same thing, just from the opposite perspective. Your basic argument is that you want society to consider hawkishness to be equivalent to being in favour of child sex. You don’t actually state where the limits of this hawkishness should be, but state “you are a gutless coward (even if the military action really is necessary!)”. I reject your statement. Citizens should have the right to debate government policy, including military policy, freely without being subject to intimidation.
Yes