Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly

[iiandyiiii]

@UnwittingAmericans

Well then, how ARE you gonna do it?

By having conversations like this with lots of folks until most of them recognize how correct and awesome my view is.

[iiandyiiii]

@Max_S

And I, in turn, know folks who will never voice their opinion if they believe it will be met with vitriol and public shaming.

Surely there must be a middle ground? I’ve got it. In public debate, stick to the merits. Convince as many people as you can. In private debate, preferably among friends, let them know how you really feel.

~Max

If this is what you feel comfortable doing, then you are perfectly free to do so. But I’ll probably make a different choice, and I’ll urge you and others to do so as well. You and everyone else is free to choose your own path.

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

Yes it is. IMO, of course. I’m suggesting speech, and nothing more than speech. It’s impossible that speech alone can “curtail free speech”.

This already occurs for many issues – folks generally are afraid to publicly advocate for legalization of rape or child molestation because “society will shame and humiliate them”. Same goes for bringing back slavery, or committing genocide, or many other things considered “beyond the pale” by most of society. Barring rare circumstances, I want advocacy for military action to join that category.

Mr. iiandyiiii, war is different from rape, slavery, child molestation, genocide, and many other things considered “beyond the pale”. Surely you will recognize that some wars, particularly wars of actual defense, are absolutely necessary and justified. In each of the other acts mentioned, it is considered that every such act is unjustified. No such absolute consensus exists on the act of war.

~Max

[iiandyiiii]

@Max_S

Mr. iiandyiiii, war is different from rape, slavery, child molestation, genocide, and many other things considered “beyond the pale”. Surely you will recognize that some wars, particularly wars of actual defense, are absolutely necessary and justified. In each of the other acts mentioned, it is considered that every such act is unjustified. No such absolute consensus exists on the act of war.

~Max

I want wars of choice/unnecessary wars, which in my view includes the majority (but not quite all) of military actions that the US has undertaken, to be “beyond the pale”. There should be “absolute consensus”, IMO, that wars of choice are “beyond the pale”.

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

If this is what you feel comfortable doing, then you are perfectly free to do so. But I’ll probably make a different choice, and I’ll urge you and others to do so as well. You and everyone else is free to choose your own path.

I will, and you are always free to choose your own path.

That being said, do you admit the possibility that some people will never voice their opinion if they believe it will be met with vitriol and public shaming?

~Max

[MandaJo]

@Max_S

If you cannot convince your neighbor that an act is unreasonable, how can you convince him of his own [DEL]cowardice[/DEL] unreasonableness? The only way you justify his [DEL]cowardice[/DEL] unreasonableness is by acknowledging that the act is unreasonable. My time is limited, and I prefer to spend it debating on the merits.

~Max

The problem is that some people just zero out the cost of the lives of others. They aren’t even considering those, and if you bring them up, they dismiss that reason as silly, feminine, being a pussy, being afraid to break a few eggs, unwilling to face hard truths, etc. They think that by ignoring the cost of the lives of strangers and focusing on the dollars and sense, they are showing admirable stoicism and discussing the idea on it’s “real merits” and that an argument that focuses on the lives of people is irrelevant on its face. They give lip service to “brave sacrifice” but they don’t really care, because it doesn’t seem real to them. It’s never going to be them or anyone they love that pays that price.

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

I want wars of choice/unnecessary wars, which in my view includes the majority (but not quite all) of military actions that the US has undertaken, to be “beyond the pale”. There should be “absolute consensus”, IMO, that wars of choice are “beyond the pale”.

That’s just the thing. Not everybody agrees that wars of choice are unnecessary. In particular, there are surely some people who think war with say, Iran is inevitable (I don’t think this is the case). If one thinks war is inevitable, a pre-emptive strike does not carry the stigma of a war of choice. You must be receptive to the possibility that some young, fit Americans take this position while not actively volunteering for military duty.

Your proposal is to encourage the public shaming and humiliation of those Americans, should they speak up and participate in public debate. My counter is that unless you have a personal relationship with said Americans, you have no right to call them a coward.

~Max

[iiandyiiii]

@Max_S

I will, and you are always free to choose your own path.

That being said, do you admit the possibility that some people will never voice their opinion if they believe it will be met with vitriol and public shaming?

~Max

Of course, and this already occurs. I think it’s a good thing that societal disapproval largely prevents advocacy of child molestation, for example.

@Max_S

That’s just the thing. Not everybody agrees that wars of choice are unnecessary. In particular, there are surely some people who think war with say, Iran is inevitable (I don’t think this is the case). If one thinks war is inevitable, a pre-emptive strike does not carry the stigma of a war of choice. You must be receptive to the possibility that some young, fit Americans take this position while not actively volunteering for military duty.

Yes, I am very receptive to this possibility. This possibility is basically what motivated this entire thread! And it’s totally disgusting and awful. Just terrible, horrible, revolting, cowardly, etc. Bad bad evil monstrous. I want this terrible horrible cowardice called out again and again, because such a war would be a massive catastrophe that would result in the deaths of thousands upon thousands and great damage to American wealth, resources, prestige, and security. There are almost no negative descriptors that are too much for this abominable possibility.

Your proposal is to encourage the public shaming and humiliation of those Americans, should they speak up and participate in public debate. My counter is that unless you have a personal relationship with said Americans, you have no right to call them a coward.

~Max

You are free to believe this, but of course I do not.

[Max_S]

@MandaJo

The problem is that some people just zero out the cost of the lives of others. They aren’t even considering those, and if you bring them up, they dismiss that reason as silly, feminine, being a pussy, being afraid to break a few eggs, unwilling to face hard truths, etc. They think that by ignoring the cost of the lives of strangers and focusing on the dollars and sense, they are showing admirable stoicism and discussing the idea on it’s “real merits” and that an argument that focuses on the lives of people is irrelevant on its face. They give lip service to “brave sacrifice” but they don’t really care, because it doesn’t seem real to them. It’s never going to be them or anyone they love that pays that price.

I have no issue calling someone out for undervaluing human life. In my opinion, shaming someone simply because they support a war is out of line - it is possible (though certainly not necessarily correct) to appreciate human life and still support a given war.

~Max

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

@Max_S

That’s just the thing. Not everybody agrees that wars of choice are unnecessary. In particular, there are surely some people who think war with say, Iran is inevitable (I don’t think this is the case). If one thinks war is inevitable, a pre-emptive strike does not carry the stigma of a war of choice. You must be receptive to the possibility that some young, fit Americans take this position while not actively volunteering for military duty.

Yes, I am very receptive to this possibility. This possibility is basically what motivated this entire thread! And it’s totally disgusting and awful. Just terrible, horrible, revolting, cowardly, etc. Bad bad evil monstrous. I want this terrible horrible cowardice called out again and again, because such a war would be a massive catastrophe that would result in the deaths of thousands upon thousands and great damage to American wealth, resources, prestige, and security. There are almost no negative descriptors that are too much for this abominable possibility.

Then let’s look at this in particular. If I gauge your opinion correctly, the advocate is a coward because he advocates an unreasonable war while not volunteering himself.

The advocate does not think himself a coward because he thinks the war to be reasonable, and advocating for a reasonable war without volunteering for service does not impart cowardice.

Are you justified in publicly shaming the advocate without conditioning his cowardice on the unjustified nature of the war?

~Max

[iiandyiiii]

@Max_S

Then let’s look at this in particular. If I gauge your opinion correctly, the advocate is a coward because he advocates an unreasonable war while not volunteering himself.

Yes (barring the kind of exceptions I’ve already described… though even with those exceptions, it’s still disgusting and horrible, if not necessarily cowardly, to advocate for an unreasonable war).

The advocate does not think himself a coward because he thinks the war to be reasonable, and advocating for a reasonable war without volunteering for service does not impart cowardice.

Actually I think even advocating for a reasonable war without volunteering or otherwise making major sacrifices to contribute (again, barring the exceptions above) is cowardly, but I’m not really worried about getting into the very rare reasonable wars, so I don’t really see a societal purpose in humiliating and shaming those who advocate for the very rare but morally correct wars.

Are you justified in publicly shaming the advocate without conditioning his cowardice on the unjustified nature of the war?

I probably wouldn’t do so, for the above reason. My main goal is stopping dumb wars, not shaming cowards. I’ll only attempt to shame cowards in the service of stopping dumb wars.

[Max_S]

@iiandyiiii

I probably wouldn’t do so, for the above reason. My main goal is stopping dumb wars, not shaming cowards. I’ll only attempt to shame cowards in the service of stopping dumb wars.

Your opinion is that the war is unreasonable - a dumb war. Would you publicly shame the advocate? Will you do so in a way that conditions his cowardice on the unjustified nature of the war?

For example, “Mr. X is a coward for advocating an unjustified war against Iran without enlisting himself!” vs “Mr. X is a coward for advocating a war against Iran without enlisting himself!”

~Max

[Cheesesteak]

@Sitnam

Isn’t this same thing dragged out every time someone like Warren Buffet says the wealthy don’t pay enough tax? The refrain is, ‘well Warren, pay more then’.

The two are seperate. Warren Buffet isn’t greedy because he only pays pays taxes due despite it being less than what he thinks all wealthy people should pay.

Buffet isn’t advocating for a tax that he has no intention of paying.

The issue at hand is people advocating for a war that they have no intention of participating in.

I’m with iiandyiiii in the belief that war is different than just about every alternate case being proposed, because war is state sponsored homicide. The decision to go to war is not simply a decision to solve a problem, it’s a decision to solve a problem by killing people. Sending our young men and women to another place with the goal of killing some of the people who happen to be there. To advocate for that, from a place of safety, knowing that you will simply choose to have neither the risk of being killed nor bear the emotional weight of killing another human, is distasteful.

[iiandyiiii]

@Max_S

Your opinion is that the war is unreasonable - a dumb war. Would you publicly shame the advocate?

Yes, that’s what I’m advocating.

Will you do so in a way that conditions his cowardice on the unjustified nature of the war?

For example, “Mr. X is a coward for advocating an unjustified war against Iran without enlisting himself!” vs “Mr. X is a coward for advocating a war against Iran without enlisting himself!”

~Max

I’d probably tailor my criticism and condemnation to the specific scenario in order to make what I felt to be the most effective attack on both the argument and the person.

I generally think personal attacks are a bad idea in most debates, but not this one. War is a special case – especially monstrous, in the vast majority of cases. We should use each and every possible tool, including (sometimes) ad hominem attacks, when we think it can be effective in order to prevent dumb wars.

[UnwittingAmericans]

@iiandyiiii

By having conversations like this with lots of folks until most of them recognize how correct and awesome my view is.

Yeah I wouldn’t consider that as having anything to do with the naming and shaming process.

[Wrenching_Spanners]

@iiandyiiii

This has nothing to do with anything I’ve said. In fact, it’s directly contradictory - I want more opinions and more discussion, not less.

No, you want people who have hawkish positions to be silent. Your own words:

First “if you support a military action, and you advocate that young people in your country be sent overseas and face unpleasant circumstances away from their families as well as risk of injury and death, and you have the relative youth and health that would enable you to join them, then if your proposed military action comes to pass and you choose not to join them, you are a gutless coward.”

Second “I believe such cowardice should lead to public shame and humiliation.”

If someone supports a military action, then they must sign up to join that military action. If not, then they are a coward and should be publically shamed. There is no way you can frame that as encouraging “more discussion.”

@iiandyiiii

War is a fundamentally different enterprise than education. If you believe they’re comparable, then we live in such different universes that there’s no possibility of any discussion.

Your own words again:
“I want more opinions and more discussion, not less.” There’s a pattern of self-contradiction here.

You want someone to have skin in the game if they support military action, and shame them if they don’t. But apparently that principle only applies to military actions. Or does it? What about economic sanctions? Does your business have to be affected before you can support economic sanctions? Withdrawal of foreign aid personnel? Do we have to be in the Peace Corps before we can advocate evacuating the Peace Corps, or risk being shamed? Every government policy is going to have positives and negatives, and it’s not only military actions that have the potential for hugely negative consequences. Requiring skin in the game for supporting military actions, but no other government policies is simply a narrow-minded focus on a particular agenda. And that agenda is probably aimed more at other posters on this message board than your actual ideals.

[iiandyiiii]

@Wrenching_Spanners

No, you want people who have hawkish positions to be silent.

Actually, I want to change their minds, just as I want to change the minds of people who advocate for rape, child molestation, or genocide. Silence is better than advocating these things (as well as dumb wars), but changing hearts and minds is best.

Your own words:

First “if you support a military action, and you advocate that young people in your country be sent overseas and face unpleasant circumstances away from their families as well as risk of injury and death, and you have the relative youth and health that would enable you to join them, then if your proposed military action comes to pass and you choose not to join them, you are a gutless coward.”

Second “I believe such cowardice should lead to public shame and humiliation.”

If someone supports a military action, then they must sign up to join that military action. If not, then they are a coward and should be publically shamed. There is no way you can frame that as encouraging “more discussion.”

I’m encouraging more discussion, while at the same time advocating for this sort of criticism. I recognize that there’s a possibility that this criticism could motivate some to be silent, but I still think it’s important enough to prevent dumb wars to accept this possibility.

Your own words again:
“I want more opinions and more discussion, not less.” There’s a pattern of self-contradiction here.

But I do want more opinions and more discussion. I also want fewer dumb wars. I want the second thing more than the first, which is why I’m willing to accept a tactic that might possibly demotivate some few folks to speak up. To make up for this, I’ll try and encourage discussion in other ways possible. But the goal of preventing dumb wars is too important to throw away a possibly effective tactic just because it might demotivate some cowards from speaking up.

You want someone to have skin in the game if they support military action, and shame them if they don’t. But apparently that principle only applies to military actions. Or does it? What about economic sanctions? Does your business have to be affected before you can support economic sanctions? Withdrawal of foreign aid personnel? Do we have to be in the Peace Corps before we can advocate evacuating the Peace Corps, or risk being shamed? Every government policy is going to have positives and negatives, and it’s not only military actions that have the potential for hugely negative consequences. Requiring skin in the game for supporting military actions, but no other government policies is simply a narrow-minded focus on a particular agenda. And that agenda is probably aimed more at other posters on this message board than your actual ideals.

Yes, my point only applies to military actions. War and military action is a special case. We should indeed be focused on preventing dumb wars! Nothing has done more harm to America in the last few decades than dumb wars. I’m not sure if anything else comes close. The colossally stupid war in Iraq got thousands of Americans (and hundreds of thousands of others) killed for nothing, destabilized the region, and cost us enormous amounts of resources. It’s absolutely imperative – more important than any other issue right now – that we avoid another dumb war of choice.

[Wrenching_Spanners]

@iiandyiiii

Another good way to sum up my position, without the exceptions, nuance, and detail in my earlier posts, is the following:

“War is disgusting (including “little” wars and military actions), and barring a few rare circumstances, if you advocate for war or military action, you are disgusting.”

Before, you were all for labelling people who advocate supporting military actions as cowards, unless they joined in that military action.

Now that you’ve added the label “disgusting” are you applying that to all people with hawkish attitudes, including those in the military?

[Ravenman]

@Wrenching_Spanners

Before, you were all for labelling people who advocate supporting military actions as cowards, unless they joined in that military action.

Now that you’ve added the label “disgusting” are you applying that to all people with hawkish attitudes, including those in the military?

IIRC, iiandyiii is a former service member. Navy, I think. If you’re implying that he has a general grudge against people in the military, you should rethink that.

[iiandyiiii]

@Wrenching_Spanners

Before, you were all for labelling people who advocate supporting military actions as cowards, unless they joined in that military action.

Now that you’ve added the label “disgusting” are you applying that to all people with hawkish attitudes, including those in the military?

I’ll apply it to the attitude (for dumb and unnecessary wars). I’ll only apply it to the person if I think that would be an effective rhetorical tactic in the given circumstance.