Lawrence O'Donnall trashes Romney and sons for lack of military service.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lawrence O'Donnall trashes Romney and sons for lack of military service.

Now without a link I can only describe the general gist of what he said.

Lawrence O'Donnall rightfully attacked Romney for  doging the draft. Now while it is true there is nothing in the Mormon religion  from serving in the military(there was an abscure law allowing only Mormons to use a deferment if they chose, many Mormons during Nam did not use the deferment Romney did).

Now O'donnall rightfully also said there were draft dodgers who were lagit because they were going with their concious because they did not support the war. Romney did and still dodged.

However, where I dissagree about "dodging" with O'Donnall, while agreeing with the dishonest tactic on Romney's part, is caling him a coward.

I am too, I would not be emotionally or even physically fit to handle getting shot at. I do not see it as cowardice to know oneself and one owns limits. The cowardice was in the lying, not if one admits they would be in over their head. If I am on the battlefield and any soilder who does serve will tell you, in that time of life threating stress they want EVERYONE arouind them focused on the task to either win or survive.

I would have more value for Romney and or his sons for telling the truth instead of lying and saying "we can serve our country in other ways", instead of saying "No I couldn't handle it". I hate this macho bravado that men are all the same physically or emotionally. So on the one hand if they had simply said "There is no way I could do that myself, but I am glad there are people who can" would be honest, and in that respect O'Donnall would not have a case.

I don't think by one admiting they cant handle something means that there will be a lack of people who can. If evolution is a range, then so are men so there cannot be a right way to "be a man". The crime Romney commited wasn't being a "wimp", his crime was using a deferment while hypocritically supporting a war he wasn't willing to fight himself.

I think the issue could be settled quite easily by allowing in the vetting process, especially now that the military is completely voluntary, to allow honest talk between the person who wants to join and a psychological evaluation prior to basic training. But not serving or being scared of serving, by itself doesn not make one a coward. The cowardice is in the lying, not the self awarness.

 

I have supported the Afgan war and not the Iraq war and there would have been in either case no way I could emotionally handle combat. So O'Donnall is both right and wrong and at the same time would have to call me a coward too. I might be in a physical sense and most certainly seeing that kind of violence knowing myself would scramble not only my brains, but get others killed. But most certainly would be a coward if I simply went along with a social norm and ended up getting others killed because I was too "ashamed" to admit I couldn't handle it.

(EDIT)

Why would any soldier want someone next to them who simply bowed to peer pressure because that person was too afriad to admit they couldn't handle it and did it merely because they didn't want to "look like wimp". It is bad enough war exists and bad enough that people die. I think it is worse when you send someone into combat who is unfit emotionally to serve. Even those who manage to do it come home with PTSD, depression, take it out on their spouses, become addicted to a drug. Now while that isn't a majority, it cannot be minimized by forcing someone to live a lie and is certainly dangerous to the other soldiers around them.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am too, I

Brian37 wrote:

I am too, I would not be emotionally or even physically fit to handle getting shot at. I do not see it as cowardice to know oneself and one owns limits. The cowardice was in the lying, not if one admits they would be in over their head. If I am on the battlefield and any solider who does serve will tell you, in that time of life threatening stress they want EVERYONE around them focused on the task to either win or survive.

I would have more value for Romney and or his sons for telling the truth instead of lying and saying "we can serve our country in other ways", instead of saying "No I couldn't handle it". I hate this macho bravado that men are all the same physically or emotionally. So on the one hand if they had simply said "There is no way I could do that myself, but I am glad there are people who can" would be honest, and in that respect O'Donnall would not have a case.

I don't think by one admitting they cant handle something means that there will be a lack of people who can. If evolution is a range, then so are men so there cannot be a right way to "be a man". The crime Romney commit ed wasn't being a "wimp", his crime was using a deferment while hypocritically supporting a war he wasn't willing to fight himself.

I think the issue could be settled quite easily by allowing in the vetting process, especially now that the military is completely voluntary, to allow honest talk between the person who wants to join and a psychological evaluation prior to basic training. But not serving or being scared of serving, by itself doesn not make one a coward. The cowardice is in the lying, not the self awareness.

 I have supported the Afgan war and not the Iraq war and there would have been in either case no way I could emotionally handle combat. So O'Donnall is both right and wrong and at the same time would have to call me a coward too. I might be in a physical sense and most certainly seeing that kind of violence knowing myself would scramble not only my brains, but get others killed. But most certainly would be a coward if I simply went along with a social norm and ended up getting others killed because I was too "ashamed" to admit I couldn't handle it.

(EDIT)

Why would any soldier want someone next to them who simply bowed to peer pressure because that person was too afraid to admit they couldn't handle it and did it merely because they didn't want to "look like wimp". It is bad enough war exists and bad enough that people die. I think it is worse when you send someone into combat who is unfit emotionally to serve. Even those who manage to do it come home with PTSD, depression, take it out on their spouses, become addicted to a drug. Now while that isn't a majority, it cannot be minimized by forcing someone to live a lie and is certainly dangerous to the other soldiers around them.

 

Having served in the military I can vouch for several things.

1 - "Cowards" who serve in the military get abused and forced to do things they don't want to do. The military does not move people out of harms way just because they are scared. They will force a person to go out on patrol and the squad will beat the fuck out of them if they aren't doing their job. There are times when it gets so bad that they remove them from patrol and then put them on shit detail.

2 - There was an old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" but I found out that this is bogus.

3 - I don't support either war. War is a waste of time and resources.

4 - Romney and his family are the worst example of an American family that I can think of; I would rather meet and talk to a bum on the street than Romney. The bum might be incoherent and drunk, but at least I know that what they are is the real McCoy and not some dressed up, smiling pile of shit.

5 - Those people who come home (PTSD, etc) get disconnected from their time line, from reality. I know because I had similar but lesser symptoms and I had to go to therapy. I remember the therapist telling me that war connected symptoms like these are the same symptoms people get when they are raped or molested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Good thing we have Obama

 Good thing we have Obama on the ballot running on his distinguished military career. 

 

The idea of a draft is totalitarian, I don't blame any person for doing whatever it takes to avoid the coercion of a draft- legal or illegal. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Good

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Good thing we have Obama on the ballot running on his distinguished military career. 

 

The idea of a draft is totalitarian, I don't blame any person for doing whatever it takes to avoid the coercion of a draft- legal or illegal. 

Always about Obama isn't it.

Did you even read my post? I am a wimp too! The crime on Romney's part and now his sons, isn't that they were or are afraid of combat. In reality many people are and have NO business getting on a battle feild. I do not judge a politician for serving I would have Voted for McCain. But I damned sure could not have done what Pat Tilman did, or did you forget about him.

The crime wasn't being a wimp, the crime was not being honest.

Obama didn't Serve and neither did Romney, so?

The Republican party are the ones policticising service. IN WW2 none of that happened, the soldiers considered themselves Americans first and so did Society. But the right wing has made it about religious and political litmus tests constitutes a "true soldier".

When I vote on issues of growing social equallity and economic fairness, someone's service is appreciated, but it is not for me a requirement or an exclusion when I vote. I didn't vote for McCain because of his economic policies, but that does not mean I did not apprecate his service. That is bullshit to suggest that serving or not serving qualifies someone or excludes them from office.

THIS WHATS AN HONESTY ISSUE, NOT A SERVICE ISSUE.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am too, I would not be emotionally or even physically fit to handle getting shot at. I do not see it as cowardice to know oneself and one owns limits. The cowardice was in the lying, not if one admits they would be in over their head. If I am on the battlefield and any solider who does serve will tell you, in that time of life threatening stress they want EVERYONE around them focused on the task to either win or survive.

I would have more value for Romney and or his sons for telling the truth instead of lying and saying "we can serve our country in other ways", instead of saying "No I couldn't handle it". I hate this macho bravado that men are all the same physically or emotionally. So on the one hand if they had simply said "There is no way I could do that myself, but I am glad there are people who can" would be honest, and in that respect O'Donnall would not have a case.

I don't think by one admitting they cant handle something means that there will be a lack of people who can. If evolution is a range, then so are men so there cannot be a right way to "be a man". The crime Romney commit ed wasn't being a "wimp", his crime was using a deferment while hypocritically supporting a war he wasn't willing to fight himself.

I think the issue could be settled quite easily by allowing in the vetting process, especially now that the military is completely voluntary, to allow honest talk between the person who wants to join and a psychological evaluation prior to basic training. But not serving or being scared of serving, by itself doesn not make one a coward. The cowardice is in the lying, not the self awareness.

 I have supported the Afgan war and not the Iraq war and there would have been in either case no way I could emotionally handle combat. So O'Donnall is both right and wrong and at the same time would have to call me a coward too. I might be in a physical sense and most certainly seeing that kind of violence knowing myself would scramble not only my brains, but get others killed. But most certainly would be a coward if I simply went along with a social norm and ended up getting others killed because I was too "ashamed" to admit I couldn't handle it.

(EDIT)

Why would any soldier want someone next to them who simply bowed to peer pressure because that person was too afraid to admit they couldn't handle it and did it merely because they didn't want to "look like wimp". It is bad enough war exists and bad enough that people die. I think it is worse when you send someone into combat who is unfit emotionally to serve. Even those who manage to do it come home with PTSD, depression, take it out on their spouses, become addicted to a drug. Now while that isn't a majority, it cannot be minimized by forcing someone to live a lie and is certainly dangerous to the other soldiers around them.

 

Having served in the military I can vouch for several things.

1 - "Cowards" who serve in the military get abused and forced to do things they don't want to do. The military does not move people out of harms way just because they are scared. They will force a person to go out on patrol and the squad will beat the fuck out of them if they aren't doing their job. There are times when it gets so bad that they remove them from patrol and then put them on shit detail.

2 - There was an old saying "there are no atheists in foxholes" but I found out that this is bogus.

3 - I don't support either war. War is a waste of time and resources.

4 - Romney and his family are the worst example of an American family that I can think of; I would rather meet and talk to a bum on the street than Romney. The bum might be incoherent and drunk, but at least I know that what they are is the real McCoy and not some dressed up, smiling pile of shit.

5 - Those people who come home (PTSD, etc) get disconnected from their time line, from reality. I know because I had similar but lesser symptoms and I had to go to therapy. I remember the therapist telling me that war connected symptoms like these are the same symptoms people get when they are raped or molested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First off, thanks for your service. Secondly, sorry went through those things. Although I have never witnessed that level of violence. I did once see the affects it had on someone who had come home from Iraq. Met him at a bar, the PTSD lashed right out at me when I said "I support you, just not the war" Soilders throughout all are wars are asked constantly to go places they dont want to go and do things they dont want to do.

But this guy wanted no business of me "trashing the war" because he was mistaking it for trashing him. The seething anger and fire in his eyes, was sudden and jarring, and I could tell he wanted to beat the shit out of me. Not because I was wrong, but because he doesn't know what seperating issues is. I got the fuck out of there within a couple minutes because I could tell a couple more in him and someone was going to get hurt. He didn't understand that it was not only his flawed logic, but the emotional trauma of the PTSD causing it so there was no way I could have a rational conversation with him.

It was scary. War can turn otherwise nice humans into scary people. It is true and any soldier regardless of politics or religion if having been in combat can tell you "war is hell".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Good

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Good thing we have Obama on the ballot running on his distinguished military career. 

 

The idea of a draft is totalitarian, I don't blame any person for doing whatever it takes to avoid the coercion of a draft- legal or illegal. 

Since you're going to play that game, Johnson has a stellar military record also. It's absolutely as distinguished as Obama's and Romney's.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Good

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Good thing we have Obama on the ballot running on his distinguished military career. 

 

The idea of a draft is totalitarian, I don't blame any person for doing whatever it takes to avoid the coercion of a draft- legal or illegal. 

Ok, then that means you should go take Japanese and German as a first language. It is a damned good thing we didn't defeat them. Hiel Hitler!

Now, having said that, I agree litmus tests and peer pressure are bad things. But there was a huge difference between the draft of WW2 and the draft of Korea and Nam. One was based on a direct attack and iminate threat, the other two wars of stratigy, not nescessity. Even as a wimp I understiood the nessesity of the draft of WW2 but probably would have spent the entire time in jail gladly without blaming the entire country for their draft or reaction.

But even in those cases it still is understandable to have people emotionally not fit or conciencious objectors. But you cannot tell me that "conciencious objector" has never been used to avoid saying "I don't want to die".

Your flaw is always the same, it works now it will aways work, it works for you so it works for everyone.

If a draft is always totalitarian, then so are speed limits because it still amounts to government telling you what to do. I would agree a draft would be totalitarian if it were under a government that had no constitution to reverse it, but since we did, you have no case.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4569
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 @ JC agreed, seems to be a

 

@ JC agreed, seems to be a trend among our political leaders to never serve in the military, but at least Johnson also supports getting us out of all of our wars, something Bama paid lip service to but has yet to achieve. (and something I would support Bama in) I do find it disturbing the number of chicken hawks we have running around pounding their chests and getting us into apparently never ending wars. I am fucking sick of hearing about old friends coming home without limbs for some backasswards country where we already killed our main targets while the anti-war movement has apparently disappeared simply because the current guy in office has the right letter in front of his name. There is no reason a war with the US should last longer than 3 months, let those ragheads set up their own government without our help. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, then that means you should go take Japanese and German as a first language. It is a damned good thing we didn't defeat them. Hiel Hitler!

Now, having said that, I agree litmus tests and peer pressure are bad things. But there was a huge difference between the draft of WW2 and the draft of Korea and Nam. One was based on a direct attack and iminate threat, the other two wars of stratigy, not nescessity. Even as a wimp I understiood the nessesity of the draft of WW2 but probably would have spent the entire time in jail gladly without blaming the entire country for their draft or reaction.

But even in those cases it still is understandable to have people emotionally not fit or conciencious objectors. But you cannot tell me that "conciencious objector" has never been used to avoid saying "I don't want to die".

Your flaw is always the same, it works now it will aways work, it works for you so it works for everyone.

If a draft is always totalitarian, then so are speed limits because it still amounts to government telling you what to do. I would agree a draft would be totalitarian if it were under a government that had no constitution to reverse it, but since we did, you have no case. 

There is a huge difference between a speed limit and forcing someone to take a gun and go get shot at. A draft is totalitarian no matter what, if a country cannot find enough volunteers to serve in the military then perhaps the leaders should reconsider being involved in the war. No government should ever have the power to force a citizen who has broken no laws to go fight and possibly die in a war zone. Besides, in a war zone I would rather have no one next to me than some coward who is going to get my ass killed.

The whole argument is probably irrelevant now though because modern warfare is conducted with fewer and far better trained soldiers. It is unlikely that anyone will seriously consider a draft in the future because untrained draftees would be worse than useless. A little different from WW2 or Vietnam where much of warfare was conducted by throwing warm bodies at the enemy and overwhelming them with sheer numbers. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
It is impossible for theists

It is impossible for theists with faith in heaven to have courage in battle anyways. If you really believe you go strait to paradise and in the Mormon case you get to be a god with your own planets and universe to play with, it hardly seems couragous to get shot at. Having faith negates the possiblity of having courage.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Good

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Good thing we have Obama on the ballot running on his distinguished military career. 

 

The idea of a draft is totalitarian, I don't blame any person for doing whatever it takes to avoid the coercion of a draft- legal or illegal. 

Good thing we have Romney on the ballot running on his distinguished military career.

I dislike the military. I would never support a draft. I only support a mandatory two year term for all young people from 18-22.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There are plenty of ways to

There are plenty of ways to serve without getting shot at every day. If Romney supported the war then hid from it, then he is a coward who has no business leading the very force he hid from.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
This whole subject is

This whole subject is ridicilous. As if the shit you learn in a war, like how to set up land mines or whatever, has anything whatsoever to do with your role as the friggin president.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're so amazingly stupid.

You're so amazingly stupid. The things taught to members of the military would have significant impact on the LEADER OF THE FUCKING MILITARY.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:First off,

Brian37 wrote:
First off, thanks for your service. Secondly, sorry went through those things. Although I have never witnessed that level of violence. I did once see the affects it had on someone who had come home from Iraq. Met him at a bar, the PTSD lashed right out at me when I said "I support you, just not the war" Solders throughout all are wars are asked constantly to go places they dont want to go and do things they dont want to do.

But this guy wanted no business of me "trashing the war" because he was mistaking it for trashing him. The seething anger and fire in his eyes, was sudden and jarring, and I could tell he wanted to beat the shit out of me. Not because I was wrong, but because he doesn't know what separating issues is. I got the fuck out of there within a couple minutes because I could tell a couple more in him and someone was going to get hurt. He didn't understand that it was not only his flawed logic, but the emotional trauma of the PTSD causing it so there was no way I could have a rational conversation with him.

It was scary. War can turn otherwise nice humans into scary people. It is true and any soldier regardless of politics or religion if having been in combat can tell you "war is hell".

I know this might sound silly, but I'm a type of person who publicly won't take credit for my time in service. My wife has asked me why not and my only explanation is that I don't want the attention. So much so that when I'm in a crowd and there is an MC (like at Sea World or Disney) and they ask for all past and present military veterans to stand up and take a bow, I refuse to get up.

I can associate with that anger and rage, but I can't say what was going on in that guy's mind though. Every person is different and handle shit differently. It sounds like he needs some serious therapy.

One other thing about those disturbed people with a military background and another reason why I refuse to discuss my background. I've met military people who will tell me I'm a pussy because I wasn't in "such and such battle" and "I don't know what hell they went through". I've had the same exact encounter with a disturbed vet and he wanted to kill me because I was a 0311 and he was a 0131. I never claimed to be some gung-ho marine. I just did my job and stayed out of trouble.

I remember speaking to a guy who was my bunk mate at Parris Island. I was home on leave and he was over in Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield. Apparently this new Lt. had ran over a landmine and blew up the humv he was in. My friend ran out in to the minefield and he found the Lt with his entire lower half gone. He tried to help him but he was already dead.

This guy was a reservist going for his degree in Law at U of M. He was a total goof ball back then. 20 years old. Not a scar any where in his mind. A really nice guy. Like Gomer Pyle.

After all this however he changed. I spoke to his parents and and his mother said that he wouldn't talk to them any more about the marines. He completely changed and it changed all his relationships with all his friends and family.

The last time I spoke to him he swore me to secrecy never to tell his mom or dad. He said he didn't want her to know that he had been through that shit and he didn't want her to think of her differently. Unfortunately the damage had been done and he just didn't know it yet.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
First off, thanks for your service. Secondly, sorry went through those things. Although I have never witnessed that level of violence. I did once see the affects it had on someone who had come home from Iraq. Met him at a bar, the PTSD lashed right out at me when I said "I support you, just not the war" Solders throughout all are wars are asked constantly to go places they dont want to go and do things they dont want to do.

But this guy wanted no business of me "trashing the war" because he was mistaking it for trashing him. The seething anger and fire in his eyes, was sudden and jarring, and I could tell he wanted to beat the shit out of me. Not because I was wrong, but because he doesn't know what separating issues is. I got the fuck out of there within a couple minutes because I could tell a couple more in him and someone was going to get hurt. He didn't understand that it was not only his flawed logic, but the emotional trauma of the PTSD causing it so there was no way I could have a rational conversation with him.

It was scary. War can turn otherwise nice humans into scary people. It is true and any soldier regardless of politics or religion if having been in combat can tell you "war is hell".

I know this might sound silly, but I'm a type of person who publicly won't take credit for my time in service. My wife has asked me why not and my only explanation is that I don't want the attention. So much so that when I'm in a crowd and there is an MC (like at Sea World or Disney) and they ask for all past and present military veterans to stand up and take a bow, I refuse to get up.

I can associate with that anger and rage, but I can't say what was going on in that guy's mind though. Every person is different and handle shit differently. It sounds like he needs some serious therapy.

One other thing about those disturbed people with a military background and another reason why I refuse to discuss my background. I've met military people who will tell me I'm a pussy because I wasn't in "such and such battle" and "I don't know what hell they went through". I've had the same exact encounter with a disturbed vet and he wanted to kill me because I was a 0311 and he was a 0131. I never claimed to be some gung-ho marine. I just did my job and stayed out of trouble.

I remember speaking to a guy who was my bunk mate at Parris Island. I was home on leave and he was over in Saudi Arabia for Operation Desert Shield. Apparently this new Lt. had ran over a landmine and blew up the humv he was in. My friend ran out in to the minefield and he found the Lt with his entire lower half gone. He tried to help him but he was already dead.

This guy was a reservist going for his degree in Law at U of M. He was a total goof ball back then. 20 years old. Not a scar any where in his mind. A really nice guy. Like Gomer Pyle.

After all this however he changed. I spoke to his parents and and his mother said that he wouldn't talk to them any more about the marines. He completely changed and it changed all his relationships with all his friends and family.

The last time I spoke to him he swore me to secrecy never to tell his mom or dad. He said he didn't want her to know that he had been through that shit and he didn't want her to think of her differently. Unfortunately the damage had been done and he just didn't know it yet.

 

 

Its not silly, you are just being humble. But unfortunately we live in the real world and unless humans evolve to problem solve without violence, we will always need someone to protect us. Since I am too much of a "coward" myself to do it, I am damned sure glad there are people who can and have.

I think those forced into a draft deserved medals. But meddle or no meddle why do people serve? Well a variety of reasons, but the truth is the Constitution doesn't care why you serve, you are still taking a neutral oath and the only thing that matters is tha you defend the rights of that constitution which apply to all.(in theory).

Giving a thank you is not the same as expecting a thank you.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I know this might sound silly, but I'm a type of person who publicly won't take credit for my time in service. My wife has asked me why not and my only explanation is that I don't want the attention. So much so that when I'm in a crowd and there is an MC (like at Sea World or Disney) and they ask for all past and present military veterans to stand up and take a bow, I refuse to get up.

I can associate with that anger and rage, but I can't say what was going on in that guy's mind though. Every person is different and handle shit differently. It sounds like he needs some serious therapy.

One other thing about those disturbed people with a military background and another reason why I refuse to discuss my background. I've met military people who will tell me I'm a pussy because I wasn't in "such and such battle" and "I don't know what hell they went through". I've had the same exact encounter with a disturbed vet and he wanted to kill me because I was a 0311 and he was a 0131. I never claimed to be some gung-ho marine. I just did my job and stayed out of trouble.

Its not silly, you are just being humble. But unfortunately we live in the real world and unless humans evolve to problem solve without violence, we will always need someone to protect us. Since I am too much of a "coward" myself to do it, I am damned sure glad there are people who can and have.

I think those forced into a draft deserved medals. But meddle or no meddle why do people serve? Well a variety of reasons, but the truth is the Constitution doesn't care why you serve, you are still taking a neutral oath and the only thing that matters is tha you defend the rights of that constitution which apply to all.(in theory).

Giving a thank you is not the same as expecting a thank you.

I've got to be totally honest about my military service. I didn't join to protect any one or to defend the country. I joined because I happened to be walking through the mall with a friend and we bumped in to an marine recruiter.

We were both going no where in life. We had jobs but they were low end jobs. I didn't want to go back to college at that time. We were also smoking lots of funny stuff with our hard earned money.

My buddy was gung-ho and eventually went hard core in the marines while I took the easy road. Funny thing is that I might have ended up with him but I refused to go to MEPS the night the recruiter came to get me.

We were supposed to be on the 'buddy system' which would have meant he and I would have gone through all of our training together. I suspect that since I followed him in to the marines that I also would have followed him in to RECON.

The reason why I didn't want to go was because they had be labeled as being a grunt. I knew that being a grunt would force me in to some lame jobs after military life. I wanted a tech job and not a grunt job. My buddy wanted grunt work so that is the direction he went.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:We

digitalbeachbum wrote:

We were supposed to be on the 'buddy system' which would have meant he and I would have gone through all of our training together. I suspect that since I followed him in to the marines that I also would have followed him in to RECON.

The reason why I didn't want to go was because they had be labeled as being a grunt. I knew that being a grunt would force me in to some lame jobs after military life. I wanted a tech job and not a grunt job. My buddy wanted grunt work so that is the direction he went.

 

 

 

  I believe Beyond saving is ex Force Recon.  He certainly didn't seem to fit your prediction regarding his MOS and his post military job choices.  In fact Brian37 seems to perceive him as some sort of elitist Mitt Romney junior due to his current financial success.

 I'm an outsider to the military community but do most other military elites in the Dept of the Navy ( like Navy SEALS ) also go on to "lame jobs" after the military ?   Hard to imagine someone with the innate psychological drive to master the requirements of being an elite soldier would suddenly fail to employ that same "mission oriented" mentality when it came to making a comfortable living in the civilian world.

 Just my perception as a civilian, though.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I believe Beyond saving is ex Force Recon.  He certainly didn't seem to fit your prediction regarding his MOS and his post military job choices.  In fact Brian37 seems to perceive him as some sort of elitist Mitt Romney junior due to his current financial success.

 I'm an outsider to the military community but do most other military elites in the Dept of the Navy ( like Navy SEALS ) also go on to "lame jobs" after the military ?   Hard to imagine someone with the innate psychological drive to master the requirements of being an elite soldier would suddenly fail to employ that same "mission oriented" mentality when it came to making a comfortable living in the civilian world.

 Just my perception as a civilian, though.

You are never "ex" anything when it comes to military. You always carry your experiences with you for the rest of your life.

Just because you were in an elite position in the military does not transcribe in to a top paying job in civilian life. Remember that a majority of the military is made up of uneducated minorities. When they come out they have a small percentage which take advantage of the GI bill and other services offered.

One buddy was in Navy Intel and he got a job at big company doing security. He's making a ton of money. Another guy was in communications and he knew all about fiber optics. He's making a ton of money.

But on the other end of the spectrum I have a dozen friends who ended up in mid-level positions at factories or sales and never went back to school. With out the camaraderie and commanders directing them most military people lose direction when they come back to civilian life.

On the low end of the spectrum I know of guys who committed suicide and others that turned to the life of crime.

Is it environment or genetics? That's a old question which I don't know will ever be answered.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You're so

Vastet wrote:
You're so amazingly stupid. The things taught to members of the military would have significant impact on the LEADER OF THE FUCKING MILITARY.

Presidents decide shit that has to do with POLICY, they do not need to even know which end of the rifle the bullet comes out of or any other petty details of soldiering. This is as idiotic as saying the CEO of some company needs to know how to operate the forklifts in one of their warehouses.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Presidents

Manageri wrote:

 

Presidents decide shit that has to do with POLICY, they do not need to even know which end of the rifle the bullet comes out of or any other petty details of soldiering. This is as idiotic as saying the CEO of some company needs to know how to operate the forklifts in one of their warehouses.

 

  I have to agree with the whiny vegan.  The president serves as CIC by virtue of being president, alone.   Nevertheless as CIC he or she has a myriad of Pentagon advisers whose job it is to assist the president as to what is actually militarily feasible. 

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Presidents

Manageri wrote:
Presidents decide shit that has to do with POLICY,

And are the supreme commanders of the MILITARY, oh ignorant one.

Manageri wrote:
they do not need to even know which end of the rifle the bullet comes out of or any other petty details of soldiering

Literally bullshit. You're completely senseless.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Manageri wrote:

 

Presidents decide shit that has to do with POLICY, they do not need to even know which end of the rifle the bullet comes out of or any other petty details of soldiering. This is as idiotic as saying the CEO of some company needs to know how to operate the forklifts in one of their warehouses.

 

  I have to agree with the whiny vegan.  The president serves as CIC by virtue of being president, alone.   Nevertheless as CIC he or she has a myriad of Pentagon advisers whose job it is to assist the president as to what is actually militarily feasible. 

Have to disagree with you and the WV. Military experience helps the president remember that he's sending people into battle (not commodities). We've already seen it degrade from "soldiers" into "troops". What's next? We're sending in "fighty things"?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly

jcgadfly wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Manageri wrote:

 

Presidents decide shit that has to do with POLICY, they do not need to even know which end of the rifle the bullet comes out of or any other petty details of soldiering. This is as idiotic as saying the CEO of some company needs to know how to operate the forklifts in one of their warehouses.

 

  I have to agree with the whiny vegan.  The president serves as CIC by virtue of being president, alone.   Nevertheless as CIC he or she has a myriad of Pentagon advisers whose job it is to assist the president as to what is actually militarily feasible. 

Have to disagree with you and the WV. Military experience helps the president remember that he's sending people into battle (not commodities). We've already seen it degrade from "soldiers" into "troops". What's next? We're sending in "fighty things"?

 

Awesome post

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Have to

jcgadfly wrote:

Have to disagree with you and the WV. Military experience helps the president remember that he's sending people into battle (not commodities). We've already seen it degrade from "soldiers" into "troops". What's next? We're sending in "fighty things"?

 

 

   Semantics issues aside, soldiers, troops or "fighty things" are commodities in a military sense.     

 

Also, having military experience doesn't necessarily pan out into this empathetic pov as you might be suggesting.  Do you think if someone like General George S. Patton had later been elected president that he would have been hesitant to risk American lives to accomplish his goals ?

 The only issue is whether an objective justifies military intervention ( and the subsequent casualties ) or not.   I promise you that even given prior military experience that there will be disagreement even among the experienced as to whether or not troops should be committed and lives should be put in danger.  

IMHO, the issue of having military experience and its effects upon decision making are not as cut and dried as you seem to assert.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Have to disagree with you and the WV. Military experience helps the president remember that he's sending people into battle (not commodities). We've already seen it degrade from "soldiers" into "troops". What's next? We're sending in "fighty things"?

 

 

   Semantics issues aside, soldiers, troops or "fighty things" are commodities in a military sense.     

 

Also, having military experience doesn't necessarily pan out into this empathetic pov as you might be suggesting.  Do you think if someone like General George S. Patton had later been elected president that he would have been hesitant to risk American lives to accomplish his goals ?

 The only issue is whether an objective justifies military intervention ( and the subsequent casualties ) or not.   I promise you that even given prior military experience that there will be disagreement even among the experienced as to whether or not troops should be committed and lives should be put in danger.  

IMHO, the issue of having military experience and its effects upon decision making are not as cut and dried as you seem to assert.

I'd agree with you if we lived back in the days where commanders were still sending out untrained cannon fodder.

Even the "grunts" still get a lot of time and money invested in their training. It's in a nation's economic interest to keep their soldiers alive for as long as possible.

No empathy required.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I know this might sound silly, but I'm a type of person who publicly won't take credit for my time in service. My wife has asked me why not and my only explanation is that I don't want the attention. So much so that when I'm in a crowd and there is an MC (like at Sea World or Disney) and they ask for all past and present military veterans to stand up and take a bow, I refuse to get up.

I can associate with that anger and rage, but I can't say what was going on in that guy's mind though. Every person is different and handle shit differently. It sounds like he needs some serious therapy.

One other thing about those disturbed people with a military background and another reason why I refuse to discuss my background. I've met military people who will tell me I'm a pussy because I wasn't in "such and such battle" and "I don't know what hell they went through". I've had the same exact encounter with a disturbed vet and he wanted to kill me because I was a 0311 and he was a 0131. I never claimed to be some gung-ho marine. I just did my job and stayed out of trouble.

Its not silly, you are just being humble. But unfortunately we live in the real world and unless humans evolve to problem solve without violence, we will always need someone to protect us. Since I am too much of a "coward" myself to do it, I am damned sure glad there are people who can and have.

I think those forced into a draft deserved medals. But meddle or no meddle why do people serve? Well a variety of reasons, but the truth is the Constitution doesn't care why you serve, you are still taking a neutral oath and the only thing that matters is tha you defend the rights of that constitution which apply to all.(in theory).

Giving a thank you is not the same as expecting a thank you.

I've got to be totally honest about my military service. I didn't join to protect any one or to defend the country. I joined because I happened to be walking through the mall with a friend and we bumped in to an marine recruiter.

We were both going no where in life. We had jobs but they were low end jobs. I didn't want to go back to college at that time. We were also smoking lots of funny stuff with our hard earned money.

My buddy was gung-ho and eventually went hard core in the marines while I took the easy road. Funny thing is that I might have ended up with him but I refused to go to MEPS the night the recruiter came to get me.

We were supposed to be on the 'buddy system' which would have meant he and I would have gone through all of our training together. I suspect that since I followed him in to the marines that I also would have followed him in to RECON.

The reason why I didn't want to go was because they had be labeled as being a grunt. I knew that being a grunt would force me in to some lame jobs after military life. I wanted a tech job and not a grunt job. My buddy wanted grunt work so that is the direction he went.

 

 

I already mentioned that people have different motivations and your example is just one motivation. But as I said before, as much as I would like to live in a world where people are not trying to kill us, we do and it is an unfortunate nessesity. Your humility and honesty don't change the fact that you took a risk to protect us. You don't have to think of your service as "noble", but it is still a nessesity and if no one joined up, especially in a voluntary system, we'd either be speaking Chinese or Arabic right now.

The ethical people in law inforcement and on the battle field are like you, the ones who don't want to be there. I hate cops who do it because they want to get even or have power, and while it may be part of evolution in men who like the battlefield, I still find it sick.

How you went in or why you went it does not change the fact that you did it. I couldn't have but am still glad there are people who can. Without them our country could not be protected.

You don't have to like what you did or find it noble, but it is part of reality and you still did something that is a contribution.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Have to disagree with you and the WV. Military experience helps the president remember that he's sending people into battle (not commodities). We've already seen it degrade from "soldiers" into "troops". What's next? We're sending in "fighty things"?

 

 

   Semantics issues aside, soldiers, troops or "fighty things" are commodities in a military sense.     

 

Also, having military experience doesn't necessarily pan out into this empathetic pov as you might be suggesting.  Do you think if someone like General George S. Patton had later been elected president that he would have been hesitant to risk American lives to accomplish his goals ?

 The only issue is whether an objective justifies military intervention ( and the subsequent casualties ) or not.   I promise you that even given prior military experience that there will be disagreement even among the experienced as to whether or not troops should be committed and lives should be put in danger.  

IMHO, the issue of having military experience and its effects upon decision making are not as cut and dried as you seem to assert.

If I am reading you correctly, I agree.

Coaches in the NFL have in the past set up head hunting pay offs that injur other players. It is not only a form of cheating, it goes beyond the accepted contact and can seriously end someone's career. Those coaches were players once themselves. On the other hand, you probably have many owners who have never played a down, or even only went as far as high school football who would condemn it.

So if I am reading you correctly, military service alone will not prevent a president, if they have served, from getting into the same type of crap Bush did. Many in the military supported the disaster of Iraq and we are stuck in a stalemate in Afganistan, even though I myself agreed with that one. In retrospect though, I wouldn't have recomended even that one considering the cost it has produced which wont change anything long term.

I think with good intelegence and a plan going in and getting out and quickly divicive can be made by a civilian president or a former military president, and I think both can fuck up as well. It still depends on the motives and intelignce of that individual.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

   Semantics issues aside, soldiers, troops or "fighty things" are commodities in a military sense.     

 

Also, having military experience doesn't necessarily pan out into this empathetic pov as you might be suggesting.  Do you think if someone like General George S. Patton had later been elected president that he would have been hesitant to risk American lives to accomplish his goals ?

 The only issue is whether an objective justifies military intervention ( and the subsequent casualties ) or not.   I promise you that even given prior military experience that there will be disagreement even among the experienced as to whether or not troops should be committed and lives should be put in danger.  

IMHO, the issue of having military experience and its effects upon decision making are not as cut and dried as you seem to assert.

If I am reading you correctly, I agree.

Coaches in the NFL have in the past set up head hunting pay offs that injur other players. It is not only a form of cheating, it goes beyond the accepted contact and can seriously end someone's career. Those coaches were players once themselves. On the other hand, you probably have many owners who have never played a down, or even only went as far as high school football who would condemn it.

So if I am reading you correctly, military service alone will not prevent a president, if they have served, from getting into the same type of crap Bush did. Many in the military supported the disaster of Iraq and we are stuck in a stalemate in Afganistan, even though I myself agreed with that one. In retrospect though, I wouldn't have recomended even that one considering the cost it has produced which wont change anything long term.

I think with good intelegence and a plan going in and getting out and quickly divicive can be made by a civilian president or a former military president, and I think both can fuck up as well. It still depends on the motives and intelignce of that individual.

 

 

    Thanks Brian.  That was exactly the point I was trying to make.  

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

   Semantics issues aside, soldiers, troops or "fighty things" are commodities in a military sense.     

 

Also, having military experience doesn't necessarily pan out into this empathetic pov as you might be suggesting.  Do you think if someone like General George S. Patton had later been elected president that he would have been hesitant to risk American lives to accomplish his goals ?

 The only issue is whether an objective justifies military intervention ( and the subsequent casualties ) or not.   I promise you that even given prior military experience that there will be disagreement even among the experienced as to whether or not troops should be committed and lives should be put in danger.  

IMHO, the issue of having military experience and its effects upon decision making are not as cut and dried as you seem to assert.

If I am reading you correctly, I agree.

Coaches in the NFL have in the past set up head hunting pay offs that injur other players. It is not only a form of cheating, it goes beyond the accepted contact and can seriously end someone's career. Those coaches were players once themselves. On the other hand, you probably have many owners who have never played a down, or even only went as far as high school football who would condemn it.

So if I am reading you correctly, military service alone will not prevent a president, if they have served, from getting into the same type of crap Bush did. Many in the military supported the disaster of Iraq and we are stuck in a stalemate in Afganistan, even though I myself agreed with that one. In retrospect though, I wouldn't have recomended even that one considering the cost it has produced which wont change anything long term.

I think with good intelegence and a plan going in and getting out and quickly divicive can be made by a civilian president or a former military president, and I think both can fuck up as well. It still depends on the motives and intelignce of that individual.

 

 

    Thanks Brian.  That was exactly the point I was trying to make.  

And that makes sense. It seems today that military service is considered a detriment to public office. It is true that military service won't make a president completely empathic to the plight of the soldier - it has in the past given them a bit more pause in committing troops. Former military men are not killing machines and businessmen in the Romney mold (vulture capitalists) have been far more ruthless than any military man. It's as if they think they have more to prove.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Have to

jcgadfly wrote:
Have to disagree with you and the WV. Military experience helps the president remember that he's sending people into battle (not commodities).

Prove it.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ No common sense detected.

^ No common sense detected. No surprise there though.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Have to disagree with you and the WV. Military experience helps the president remember that he's sending people into battle (not commodities).

Prove it.

 

The grown-ups have gone past that WV - you really need to catch up on the discussions more.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The grown-ups

jcgadfly wrote:
The grown-ups have gone past that WV - you really need to catch up on the discussions more.

jcgadfly wrote:
I'd agree with you if we lived back in the days where commanders were still sending out untrained cannon fodder.

Even the "grunts" still get a lot of time and money invested in their training. It's in a nation's economic interest to keep their soldiers alive for as long as possible.

No empathy required.

So first you are saying it's important for a president to have been in the position of the soldiers, then you do a 180 and empathy is no longer required for the job. Then you call me childish for criticizing the position you just admitted is crap. Amazing.

It never occurred to you that maybe people just kinda are assholes (you know, kinda like you) and don't tend to give as big a shit about the lives of others? Somehow the same people understand perfectly well they could get killed in a war so they dodge drafts and stuff, but unless they actually did join then they can't figure out they're sending others to their deaths when they go to war?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Doesn't understand

^ Doesn't understand context. Also unsurprising.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

 

jcgadfly wrote:
I'd agree with you if we lived back in the days where commanders were still sending out untrained cannon fodder.

Even the "grunts" still get a lot of time and money invested in their training. It's in a nation's economic interest to keep their soldiers alive for as long as possible.

No empathy required.

So first you are saying it's important for a president to have been in the position of the soldiers, then you do a 180 and empathy is no longer required for the job. Then you call me childish for criticizing the position you just admitted is crap. Amazing.

 

  Again, I agree with Manageri's observation.  It does seem that in post #21 at first jcgadfly implies with his "people not commodities" comment that compassion in a leader automatically comes from having previously served ( that's why I cited General Patton as a contrary example )

 

Then in post #24 he seems to suggest that no, actually the economic value of the soldier is what takes precedence in not hastily committing troops  hence "no empathy required."

 

Then in post #28 he seems to attempt to straddle both points of view:

 "it is true that military service won't make a president completely empathetic to the plight of the soldier-it has in the past given them more pause in committing troops"  

 

                                                  ( But I thought reluctance to commit troops was an issue of cost effectiveness...no empathy required ? )

 

Then jc states that "former military men are not killing machines" which again is why I used General Patton as an example of an experienced military man who most certainly fit the mold of a "killing machine".   Incidentally, General Patton never became president ( due to accidental death ) and instead General Eisenhower did.

 

Manageri wrote:
It never occurred to you that maybe people just kinda are assholes (you know, kinda like you) and don't tend to give as big a shit about the lives of others? Somehow the same people understand perfectly well they could get killed in a war so they dodge drafts and stuff, but unless they actually did join then they can't figure out they're sending others to their deaths when they go to war?

  Again, Manageri for all his abrasiveness ( I don't think jcgadfly is an ass hole ) seems to understand that the experience of having served in the military does not automatically imbue one with loads of altruism regarding one's fellow soldiers and my point was hopefully that even among the most experienced of military men ( ie, Generals ) you should never draw hasty conclusions regarding their eagerness for war.  I'm done.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Manageri wrote:

 

jcgadfly wrote:
I'd agree with you if we lived back in the days where commanders were still sending out untrained cannon fodder.

Even the "grunts" still get a lot of time and money invested in their training. It's in a nation's economic interest to keep their soldiers alive for as long as possible.

No empathy required.

So first you are saying it's important for a president to have been in the position of the soldiers, then you do a 180 and empathy is no longer required for the job. Then you call me childish for criticizing the position you just admitted is crap. Amazing.

 

  Again, I agree with Manageri's observation.  It does seem that in post #21 at first jcgadfly implies with his "people not commodities" comment that compassion in a leader automatically comes from having previously served ( that's why I cited General Patton as a contrary example )

 

Then in post #24 he seems to suggest that no, actually the economic value of the soldier is what takes precedence in not hastily committing troops  hence "no empathy required."

 

Then in post #28 he seems to attempt to straddle both points of view:

 "it is true that military service won't make a president completely empathetic to the plight of the soldier-it has in the past given them more pause in committing troops"  

 

                                                  ( But I thought reluctance to commit troops was an issue of cost effectiveness...no empathy required ? )

 

Then jc states that "former military men are not killing machines" which again is why I used General Patton as an example of an experienced military man who most certainly fit the mold of a "killing machine".   Incidentally, General Patton never became president ( due to accidental death ) and instead General Eisenhower did.

 

Manageri wrote:
It never occurred to you that maybe people just kinda are assholes (you know, kinda like you) and don't tend to give as big a shit about the lives of others? Somehow the same people understand perfectly well they could get killed in a war so they dodge drafts and stuff, but unless they actually did join then they can't figure out they're sending others to their deaths when they go to war?

  Again, Manageri for all his abrasiveness ( I don't think jcgadfly is an ass hole ) seems to understand that the experience of having served in the military does not automatically imbue one with loads of altruism regarding one's fellow soldiers and my point was hopefully that even among the most experienced of military men ( ie, Generals ) you should never draw hasty conclusions regarding their eagerness for war.  I'm done.

Prozac, you said that it military experience wouldn't necessarily bring with it an empathic point of view. I stated that my position had nothing to do with empathy but with not wanting to waste the money spent on a well-trained soldier. Military experience brings value on both an empathic and an economic view. No 180 or straddling - my view is strictly economic. I can see them giving more of a damn about how your soldiers are used because they had been one - they might worry about things like putting them in places where they could be used effectively and possibly even brought back alive. You really think a military man would've attacked Iraq as a reprisal for people coming in from Afghanistan?

I should have used the term "Most former military men aren't killing machines" as I agree there are always counter-examples.

Manageri (the whiny vegan) can think I'm an asshole all he wants. The feeling is mutual. I can't sensibly deal with someone who is opposed to eating animals but is cool with testing shit on them.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Prozac, you

jcgadfly wrote:

Prozac, you said that it military experience wouldn't necessarily bring with it an empathic point of view.

Agreed.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
I stated that my position had nothing to do with empathy but with not wanting to waste the money spent on a well-trained soldier.

  Okay.

jcgadfly wrote:
Military experience brings value on both an empathic and an economic view.

 

  I don't know about the economic part.   Are you familiar with some of the weapon procurement fiascoes where millions of dollars are spent in research and development only to discard the whole program ? The M-247 Sergeant York self propelled AAA system swallowed more than 54 million dollars and we have nothing to show for it.   Other examples abound.  

In fact sometimes economic considerations ( aka "cutting corners" )  take precedence even over troop safety by fielding sub-par equipment which eventually puts soldiers at additional risks.

 

 

jcgadfly wrote:
I can see them giving more of a damn about how your soldiers are used because they had been one - they might worry about things like putting them in places where they could be used effectively and possibly even brought back alive.

 

I agree in a broad sense with what you are saying.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
You really think a military man would've attacked Iraq as a reprisal for people coming in from Afghanistan?
 

 

Hard to say in a definitive sense.  Military strategy is not monolithic and politics are always in the mix.  Should the US have attacked Cambodia during the Viet Nam war ? Opinions vary.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
I should have used the term "Most former military men aren't killing machines" as I agree there are always counter-examples.

 

I agree.  It seems like a more logical assessment.  As you implied above, there are always exceptions no matter the rank.

 

jcgadfly wrote:
Manageri (the whiny vegan) can think I'm an asshole all he wants. The feeling is mutual. I can't sensibly deal with someone who is opposed to eating animals but is cool with testing shit on them.

 

I respect your intelligence and large pool of knowledge even if I may nitpick here and there.   Manageri is ...most of the time... exceedingly pompous and condescending but he does occasionally hit the mark with his own observations.  I try to give credit where it's due.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Manageri (the

jcgadfly wrote:
Manageri (the whiny vegan) can think I'm an asshole all he wants. The feeling is mutual. I can't sensibly deal with someone who is opposed to eating animals but is cool with testing shit on them.

That's because you're an idiot who has no clue what an ethically productive equation looks like, or you're an asshole who doesn't give a shit about being productive as long as you're not the one being abused, propably both. It would be absolutely retarded to say testing something on animals under ALL circumstances is wrong, just like it'd be retarded to say cutting people's guts' open is always wrong as that would mean we can't do surgery, but why the fuck am I explaining this to you when I already know what a mongoloid you are so just go fuck a cactus or something.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:jcgadfly

Manageri wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Manageri (the whiny vegan) can think I'm an asshole all he wants. The feeling is mutual. I can't sensibly deal with someone who is opposed to eating animals but is cool with testing shit on them.

That's because you're an idiot who has no clue what an ethically productive equation looks like, or you're an asshole who doesn't give a shit about being productive as long as you're not the one being abused, propably both. It would be absolutely retarded to say testing something on animals under ALL circumstances is wrong, just like it'd be retarded to say cutting people's guts' open is always wrong as that would mean we can't do surgery, but why the fuck am I explaining this to you when I already know what a mongoloid you are so just go fuck a cactus or something.

At least I can sleep at night knowing I'm not a hypocrite with your "I can't let people kill something so they can eat it but I have no problem with ruining an animal's quality of life so it can be euthanized and thrown in a trash heap.

If that's your idea of ethics you and Mengele would have gotten along nicely. That's all I want to say on this because I'm not going to distract the thread anymore.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:At least I

jcgadfly wrote:

At least I can sleep at night knowing I'm not a hypocrite with your "I can't let people kill something so they can eat it but I have no problem with ruining an animal's quality of life so it can be euthanized and thrown in a trash heap.

If that's your idea of ethics you and Mengele would have gotten along nicely. That's all I want to say on this because I'm not going to distract the thread anymore.

Two preposterous strawmen in one sentence, bravo. It really is amazing how the average atheist seems to forget all about honest argumentation as soon as the subject is something else than religion, but since you hold such glaringly assholish positions you really have no choise but to cheat and evade.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Two

Manageri wrote:

 

Two preposterous strawmen in one sentence, bravo. It really is amazing how the average atheist seems to forget all about honest argumentation as soon as the subject is something else than religion, but since you hold such glaringly assholish positions you really have no choise but to cheat and evade.

 

  Well your honest argumentation seems to have accomplished absolutely nothing.  You really suck at this.  You do realize that don't you ?  Perhaps Manageri you could at least be useful as an example to other vegans of how to fail miserably in persuading others to your meatless point of view.  Ironically even though you are a vegan you are a waste of human flesh as well.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Well

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Well your honest argumentation seems to have accomplished absolutely nothing.

So I should cheat instead? I really can't help it if people are such intellectual cowards they refuse to directly answer the important points and just strawman the shit out of what I say instead. All I can do is call them out on their assholery/inconsistency for the benefit of others.

Quote:
You really suck at this.  You do realize that don't you ?

Entirely possible, not that a few threads on a pretty small forum are a sufficient sample size for you to conclude any such thing though. I should also point out that veganism is hardly new yet it still remains a preposterously tiny minority (less than 1%), so it would be pretty amazing statistically speaking if a whole bunch of people suddenly adopted veganism based on my tiny contributions here, especially when pretty much no one ever makes such a large shift in their worldview overnight. Look at the deconversion stories of atheists for example. It often takes people years to go from first questioning their faith to identifying as an atheist, yet I somehow doubt you call atheists who fail at the near impossible task of instant deconversion sucky.

Quote:
Perhaps Manageri you could at least be useful as an example to other vegans of how to fail miserably in persuading others to your meatless point of view.  Ironically even though you are a vegan you are a waste of human flesh as well.

There's plenty of vegans doing the kiddie gloves approach which I think is shit as it fails to stress how serious the subject really is. Maybe I just appreciate honesty over being "nice" when you're trying to convince me of something more than the average person, but the people who got me to pay attention to the subject used the same kind of language and types of argumentation to convince me that I've used here , so I already know for a fact certain types of people are receptive to it.

Oh, almost forgot, fuck you too.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 849
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
You may be quite wrong about yourself.

Brian37 wrote:

Now without a link I can only describe the general gist of what he said.

Lawrence O'Donnall rightfully attacked Romney for  doging the draft. Now while it is true there is nothing in the Mormon religion  from serving in the military(there was an abscure law allowing only Mormons to use a deferment if they chose, many Mormons during Nam did not use the deferment Romney did).

Now O'donnall rightfully also said there were draft dodgers who were lagit because they were going with their concious because they did not support the war. Romney did and still dodged.

However, where I dissagree about "dodging" with O'Donnall, while agreeing with the dishonest tactic on Romney's part, is caling him a coward.

I am too, I would not be emotionally or even physically fit to handle getting shot at. I do not see it as cowardice to know oneself and one owns limits. The cowardice was in the lying, not if one admits they would be in over their head. If I am on the battlefield and any soilder who does serve will tell you, in that time of life threating stress they want EVERYONE arouind them focused on the task to either win or survive.

I would have more value for Romney and or his sons for telling the truth instead of lying and saying "we can serve our country in other ways", instead of saying "No I couldn't handle it". I hate this macho bravado that men are all the same physically or emotionally. So on the one hand if they had simply said "There is no way I could do that myself, but I am glad there are people who can" would be honest, and in that respect O'Donnall would not have a case.

I don't think by one admiting they cant handle something means that there will be a lack of people who can. If evolution is a range, then so are men so there cannot be a right way to "be a man". The crime Romney commited wasn't being a "wimp", his crime was using a deferment while hypocritically supporting a war he wasn't willing to fight himself.

I think the issue could be settled quite easily by allowing in the vetting process, especially now that the military is completely voluntary, to allow honest talk between the person who wants to join and a psychological evaluation prior to basic training. But not serving or being scared of serving, by itself doesn not make one a coward. The cowardice is in the lying, not the self awarness.

 

I have supported the Afgan war and not the Iraq war and there would have been in either case no way I could emotionally handle combat. So O'Donnall is both right and wrong and at the same time would have to call me a coward too. I might be in a physical sense and most certainly seeing that kind of violence knowing myself would scramble not only my brains, but get others killed. But most certainly would be a coward if I simply went along with a social norm and ended up getting others killed because I was too "ashamed" to admit I couldn't handle it.

(EDIT)

Why would any soldier want someone next to them who simply bowed to peer pressure because that person was too afriad to admit they couldn't handle it and did it merely because they didn't want to "look like wimp". It is bad enough war exists and bad enough that people die. I think it is worse when you send someone into combat who is unfit emotionally to serve. Even those who manage to do it come home with PTSD, depression, take it out on their spouses, become addicted to a drug. Now while that isn't a majority, it cannot be minimized by forcing someone to live a lie and is certainly dangerous to the other soldiers around them.

 

One really can't know if they are a coward until they get there. While under combat most settle down after a minute or 2 and become logical, if one is still alive after that amount of time. It's amazing how many options come to mind after a few moments.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: So I should

Manageri wrote:

 

So I should cheat instead? I really can't help i doing the kiddie gloves approach which I think is shit ... ( snip ) ...

Oh, almost forgot, fuck you too.

 Yes, Mr. motivational speaker, use your tough guy approach on us.  Remember to say "fuck" a lot.   I predict that even if you were to remain on this forum until the end of your natural life that you would die on this forum and with your last sputtering "fuck you you fucking God damned mother fucking meat eating mother fuckers..." you will have simply shown us what we already know about you.   Knock yourself out.   Oh and just so you'll take my message  seriously, let me conclude my post with  fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, you fucking fuck head.

 

  (  Gee, honest argumentation is easier than I thought ! )

 

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:  ...but the

Manageri wrote:
  ...but the people who got me to pay attention to the subject used the same kind of language and types of argumentation to convince me that I've used here , so I already know for a fact certain types of people are receptive to it.

 

 

         What "certain types of people" is that ?  Other smug, self-important ass holes ?

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: Yes,

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Yes, Mr. motivational speaker, use your tough guy approach on us.

It's got nothing to do with being a tough guy, it's about giving you my honest opinion about how disgusting your behaviour is instead of the typical "gee guys I think it'd be real nice if you stopped torturing animals and stuff" approach, so fuck you again and interpret that as whatever you want.

Quote:
  (  Gee, honest argumentation is easier than I thought ! )

You've made no arguments on the subject, you don't have the balls for that. Instead you show up once in a while and talk about my character.

Quote:
What "certain types of people" is that ?  Other smug, self-important ass holes ?

Was this supposed to be an argument again? Actually I'd say the target audience is people who don't have an ego the size of mt Everest and are willing to do more than pay lip service to the fact they aren't perfect and might honestly reassess their behaviour, but it really doesn't matter whether smug self-important assholes is a perfect description of me and others who get it, I'd rather be all those things than a disgusting fucking torturing abuser like you and it hardly matters anyway what kind of people stop being torturing assholes, it's still the exact same progress so this was a particularly pathetic attempt at insulting me.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Manageri

Manageri wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Yes, Mr. motivational speaker, use your tough guy approach on us.

It's got nothing to do with being a tough guy, it's about giving you my honest opinion about how disgusting your behaviour is instead of the typical "gee guys I think it'd be real nice if you stopped torturing animals and stuff" approach, so fuck you again and interpret that as whatever you want.

Quote:
  (  Gee, honest argumentation is easier than I thought ! )

You've made no arguments on the subject, you don't have the balls for that. Instead you show up once in a while and talk about my character.

Quote:
What "certain types of people" is that ?  Other smug, self-important ass holes ?

Was this supposed to be an argument again? Actually I'd say the target audience is people who don't have an ego the size of mt Everest and are willing to do more than pay lip service to the fact they aren't perfect and might honestly reassess their behaviour, but it really doesn't matter whether smug self-important assholes is a perfect description of me and others who get it, I'd rather be all those things than a disgusting fucking torturing abuser like you and it hardly matters anyway what kind of people stop being torturing assholes, it's still the exact same progress so this was a particularly pathetic attempt at insulting me.

"Just when I though I was out, they pull me back in." - Godfather III

The only problem that I have with your argument is that you haven't presented one. In fact, you want us to present and prove your argument as well as ours.

"Not eating meat is ethical" without evidence is not an argument. Learn the difference between an argument and a claim. Listing he benefits of eating meat (which was done in your other thread) is making an argument

If it's ethical, tell me how - preferably without redefining sentience as consciousness.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3662
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: It's got

Manageri wrote:

 

It's got nothing to do with being a tough guy, it's about giving you my honest opinion about how disgusting your behaviour is instead of the typical "gee guys I think it'd be real nice if you stopped torturing animals and stuff" approach, so fuck you again and interpret that as whatever you want.

 

I've already interpreted your honest opinion and I don't need your permission to do that,  but thanks anyway.

 

Manageri wrote:
  You've made no arguments on the subject, you don't have the balls for that.

 

  What am I supposed to have the balls for ?  Tell me.

 

Manageri wrote:
Instead you show up once in a while and talk about my character.

 

Character issues ?  You're the one ranting about what kind of evil people we are for eating meat.  That's not an argument about our character ?  Fuck you, you double-talking hypocrite.

 

Mangeri wrote:
Was this supposed to be an argument again? Actually I'd say the target audience is people who don't have an ego the size of mt Everest and are willing to do more than pay lip service to the fact they aren't perfect and might honestly reassess their behaviour, but it really doesn't matter whether smug self-important assholes is a perfect description of me and others who get it, I'd rather be all those things than a disgusting fucking torturing abuser like you and it hardly matters anyway what kind of people stop being torturing assholes, .....

 

 You have a problem with other people's ego ?    ..well then lead by example you fucking narcissistic, vegan messiah.

 

Manageri wrote:
...it's still the exact same progress so this was a particularly pathetic attempt at insulting me.

 

 No actually it was quite an effective attempt at insulting you, but hey, you can't please everybody.

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.
"I love humanity but I hate people." Edna St. Vincent Millay