Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Veterans & Pro-Militarism, Addendum

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 7:55:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pardon me, conservatives and patriots, for kicking one of your sacred cows in its unction-oozing udders rather than drinking with you of the morally curdled milk of maudlin supportiveness for veterans of unjust wars. But heed my words, you may one day genuinely rue heaping so much honor and hero-worshipful validation on "the troops" and veterans when they're used to beat down the sort of anti-government dissent that many of you like to express online. Yes, today's popularly lionized legionnaires of American liberty and apple pie very well might become tomorrow's jackbooted enforcers of the plutocracy at home, very much the way they often are abroad.

Well, increasingly the military and our para-militarized police are trained and indoctrinated with an orientation that gears them to be readily pressed into service domestically to defend the power structure against their fellow citizens should mass uprisings ever occur. Should such an eventuality ever develop, well, their training will just take over and they'll switch on the amoral automatic pilot of professionalism, inflicting urban "shock and awe" to reinstate "order". Mm-hmm, the next time you see a hero cop interviewed on the news give a critical listen to his explanation of his ability to function fearlessly in the face of danger as being merely a matter of allowing his training to "kick in" (that is what they usually say). That's all well and good when it mentally equips a peace officer to deal with a gun-wielding felon, but police and military personnel who've been conditioned by their training to turn off their humanity and be robotically effective at "crowd control" should scare the bleep out of anyone who values our natural right to rebel against the repressive powers that be.

Of course long before military personnel were drilled to function like inhumanly detached flesh & blood crowd-controlling robocops for the state and the ruling class, they on more than one historical occasion demonstrated a chilling willingness to turn their weapons on their fellow Americans, i.e. the people they were sworn to protect. For instance, during the Great Depression when Hoovervilles began to spring up, ole heartless Herbie Hoover sent in the troops, against tent communities populated by ordinary homeless men and women (and, I might add, largely by WW1 veterans) and they proceeded to brutally disperse the residents, including their former brothers-in-arms (As one war hero commented, "We were heroes in 1917, but we're bums now."; yep, it's one of life's poetic little ironies that today's praised & pedestaled American veterans can find the ole U.S. military-issue jackboot on the back of their own necks tomorrow.). My point, it's happened before and can certainly happen again. Bear that in mind when you're elevating military personnel and veterans up above all reproach.

(And no, don't give me too much credit for keeping this one relatively short, as this was really just an addendum to my previous post, not a new post in its own right.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 8:47:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
PS, Thank you to everyone who has made the conscientious and morally correct choice to not serve in an unjust war to further enrich our already filthy-rich corporate elite. And to any heroic "draft dodgers" from the Vietnam era out there, you have my deepest respect for having the genuine moral courage to face the middle-class contempt of your peers & parents, and the threat of incarceration, to hold true to your ethically enlightened principles. Yes, you most certainly are among the true heroes of American history, not the craven moral cowards who allowed themselves to be inducted and turned into killers of the innocent because society told them that it was their duty to set their own conscience aside and obey the orders of their Führer in the Oval Office. Many in our society nowadays (the zeitgeist is currently Thou shall support-the-troops without giving it any critical thought) perhaps don't appreciate the strength of character required to take and follow through with your stance, but I for one do, and I salute you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:00:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 9:14:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Unjust war =/= unjust military.
...keep fapping the good fap though Charles.

A military with such a consistent historical pattern of perpetrating unjust wars and occupations against Third World societies most certainly can be called an unjust military. What's more, those who enlist in the armed forces should take this into consideration when doing their moral calculus to decide whether to take the plunge into a military that 99.9% of the time serves special interests rather than the people and principles its members hollowly swear to serve and uphold.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2011 10:14:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 8:55:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
If this is just an addendum, why does it need a separate thread?

Don't be such a stickler. Any thoughts to contribute?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 5:49:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 7:55:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
Pardon me, conservatives and patriots, for kicking one of your sacred cows in its unction-oozing udders rather than drinking with you of the morally curdled milk of maudlin supportiveness for veterans of unjust wars.

You see, this is empty rhetoric. Why anyone presuppose that the author of this has any interest what so ever in a rational discussion?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 8:01:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
My father was a draft-dodger, although I'm not sure it was morally-motivated... He simply understood that the vietcong would hide in holes in the ground and he, as a short guy, would be the one they send into the hand-dug holes to flush them out. He could either:
a) fly to Vietnam and crawl into dirt holes with a shank looking for asians or
b) play music and do drugs right here in the States.
After a careful benefit-cost analysis, he chose the latter.

The interesting part is that choosing to do drugs instead of entering the military has secured his long-term mental health. No amount of LSD can touch what the psychological effects of being broken down by military conditioning (not to mention experimentation, shell shock, or the effects of killing people) can do to you. He might have come out looking like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Now if the war is justified then one really should fight instead of being selfish, but the problem is that I don't know of any justified conflicts in modern history. The last war in our history that wasn't controversial was WWII, since the Japanese were bombing us on our soil (although Hawaii might just as well be asian soil where it is located) before we entered the conflict. But when you actually read the history, you find that the Japanese didn't just decide to attack us because they were evil people, as is commonly supposed. They attacked us because we were actively blocking them from building up their military strength. Effectively, it was the same thing we are doing right now in the Middle East: policing the world. It's funny that we are endowed with this moral duty to police everyone, while at the same time we actively prevent the rest of the world from being able to police themselves by blocking their ability to build arms. After learning this about WWII, I can pretty much assume that all of our previous wars are similar bullsiht, never actually revolving around honor or safety. At best, any conflict our military has engaged in has been about wealth and power, entwined with twisted ideological or religious themes. If our military had any honor, any honor WHATSOEVER, it would be at home protecting us instead of overseas conducting the dirty work for political and business ventures.

I understand that the common soldier probably never reaches this level of realization, but at some point we need to start holding soldiers accountable for their actions. "I was just following orders" has been used to justify every atrocity in world history and it just doesn't suffice to simply criticize the top leaders. Despite what they may tell you or themselves, soldiers enter the military for personal gain. There is no spiritual or patriotic call to serve that they are answering and there is nothing holy about the endeavor.
Rob
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 5:16:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/15/2011 7:55:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
Pardon me, conservatives and patriots, for kicking one of your sacred cows in its unction-oozing udders rather than drinking with you of the morally curdled milk of maudlin supportiveness for veterans of unjust wars. But heed my words, you may one day genuinely rue heaping so much honor and hero-worshipful validation on "the troops" and veterans when they're used to beat down the sort of anti-government dissent that many of you like to express online. Yes, today's popularly lionized legionnaires of American liberty and apple pie very well might become tomorrow's jackbooted enforcers of the plutocracy at home, very much the way they often are abroad.:

Nice hyperbole. Who here has started a pro-veteran thread that you could reasonably call it anyone's sacred cow? Seems that the only one obsessed with veterans is... you... Shocking.

Take some Midol, sugarbabe. Just because you're on the rag doesn't give you license to take it out on us... or veterans for that matter.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 5:17:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Unjust war =/= unjust military.
...keep fapping the good fap though Charles.:

Sigged!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 9:24:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 5:16:14 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Nice hyperbole. Who here has started a pro-veteran thread that you could reasonably call it anyone's sacred cow? Seems that the only one obsessed with veterans is... you... Shocking.

I'm not aware of any recent pro-veteran threads here, but the nature of the responses to my thread containing a critical perspective on Veterans Day amply justifies the adjective "sacred cow".

Take some Midol, sugarbabe. Just because you're on the rag doesn't give you license to take it out on us... or veterans for that matter.

Such sexist repartee hardly does the mentality of those who share your pro-veteran point of view much credit. Actually, it ironically gives confirmation to the thesis of my post on Veterans Day, i.e. that assuming an adulatory pro-veteran stance, as is the wont of conservatives, perhaps is a way of identifying with an archetypally manly role model and overcompensating for one's low masculine self-esteem. In other words, you military boosters on the right are really just using your precious vets for your own ulterior egoic purposes – that is, to make yourselves vicariously feel like real he-manly men. Good luck with that, but please don't try to fool the rest of us into thinking that you genuinely care about "the troops" who've faced the horrors of war to further enrich the profiteering fat cats of General Dynamics, Aegis Defense Services, Bechtel, etc. For insecure-about-their-manhood rightists, such as yourself, being staunchly pro-veteran is little more than a bit of self-serving macho shtick.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2011 9:31:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We moderns expunge God from our worldview and then quite promptly proceed to replace God with sham secular stand-ins for divinity, such as the nation state! Mm-hmm, we arrogantly apotheosize our country into a sinless perfect entity; a temporal and political not a metaphysical entity, but nonetheless a sinless and perfect one. Thus and so we deny our country's many and various historical sins, and we proclaim that all of its current actions are actually benevolent.

Yes, the deified United States, for instance, is held as a matter of faith to work its transcendently good will in the world in mysterious ways. Well, it's certainly a mystery how, for example, abetting Indonesian imperialism in East Timor was supposed to be for the good. Or how supporting a mass-murdering megalomaniac like Saddam Hussein, once upon a time, was supposed to be morally justifiable and in the interest of all the good things that the U.S. professes to stand for, you know, human rights, democracy, a stable Middle East, etc. (Oh that's right, Saddam must have been a good guy because he liked to kill communists, but then he liked to kill so many of his citizens.) But although it's not always crystal clear how it's the case that the United States is a benign & beneficent world power, it simply must be, because our "civil religion" teaches that it is. Ergo our men and women in uniform must be holy warriors for flag & freedom. Right?

Well, it's certainly the case that plenty of young people drink the propaganda Kool-Aid and sign up for military "service" under the morally grandiose delusion that they're going to be serving something noble. However, even the youngest inductees into the armed forces have reached the age of reason, and should know better. That is, naiveté is no more an excuse than ignorance of the law is a valid defense for committing a crime.

In the West we disdainfully look down upon a country such as Iran, because its self-justifying belief system is a theological religion in which God in heaven endorses its evildoing and blesses its terroristic ways. And the fundamentalist jihadists who are manipulated by mullahs to make the ultimate sacrifice to earn their place in paradise, well, they're contemptuously written off as foolish fanatics or pious villains. But was it really any less contemptibly and culpably gullible to be gung ho to participate in the occupation of Iraq? Were American veterans of that bit of highly-profitable-for-certain-large-corporations global policing any more morally competent and admirable in playing along with their president's patriotic pretext for aggression than the flimflammed followers of Ayatollah Khamenei who are willing to kill & be killed in the name of Islam? Hardly!

Yet we're culturally indoctrinated to pat our military veterans on the back with nary a critical thought given to what we're supposedly patting them on the back for. The post-Vietnam climate of opinion regarding how we should view and treat veterans is such that we suspend our ethical and critical faculties when encountering a member of the military and simply say "Thank you for your service". It's utter rubbish of course, their "service" in actuality did a big fat zero to serve & protect us, but it's what we've been programmed to feel right about saying. It's respectful of the misguided nationalistic faith that we assume our veterans are motivated by. And it affirms that we share their faux faith in the holy righteousness of America. But how, in an objective analysis, is our mentality about this country's military, wars, and veterans any more sane and sophisticated than that of an Iranian Islamist who faithfully supports his country's international criminality?

Oops, let me catch myself here before I go too far, one isn't supposed to pose such provocative questions. Pardon me. Do carry on pseudoreligiously venerating your veterans who've served and fallen at the profane altar of American global ambition, who've fought in the mock-holy crusades for freedom that somehow only achieve the realeconomik objective of further enriching already disgustingly rich corporations. Oh, hold on, I spy through my window someone in uniform passing by my house, I have to stop typing now and dash out to thank him on behalf of Halliburton for his "service".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Joseph_Mengele
Posts: 388
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 5:32:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 8:01:46 AM, Lasagna wrote:
My father was a draft-dodger, although I'm not sure it was morally-motivated... He simply understood that the vietcong would hide in holes in the ground and he, as a short guy, would be the one they send into the hand-dug holes to flush them out. He could either:
a) fly to Vietnam and crawl into dirt holes with a shank looking for asians or
b) play music and do drugs right here in the States.
After a careful benefit-cost analysis, he chose the latter.

The interesting part is that choosing to do drugs instead of entering the military has secured his long-term mental health. No amount of LSD can touch what the psychological effects of being broken down by military conditioning (not to mention experimentation, shell shock, or the effects of killing people) can do to you. He might have come out looking like this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
I have done LSD once and it has caused me to do some dangerous things sometimes. I was even tempted to shake hands with a black person one time. While the drug itself isn't bad for you, its effects can cause it's users to do some very weird and bizarre things.

Now if the war is justified then one really should fight instead of being selfish, but the problem is that I don't know of any justified conflicts in modern history. The last war in our history that wasn't controversial was WWII, since the Japanese were bombing us on our soil (although Hawaii might just as well be asian soil where it is located) before we entered the conflict. But when you actually read the history, you find that the Japanese didn't just decide to attack us because they were evil people, as is commonly supposed. They attacked us because we were actively blocking them from building up their military strength. Effectively, it was the same thing we are doing right now in the Middle East: policing the world. It's funny that we are endowed with this moral duty to police everyone, while at the same time we actively prevent the rest of the world from being able to police themselves by blocking their ability to build arms. After learning this about WWII, I can pretty much assume that all of our previous wars are similar bullsiht, never actually revolving around honor or safety. At best, any conflict our military has engaged in has been about wealth and power, entwined with twisted ideological or religious themes. If our military had any honor, any honor WHATSOEVER, it would be at home protecting us instead of overseas conducting the dirty work for political and business ventures.

I understand that the common soldier probably never reaches this level of realization, but at some point we need to start holding soldiers accountable for their actions. "I was just following orders" has been used to justify every atrocity in world history and it just doesn't suffice to simply criticize the top leaders. Despite what they may tell you or themselves, soldiers enter the military for personal gain. There is no spiritual or patriotic call to serve that they are answering and there is nothing holy about the endeavor.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 7:39:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 5:32:12 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:

I have done LSD once and it has caused me to do some dangerous things sometimes. I was even tempted to shake hands with a black person one time...

Hmm, a blatantly bigoted "libertarian" who calls himself Joseph Mengele?! This brings to mind some posts that I wrote some time ago about the tie-in of the underlying psychology of right-libertarians with racism and fascism.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 7:50:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/16/2011 5:49:25 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/15/2011 7:55:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
Pardon me, conservatives and patriots, for kicking one of your sacred cows in its unction-oozing udders rather than drinking with you of the morally curdled milk of maudlin supportiveness for veterans of unjust wars.

You see, this is empty rhetoric. Why anyone presuppose that the author of this has any interest what so ever in a rational discussion?

Better a post that actually says something politically & philosophically meaty with a bit of "empty rhetoric" to garnish it than contributing nothing but vapid gibes and having a point of view that's pathetically devoid of common kindness and intellectual substance.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 7:57:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Okay, here's a not too novel but nevertheless an ethically salient thought. If an individual or a small gang of individuals deprives someone of his/her life, and they take this action arbitrarily or for some mercenary motive such as economic gain, not out of self-defense, well, morally and legally speaking this would of course be considered and called an unjustifiable and criminal homicide – manslaughter or murder, depending on the details of the incident.

Now then, if a nation state and its military engage in mass killing and their true but unacknowledged motive is economic gain, not self-defense, we place their behavior in a different category altogether. Not to be risqué, but it seems that size does matter, i.e. the size of the scale upon which people perpetrate life-taking seems to determine whether we use such harsh terms as "murder". Kill one or a few human beings out of a monetary incentive and you're deemed by decent folk to be a murderous miscreant and a deserving candidate for death row. But if we're talking invasion & war, well, if the material interests of our entitled plutocratic elite ordain it, and the president legally orders it, and our noble military does the death-dealing, then it matters not that we're merely doing in a grander fashion what we incarcerate street gang members for doing in our inner cities. Without missing a beat we continue to self-righteously view ourselves and "the troops" as the morally innocent good guys.

It of course also helps when the human beings who are being violently snuffed are geographically removed from contact with us. That is, where the snuffing out of life takes place plays a very large part in determining how we define the act. Mm-hmm, our moral reasoning in this regard is actually quite Clintonian. For it doesn't seem to matter to us that people are wantonly being put in an early grave, where the putting-in occurs is what makes all the difference to us, very much like ole Slick Willy fellatiously (misspelling intended) rationalizing that only vaginal penetration constitutes "sex", ergo having only put it in miss Monica's oral orifice he "did not have sex with that woman". Yep, in same sophistical vein we reason that if our military isn't killing in our presence, if it isn't scragging citizens of our land, isn't knocking off our neighbors, if it's Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, etc. who are being wasted under the color of presidential authority, then it isn't ethically the same, isn't the M-word (murder). Out of sight, out of the province of normal morality and decency!

But in non-patriotically-airbrushed reality, in ethical reality, there's no significant moral distinction between a dealer, let's say, killing one human person to assert his dominance over lucrative drug turf, and a country killing hundreds of thousands for control of valuable oil fields. It's all murder most foul, and honoring veterans culpably glosses and belies this truth. That is, it makes us moral accessories to a lie, and to mass murder. Let's choose to take a more moral stance.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 8:20:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 7:39:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2011 5:32:12 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:

I have done LSD once and it has caused me to do some dangerous things sometimes. I was even tempted to shake hands with a black person one time...

Hmm, a blatantly bigoted "libertarian" who calls himself Joseph Mengele?! This brings to mind some posts that I wrote some time ago about the tie-in of the underlying psychology of right-libertarians with racism and fascism.

*sigh*

You guys.......
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 9:25:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 8:20:26 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 11/17/2011 7:39:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2011 5:32:12 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:

I have done LSD once and it has caused me to do some dangerous things sometimes. I was even tempted to shake hands with a black person one time...

Hmm, a blatantly bigoted "libertarian" who calls himself Joseph Mengele?! This brings to mind some posts that I wrote some time ago about the tie-in of the underlying psychology of right-libertarians with racism and fascism.

*sigh*

You guys.......

Is that it? You mean that a conservative Republican such as yourself doesn't have anything to say in defense of "the troops"?! Here, I'll give you some food for thought, I'll repost my last post in this thread below, see if it provokes any thoughts at all.

Okay, here's a not too novel but nevertheless an ethically salient thought. If an individual or a small gang of individuals deprives someone of his/her life, and they take this action arbitrarily or for some mercenary motive such as economic gain, not out of self-defense, well, morally and legally speaking this would of course be considered and called an unjustifiable and criminal homicide – manslaughter or murder, depending on the details of the incident.

Now then, if a nation state and its military engage in mass killing and their true but unacknowledged motive is economic gain, not self-defense, we place their behavior in a different category altogether. Not to be risqué, but it seems that size does matter, i.e. the size of the scale upon which people perpetrate life-taking seems to determine whether we use such harsh terms as "murder". Kill one or a few human beings out of a monetary incentive and you're deemed by decent folk to be a murderous miscreant and a deserving candidate for death row. But if we're talking invasion & war, well, if the material interests of our entitled plutocratic elite ordain it, and the president legally orders it, and our noble military does the death-dealing, then it matters not that we're merely doing in a grander fashion what we incarcerate street gang members for doing in our inner cities. Without missing a beat we continue to self-righteously view ourselves and "the troops" as the morally innocent good guys.

It of course also helps when the human beings who are being violently snuffed are geographically removed from contact with us. That is, where the snuffing out of life takes place plays a very large part in determining how we define the act. Mm-hmm, our moral reasoning in this regard is actually quite Clintonian. For it doesn't seem to matter to us that people are wantonly being put in an early grave, where the putting-in occurs is what makes all the difference to us, very much like ole Slick Willy fellatiously (misspelling intended) rationalizing that only vaginal penetration constitutes "sex", ergo having only put it in miss Monica's oral orifice he "did not have sex with that woman". Yep, in same sophistical vein we reason that if our military isn't killing in our presence, if it isn't scragging citizens of our land, isn't knocking off our neighbors, if it's Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, etc. who are being wasted under the color of presidential authority, then it isn't ethically the same, isn't the M-word (murder). Out of sight, out of the province of normal morality and decency!

But in non-patriotically-airbrushed reality, in ethical reality, there's no significant moral distinction between a dealer, let's say, killing one human person to assert his dominance over lucrative drug turf, and a country killing hundreds of thousands for control of valuable oil fields. It's all murder most foul, and honoring veterans culpably glosses and belies this truth. That is, it makes us moral accessories to a lie, and to mass murder. Let's choose to take a more moral stance.


Okay, quarterexchange, any thoughts now?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2011 10:43:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 9:25:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2011 8:20:26 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 11/17/2011 7:39:00 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2011 5:32:12 PM, Joseph_Mengele wrote:

I have done LSD once and it has caused me to do some dangerous things sometimes. I was even tempted to shake hands with a black person one time...

Hmm, a blatantly bigoted "libertarian" who calls himself Joseph Mengele?! This brings to mind some posts that I wrote some time ago about the tie-in of the underlying psychology of right-libertarians with racism and fascism.

*sigh*

You guys.......


Is that it? You mean that a conservative Republican such as yourself doesn't have anything to say in defense of "the troops"?! Here, I'll give you some food for thought, I'll repost my last post in this thread below, see if it provokes any thoughts at all.


Okay, here's a not too novel but nevertheless an ethically salient thought. If an individual or a small gang of individuals deprives someone of his/her life, and they take this action arbitrarily or for some mercenary motive such as economic gain, not out of self-defense, well, morally and legally speaking this would of course be considered and called an unjustifiable and criminal homicide – manslaughter or murder, depending on the details of the incident.

Now then, if a nation state and its military engage in mass killing and their true but unacknowledged motive is economic gain, not self-defense, we place their behavior in a different category altogether. Not to be risqué, but it seems that size does matter, i.e. the size of the scale upon which people perpetrate life-taking seems to determine whether we use such harsh terms as "murder". Kill one or a few human beings out of a monetary incentive and you're deemed by decent folk to be a murderous miscreant and a deserving candidate for death row. But if we're talking invasion & war, well, if the material interests of our entitled plutocratic elite ordain it, and the president legally orders it, and our noble military does the death-dealing, then it matters not that we're merely doing in a grander fashion what we incarcerate street gang members for doing in our inner cities. Without missing a beat we continue to self-righteously view ourselves and "the troops" as the morally innocent good guys.

But in non-patriotically-airbrushed reality, in ethical reality, there's no significant moral distinction between a dealer, let's say, killing one human person to assert his dominance over lucrative drug turf, and a country killing hundreds of thousands for control of valuable oil fields. It's all murder most foul, and honoring veterans culpably glosses and belies this truth. That is, it makes us moral accessories to a lie, and to mass murder. Let's choose to take a more moral stance.


Okay, quarterexchange, any thoughts now?

This point couldn't have been brought about in a paragraph?

Regardless, I wouldn't fight for a war that I thought was unjustified and I would be okay with executing every solider guilty of war crimes. In my opinion Lt. Calley and his platoon got of easy.

However for the most part I don't see the enemy as necessarily evil. I don't consider the British soldiers evil who fought in the American Revolution, I don't consider the Confederates who fought in the Civil War evil, I don't consider the North Koreans who fought to attack South Korea evil either. So regardless if you were to make the case that the U.S. is fighting on the wrong side, I don't believe that being on the opposing side is evil.

Regardless of what the ulterior motives of the government may or may not be, the soldiers are honestly risking their lives for a cause they see as greater for themselves, whether they see it as fighting for democracy, liberty, stability, etc. Whether their actions have the opposite or negative effect is not on them if they truly believe otherwise, it's on the government, and the soldiers would be the victims as well of the actions of the U.S. government, assuming you take the stance that the wars are unjust.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 3:50:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/17/2011 10:43:06 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
This point couldn't have been brought about in a paragraph?

First of all, thank you for rising to the challenge and providing some substantive feedback (unlike certain others, they know who they are). As to the notorious prolixity of my posts, they aren't really all that overlong.


Regardless, I wouldn't fight for a war that I thought was unjustified and I would be okay with executing every solider guilty of war crimes. In my opinion Lt. Calley and his platoon got of easy.

I'm glad that you wouldn't participate in what you deem to be an unjust military action. With the exception of the Civil War, which was an internal conflict, and the so-called "good war", i.e. WW2, which is everyone's favorite example because it's just about the only seemingly clear-cut example of a justified bit of mass slaughter (that the business and political establishment of the Allied powers had their ulterior economic motives for doing the right thing vis-à-vis opposing Hitler seriously diminishes WW2 as an example of a "just war", but I'll leave that point in parentheses rather than going off on a digression), which wars in U.S. history do you consider morally noble enough for you to have taken part in them in good conscience?

Let's go all the way back to the first war that the United States waged, The War of 1812? Recall that it was just a failed land grab for some coveted Canadian real estate. The Mexican War? Another bit of glorified geographical expansionism, this time a successful one that resulted in the violent acquisition of a good bit of territory. Then there was the Spanish-American War, the U.S.'s foray into overseas imperialism. As for WW1, the American ruling class realized that a world order dominated by Germany would be far from ideal for business, and accordingly through their man Woody they committed U.S. forces to the fight on the side of their British cohorts. The true considerations that motivated the American elite to oppose Nazism & fascism were likewise economic and selfish. Then we come to Korea, Vietnam, and the modern era of U.S. militarism in the cause of capitalism. Come now, isn't there a bit of a pattern here, i.e. doesn't it seem that wars are fought for the private gain of the wealthy, not for the general good of the nation? How then can you speak as though there would have been ample historical opportunity for you to fight the good fight for your country? In reality wars just provide young men (and women, nowadays) with an opportunity to serve as cannon fodder for the materialistic and mercenary agenda of the moneyed ruling class.

As for your hard line on war crimes, there at last we share some common ground in our thinking.

However for the most part I don't see the enemy as necessarily evil. I don't consider the British soldiers evil who fought in the American Revolution, I don't consider the Confederates who fought in the Civil War evil, I don't consider the North Koreans who fought to attack South Korea evil either. So regardless if you were to make the case that the U.S. is fighting on the wrong side, I don't believe that being on the opposing side is evil.

Ever heard of the concept of the banality of evil? Most of the evil in history hasn't been perpetrated by weirdos such as Charlie Manson and cartoonish arch villains like the Führer. No, it's usually the boy next door doing his duty to his gang or his country who contributes to the violence and bloodiness of the human condition.

Regardless of what the ulterior motives of the government may or may not be, the soldiers are honestly risking their lives for a cause they see as greater for themselves, whether they see it as fighting for democracy, liberty, stability, etc. Whether their actions have the opposite or negative effect is not on them if they truly believe otherwise, it's on the government, and the soldiers would be the victims as well of the actions of the U.S. government, assuming you take the stance that the wars are unjust.

Soldiers have an ethical obligation, just like the rest of us, to use their critical and ethical intelligence to arrive at correct moral assessments of the actions their tasked to carry out, and to make the right moral choices. If they merely fall back on the ethical cop-out that the president has the moral authority to define morality for them, then they're essentially retreating into the refuge of military scoundrels known as the Nuremberg defense, a refuge where they'll find themselves keeping company with some of the worst characters in history. Is that really where you wish to consign them, because that's in fact where your argument here would effectively consign them. A bit of a disservice you're doing them, my friend. Mm-hmm, you might genuinely wish to rethink your rationalization of the unmeritorious "service" of your country's military men & women in its blatantly unjust wars. Your current line of thinking actually does them more harm than good.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 3:52:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thanks to certain tendencies, which by the way are more pronounced on the right (I'm not being pettily partisan, I'm merely stating a fact that bears stating), such as a tendency to self-interest, shortsightedness, avarice, and aggression, humankind today genuinely finds itself on the brink of economic and ecological doom, and what do we have in our society, we have people patriotically condoning & promoting war by advocating an emphasis on supporting "the troops". Not too brilliant folks. Not too brilliant at all. Wake up and smell the impending human and environmental apocalypse that your pro-veteran and pro-military, i.e. pro-late capitalist imperialism stance is flirting with.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 5:41:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Dear quaterexchange, just let me add to the last point that I make in my previous reply that unless you're some sort of a moral relativist you surely must acknowledge that there are in fact correct and incorrect ethical choices, ergo we all, including military personnel, should strive, as a matter of character and conscience, to apprehend what the correct choice in any given situation is, and to act accordingly. How can wearing the uniform of the armed forces make one an exception to this fundamental moral responsibility and imperative? That's a rhetorical question, btw, as it certainly can't.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2011 5:51:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Btw, quaterexchange, lest you overlook it, I've pasted my previous reply below.

At 11/18/2011 3:50:32 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/17/2011 10:43:06 PM, quarterexchange wrote:
This point couldn't have been brought about in a paragraph?

First of all, thank you for rising to the challenge and providing some substantive feedback (unlike certain others, they know who they are). As to the notorious prolixity of my posts, they aren't really all that overlong.


Regardless, I wouldn't fight for a war that I thought was unjustified and I would be okay with executing every solider guilty of war crimes. In my opinion Lt. Calley and his platoon got of easy.


I'm glad that you wouldn't participate in what you deem to be an unjust military action. With the exception of the Civil War, which was an internal conflict, and the so-called "good war", i.e. WW2, which is everyone's favorite example because it's just about the only seemingly clear-cut example of a justified bit of mass slaughter (that the business and political establishment of the Allied powers had their ulterior economic motives for doing the right thing vis-à-vis opposing Hitler seriously diminishes WW2 as an example of a "just war", but I'll leave that point in parentheses rather than going off on a digression), which wars in U.S. history do you consider morally noble enough for you to have taken part in them in good conscience?

Let's go all the way back to the first war that the United States waged, The War of 1812? Recall that it was just a failed land grab for some coveted Canadian real estate. The Mexican War? Another bit of glorified geographical expansionism, this time a successful one that resulted in the violent acquisition of a good bit of territory. Then there was the Spanish-American War, the U.S.'s foray into overseas imperialism. As for WW1, the American ruling class realized that a world order dominated by Germany would be far from ideal for business, and accordingly through their man Woody they committed U.S. forces to the fight on the side of their British cohorts. The true considerations that motivated the American elite to oppose Nazism & fascism were likewise economic and selfish. Then we come to Korea, Vietnam, and the modern era of U.S. militarism in the cause of capitalism. Come now, isn't there a bit of a pattern here, i.e. doesn't it seem that wars are fought for the private gain of the wealthy, not for the general good of the nation? How then can you speak as though there would have been ample historical opportunity for you to fight the good fight for your country? In reality wars just provide young men (and women, nowadays) with an opportunity to serve as cannon fodder for the materialistic and mercenary agenda of the moneyed ruling class.

As for your hard line on war crimes, there at last we share some common ground in our thinking.

However for the most part I don't see the enemy as necessarily evil. I don't consider the British soldiers evil who fought in the American Revolution, I don't consider the Confederates who fought in the Civil War evil, I don't consider the North Koreans who fought to attack South Korea evil either. So regardless if you were to make the case that the U.S. is fighting on the wrong side, I don't believe that being on the opposing side is evil.

Ever heard of the concept of the banality of evil? Most of the evil in history hasn't been perpetrated by weirdos such as Charlie Manson and cartoonish arch villains like the Führer. No, it's usually the boy next door doing his duty to his gang or his country who contributes to the violence and bloodiness of the human condition.

Regardless of what the ulterior motives of the government may or may not be, the soldiers are honestly risking their lives for a cause they see as greater for themselves, whether they see it as fighting for democracy, liberty, stability, etc. Whether their actions have the opposite or negative effect is not on them if they truly believe otherwise, it's on the government, and the soldiers would be the victims as well of the actions of the U.S. government, assuming you take the stance that the wars are unjust.

Soldiers have an ethical obligation, just like the rest of us, to use their critical and ethical intelligence to arrive at correct moral assessments of the actions their tasked to carry out, and to make the right moral choices. If they merely fall back on the ethical cop-out that the president has the moral authority to define morality for them, then they're essentially retreating into the refuge of military scoundrels known as the Nuremberg defense, a refuge where they'll find themselves keeping company with some of the worst characters in history. Is that really where you wish to consign them, because that's in fact where your argument here would effectively consign them. A bit of a disservice you're doing them, my friend. Mm-hmm, you might genuinely wish to rethink your rationalization of the unmeritorious "service" of your country's military men & women in its blatantly unjust wars. Your current line of thinking actually does them more harm than good.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 6:21:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So, is it unfair for me to ethically categorize military veterans and terrorists together? American air force bomber pilots and marines have of course far outstripped "terrorists" in the amount of morally unwarranted carnage & killing, i.e. sinfully spilt human blood, on their karmic tab, so to speak. Indeed, on any given day of intense military aggression the casualties of martial Yankee patriotism are many times greater than the death toll racked up by all the Osama bin Ladens and Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds in history. Which arguably makes U.S. military personnel a good bit more ethically challenged and heinously homicidal than stereotypical Mohammedan madmen. Mm-hmm, perhaps it is unfair to ethically categorize military veterans and terrorists together; quite unfair to the terrorists, that is.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 7:24:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 6:45:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Lol, 80 % of the bulk of this thread is charleslb talking to himself.

Well, if you had more to say than this little ad hominem observation we could have a conversation. Don't blame moi if you and your fellow pro-military, pro-veteran rightists have run out of arguments against my anti-militarism/anti-imperialism point of view.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 7:28:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 7:24:02 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/20/2011 6:45:59 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Lol, 80 % of the bulk of this thread is charleslb talking to himself.

Well, if you had more to say than this little ad hominem observation we could have a conversation. Don't blame moi if you and your fellow pro-military, pro-veteran rightists have run out of arguments against my anti-militarism/anti-imperialism point of view.

Yes, that's exactly it. DDO has realized your superior intellectual talents and that your viewpoint must be correct. There's nothing left to do but embrace communism as the superior system.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 7:52:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Yes, today's popularly lionized legionnaires of American liberty and apple pie very well might become tomorrow's jackbooted enforcers of the plutocracy at home, very much the way they often are abroad."

And you can bet they will be taking orders from a Progressive Liberal Democrat when they are at home.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2011 9:33:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 7:52:13 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Yes, today's popularly lionized legionnaires of American liberty and apple pie very well might become tomorrow's jackbooted enforcers of the plutocracy at home, very much the way they often are abroad."

And you can bet they will be taking orders from a Progressive Liberal Democrat when they are at home.

Hmm, in your profile you list your ideology as "other", some other form of rightism, i.e. wingnutism, apparently.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2011 5:33:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/20/2011 9:33:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/20/2011 7:52:13 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Yes, today's popularly lionized legionnaires of American liberty and apple pie very well might become tomorrow's jackbooted enforcers of the plutocracy at home, very much the way they often are abroad."

And you can bet they will be taking orders from a Progressive Liberal Democrat when they are at home.

Hmm, in your profile you list your ideology as "other", some other form of rightism, i.e. wingnutism, apparently.

Right Wing = Evil.
Left Wing = Good.

Conservative = Evil.
Liberal = Good.

How refreshing it is to delegate your thinking to handy labels and tribalism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.