NationStates Jolt Archive

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.

Can we have a set definition for honour thrown just so we arent all over the place in this discussion?

Quite simply, you don't. As long a you live in a free country, you aren't required to endorse a particular view or sentiment; of course, there are situations where such sentiments aren't viewed favorably and it is best to not voice them unless you want to engage in argument.

Simply honor them as people, and respect them as you would anyone else.

Can we have a set definition for honour thrown just so we arent all over the place in this discussion?
Funny you should ask, I'm still waiting for a clear explanation of 'honour' from Eutrusca. All I got was some Shakespeare quotation.

I wasn't the one demanding 'honour' in the first place. I think it'd be appropriate if one of those among us who demands it, defines it.

I don't know man, you're in a tight spot. I've read your arguments in the thread that I believe inspired this and I certainly feel where you're comin' from.

Over simplified, it's 'if no one showed up for the war, there'd be no war.'

I certainly understand, and personally question the motives of people who volunteer to kill, even if they think it's for thier country. I understand Coast Guard and firefighters a lot more.

But, at the same time-it's not like we haven't needed defence in the past and even the Swiss have an army.

It's really about rigid ideals. In a all or nothing world there is no way and you are stuck saying, "No, I'm sorry. I didn't ask you to kill those people and I didn't support you doing it. You made a choice that I did not endorce and it wasn't in my name." You could even go the Civil Disobedience route and not pay taxes you feel will encourage military.

But I've found that compramise and the minor hypocracies that that leads to are unavoidable. It's unrealistic to try be all the way on anything. You won't make it. But you can do as much as you can. Ultimately you have to decide how much you are comfortable with.

It's a hard call.

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.
Just don’t spit on them, please.

I don't need your honor, or even your respect. I'm not in the profession of arms for people like you. The thanks of the people who understand are enough, though hardly necessary. I fight because we have a pretty good country based around a pretty good idea, and I think it's worth fighting for. (I mean the US, though the other Western-style governments are ok, though maybe not as good.) If you're one of those people who thinks the military is obsolete because nobody would dare attack us, you can thank those who came before me. If you're one of those people who thinks nothing is worth fighting for, you have my pity.

The true pacifist is a rare breed; understandably endangered. Most of those who claim pacifism would change their colors under the right circumstances...

Personally, I'd define honor as a form of respect, somewhat more specialized of a word than just respect, it's a category of respect really. Perhaps a bit stronger than normal respect, but respect in general.

Personally, I'd define honor as a form of respect, somewhat more specialized of a word than just respect, it's a category of respect really. Perhaps a bit stronger than normal respect, but respect in general.

Unless you include self-respect under your general category of 'respect' here, there is no honour to be found in doing acts in secret.

To answer this question, I quote Martin Luther King. When he was asked how he could consider himself a pacifist and express admiration for Daniel "Chappie" James, one of the first black U.S. Air Force generals, he said, "I judge a man by his own standards, not by my own."

I don't need your honor, or even your respect. I'm not in the profession of arms for people like you. The thanks of the people who understand are enough, though hardly necessary. I fight because we have a pretty good country based around a pretty good idea, and I think it's worth fighting for. (I mean the US, though the other Western-style governments are ok, though maybe not as good.) If you're one of those people who thinks the military is obsolete because nobody would dare attack us, you can thank those who came before me. If you're one of those people who thinks nothing is worth fighting for, you have my pity.

The true pacifist is a rare breed; understandably endangered. Most of those who claim pacifism would change their colors sometime...
36 years and counting.

Anyway, I'm not one of those 'who thinks the military is obsolete because nobody would dare attack us', I'm one of those who think the military, and the thinking that goes hand-in-hand with militarism, is obsolete. Period.

And as you say, you're not in the profession of arms for people like me. Save your pity for one who has use for it; I have none.

36 years and counting.

Anyway, I'm not one of those 'who thinks the military is obsolete because nobody would dare attack us', I'm one of those who think the military, and the thinking that goes hand-in-hand with militarism, is obsolete. Period.

And as you say, you're not in the profession of arms for people like me. Save your pity for one who has use for it; I have none.


'Militarism' is a buzzword. If you mean fighting, say it. If so, let me ask you: if you were assaulted and a bystander tried to help defend you, would you ask him not to bother? If so, you're respectably consistent - and you can certainly understand why your kind is endangered. If not, well, point made. (Note: I edited my first post to make my meaning clearer.)

But I digress... You asked, and there's my answer. I'll discuss it more if you like, but we seem to be at an impasse.

Some things I have picked up.

1) Do not burn the flag.

2) Do not spit on them, etc.

3) Talk, or rather listen, to a vetran.

4) Do protest.

Whatever else people in the military are they are people. Respect the risks they take at least. If someone is really willing to fight for their country, good for them (on the other hand if they thought the Army was a paid keep-fit club then sucks for them).

Oh! I almost fergot...

If you happen to be good looking & female, you could always moon 'em.

Given todays' army it *might* work if yer a good looking male. Get a feel for the overall gender & attitude of your audience before trying...

If I thought it were up to me to judge them, I would have to judge them on an individual basis. Some people join the military for very noble and respectable reasons, others are jackasses and join so they can "kick some ass and carry a gun".

I would also say that a defensive military is a respectable thing, while an offensive military is not. That works nicely on paper, but in the real world it is a lot harder to nail down what is "offensive" and what is "defensive". It is very easy for governments to spin their reasons for offensive action and call it defensive, as the current situation in Iraq demonstrates. I don't know how you get around that sort of corruption that seems to be rampant in the U.S. administration. I think it is less likely to occur in a parliamentary system, but it is clearly not immune since Britain also chose to go along with the U.S. I doubt it would have happened if the U.S. hadn't gone in, the British parliament wouldn't have stood for it.

I refer you to Red Dwarf's insights about judgement, to paraphase:

"You judge yourself, and by their own standards they have justified their existance."

Its like the MLKjr quote. You can really only judge each person induvidually, and thus you can honor each induvidual that you know in the profession of arms that is honorable or worthy. To honor an entire profession that you wish to see gone is just impossible.

So I guess my answer is, without knowing someone who is worthy or honorable within the military, you cannot honor the profession that you do not believe in. So to avoid that problem, find a worthy soul within the ranks. (Get your torch and look for an honest man ;) )

'Militarism' is a buzzword. If you mean fighting, say it. If so, let me ask you: if you were assaulted and a bystander tried to help defend you, would you ask him not to bother? If so, you're respectably consistent - and you can certainly understand why your kind is endangered. If not, well, point made. (Note: I edited my first post to make my meaning clearer.)

But I digress... You asked, and there's my answer. I'll discuss it more if you like, but we seem to be at an impasse.
If 'militarism' is a buzzword, it's one that's sorely unused these days. That's an attempt at levity, don't read too much into that.

Anyway, the chances of my being assaulted are minute at best. And really, were I to be caught up in such an unlikely scenario, I do think I'm quite capable of extricating myself from that situation without need for retaliatory acts of violence. Not to seem clever, but I have noticed a great reliance on exactly this scenario in attempts to undermine my stated beliefs. Rather than rely on a hypothetical scenario, let me illustrate an actual scenario, the very last time I was "under the gun", so to speak:

21 years ago, (wow! long time now) I was the awkward outsider, the relatively "new" kid in the high school, a testosterone-deficient, semi-hermaphroditic, small 'l' liberal, a Unitarian, and a opponent of nuclear proliferation and the militarization of space, living in a neighbourhood, and attending a school, noted for producing professional athletes, home to the children of CEOs and CFOs of Fortune 500 companies, in a riding represented by the leader (in his spare time) of the 'World Anti-Bolshevik League'. (What my father, a middlingly well-to-do Socialist was thinking when he bought a house there, I'll never know. Something about driving home west from work, of all things. But I digress.)

And so there I was, a good Socialist Unitarian kid, minding his own business and trying to quietly groove along through life without undue hassle, and I made the mistake of telling a joke, in the halls of the school, a joke about Ronald Reagan (don't ask me what the joke was; if there's one thing I've found to be true, it's that you tend only to remember the best parts of life, and so I'm having to dredge this episode somewhat, 01923.). A fairly athletic student, from my own grade, whirled aound, taking tremendous offence at my quip.

I was very much an outsider, even after a year there. I somehow managed, in not just the majority of my Sociology classes (more like the whole lot) to be the lone voice taking an opposing position - something I found greatly disturbing. See, at first I thought the class was deliberately taking uniform stances in order to forego the debate part of the classes - though one of my classmates asked me later whether I was taking contrary positions merely to play 'Devil's Advocate', and I told him, 'no... I really didn't believe in capital punishment. Or outlawing abortion. Or privatizing medecine. Or gay marriage. Or decriminalizing marijuana. Or withdrawing from NATO, NORAD, and abandoning the then US - Canada Free Trade talks. And a score of other points. Played my hand with that, you see. Suddenly I was some kinda "fill-in-the-blank". Definitely "other-than-tribe". Someone to be discounted, while otherwise to be held to a ludicrous scrutiny. And through difference, no matter how quiet or well-mannered, came the desire on the parts of those possessed of the belief that might makes right, that violence is a cure-all, to split me a new one at the earliest opportunity.

Before I knew what was going on, I was outside the school, being goaded and prodded by dozens of people, while a chorus of 'Fight, fight' ensued. It was behind the library where I stood warily, the offended aggressor sizing me up as though this were some professional boxing match, and I said, in a loud, clear and steady voice, 'I am not going to fight you.' The hubbub became briefly subdued, then rose louder with calls of 'pussy', 'faggot', 'commie', and other words I am once again recalling, all of which were spoken unkindly. He kept circling me, though I never broke eye contact with my aggressor, not once.

'I'm not going to fight with you,' I repeated, 'you want to beat the crap out of me, you want to be known as the guy who beat the crap out of me? Fine. You're absolutely right. You could probably put me in hospital, but I won't fight back.' And there was silence from the crowd. 'You're too pussy to fight! You know I'll kick your ass!' My aggressor insisted. 'Yup. You'd kick my ass if I fought, but I won't fight,' I said with dignity. 'So go ahead, if you really want to be known as the guy who kicked the shit out of someone who didn't fight back, be my guest.'

And that ended it. He went on to enlist in the military, funnily enough. I'd forgotten about that. No, but really, that did end it. I mean, what was he going to do? He did keep mentioning 'his honour' throughout this encounter, but my mind wasn't on his or anyone's honour, it was on trying to come up with a solution that didn't involve physical violence. What did I care what a bunch of high school students thought of my solution? I got what I wanted - to go about my business unmolested, while I'm not sure what my aggressor got out of it. A chance to not beat the crap out of someone, at any rate.

The ones who really felt cheated were the drooling onlookers. My reputation both fell and rose that day, and I would remain an outsider for as long as I lived there. Since then, I've only ever encountered similar scenarios from the sidelines. Not once have I seen anyone else avoid the fighting.

Seemingly, invariably, in the unfunny world of grown-ups, drink is more than often involved in these periodic dust-ups. I don't drink, I don't keep the company of those who do, nor do I go out of my way to be in the presence of those jangly personalities that gravitate toward the stuff. In the exceedingly few episodes where a drunken lout has given the first outward, nascent signs of antipathy towards me, I've immediately moved to diffuse the situation to the benefit of all, no table lamps broken or anything. Come to think of it, I've even managed to amicably kick unwanted inebriates out - of other people's parties! Hey, accessing these longer-term memories is great! That was pretty cool on my part, now that it's coming back to me.

Anyway, anyway, the summer after this schoolyard incident, I read the Foundation Series in random order, so it was that, just as I was feeling some small amount of dread, thinking of my imminent return to school, I read something so simple, so elegant, and yes, so influential that I adopted it as a personal axiom: from the original 'Foundation' novel, as spoken by the character Salvor Hardin,"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." I wasn't about to get too picky as to where, or from what source this highly laudable, and from my point of view, highly relevant - adage came from, it gave me a terrific sense of validation in my earlier narrow escape from pulverization.

Bits of wisdom from paperback novels about spaceships and empires and who knows what else? Hey, if I'd read it on the back of a pack of matches, I'd've felt just the same. They're good words to live by - it forces you to recourses other than fists, knives, or guns. It forces you to use that big organ that resides between your ears, in close concert with that big muscle that sits behind your teeth.

I've met people of backgrounds as diverse as the pebbles on a beach. I've met people with extreme views, people with views in opposition to my own, and yet, through it all, I've managed to diffuse or redirect conflicts while still maintaining my own viewpoint to the detriment of no-one involved. It's a question of compromise (which is not a dirty word, by the way, but an extremely good one), of mutual accomodation, and wherever necessary, turning the other cheek, to borrow an old chestnut from Mr. X.

So much for answering the question directly, eh? But no - the hypothetical as presented is just not at all probable, given that I wouldn't find myself in that situation in the first place. It's interesting, though. the whole 'random violent acts' bit looms large in the thoughts of people better suited to hierarchical power structures, apparently. Better suited than me, at any rate, LOL.

If my type is 'endangered', it always has been. And yet, like magic, we small few persist. I persist in spite of the 'protections' of aggressors who would pursue courses of action that run counter to my - and not abstracted, mind you, not some ethereal, utopian ideal but actual, concrete, and altogether real - sentiments. I persist in spite of the humourless, uncompromising unspoken (and of late, spoken) demand for unquestioning adherence to conformity and the acknowledgement, the validation, the approval, however tacit, for the artifice of hierarchical power stuctures and their supercedance over my own value systems.

What is my life if not to question? I question whenever possible. I question, I consider. I collate. Compare. Contrast. I question when I'm told things I know to be untrue. I question when one group sets itself above all others; I question when another group relegates all others to sub-human status. I question when things are done in the name of God, whatever name or branding you deem acceptable or allowable, all considered. I question when people claim to speak on behalf of others, including the afore-mentioned God. I question the necessity to resolve conflict through force. Were I to cease questioning, I would cease living. Because my life is to question.

I've been writing for a while now, and I've cut out, inserted and re-inserted several paragraphs, caught myself from a half-dozen or so extended tangents, and finally just scanned back over this rambling post. I don't know, maybe I just wanted to keep from interacting on the other threads tonight. It's all a little anti-climactic, somehow. I think I'm just feeling kinda bummed by the last five years. Ah well, maybe this'll all blow over before 2012.

Though somehow I very much doubt it - !

Good night all.

*Snip*

Wow. Best post I've ever seen

Your lucky that kid wasn't me... I love violence.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Snippity

You know its odd, I've been in dozens of scenerios like you've described, and I've diffused so many through body language and speech, both those that endangered myself and others. I've worked many jobs like security and conflict mediation, jobs that just seem to demand that fights will occur and yet there I am, preventing them by and large.

I stop fights, pretty much for a living.

Yet I consider myself a militarist. Sure, I don't consider myself the same kind of militarist I encounter on NS these days, but there are a few like me floating around this world. Not getting into fights, but preparing for them constantly. Obsessing about what we hope never to see.

I'm no pacifist. I fully explore my offensive options in any situation I find myself in; yet I fully believe your situation, those many years ago, did not require a fight. In fact, fighting would have been a terrible option for you, as you yourself had asessed.

From what I see; there is pacifism and militarism. Two sides of a coin. Both seek to "eliminate" the other and dominate the philisophical debate. Like most people, I would prefer not to live in conlict, but I find pacifism too limiting, too dangerous in this world. Ideals, not practicality. Ideals are sometimes worthy of striving for, but idealogy limits us or sets us against one another. Its a dangerous balance.

Simply honor them as people, and respect them as you would anyone else.

Agreed. You don't have to love what they've decided to do with their life to honour them.

Agreed. You don't have to love what they've decided to do with their life to honour them.
lol... (a genteel and slightly bemused laugh, slightly smilingly)

So it wouldn't recquire public displays of affection?

lol... (a genteel and slightly bemused laugh, slightly smilingly)

So it wouldn't recquire public displays of affection?

No.

You should go kiss a soldier on the lips one day, though. I'm sure he'd appreciate it. ;)

If 'militarism' is a buzzword, it's one that's sorely unused these days. That's an attempt at levity, don't read too much into that.

Anyway, the chances of my being assaulted are minute at best.
Which is not necesserily something other people can say about themselves. Is protecting those more likely to be attacked any less honorable than protecting you?

I am a security guard. My job is keeping the bad guys- suicide bombers in particular- of all shapes and sizes away from a mall where people shop and eat in peace. It's not exactly a job for a pacifist- but to hell with pacifism. I doubt I would be able to forgive myself if someone died because I refused to fight the bad guy attacking them. It's a simple dilemma really- is keeping your hands clean worth sacrificing another person's life?

Yes, I am well capable of defusing your average conflict situation without resorting to fist fights- but if I saw a terrorist on a shooting rampage, I wouldn't use persuasion, but rather a gun. If I saw someone raping a girl, I wouldn't stand by and reason with him, I would first and foremost knock the bastard's lights out and make sure that the girl is safe- and when he is beaten and handcuffed, there will be plenty of time for reasoning. This is what all police and military jobs are about- making someone else safe.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell, I believe.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

George Orwell, I believe.
Well, I wouldn't accept that as an axiom, so much as an opinion.

You suck up to the boss.

Dobbsworld:

The best you can do, is to leave them alone. If you don't respect someone's profession, and you pidgeonhole them based only on the job they do-leave 'em alone. Stay away. One of the most irritating things a person can do, is to present a front of false support. If you genuinely can't "Honor" (whatever you mean by that) people who serve in the military, leave them (and the vets) alone. Stay away, and don't harass them.
Not that you would condescend to talk to a Soldier or a Vet in RL, but just resist the urge, and walk on by since you can't separate, in your own mind, the man from the green suit.

Wow. Best post I've ever seen
Thanks Ftagn. It's funny what I can do when suffering from a particular admixture of anger, frustration, and boredom.

Dobbsworld:

*snips*If you genuinely can't "Honor" (whatever you mean by that) people who serve in the military, leave them (and the vets) alone. Stay away, and don't harass them.

I'm still waiting for one particular "vet" to make good and clearly define that one - "honour". I'm still not altogether clear as to what "honour" is supposed to mean, myself. Apparently it has something to do with Will Shakespeare...

Just don’t spit on them, please.
Most people don't. But too often, anyone who in any way critiques the military is accused of figuratively doing just that. The inference is, "don't critique, they are above criticism". No one is.

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.

You can respect the bravery of men and women who are willing to go into such situations, even if you think their choices are wrong.

You can respect someone willing to stand up and defend their ideals, even if you disagree with those ideals or their method of "standing up".

You can respect that those in the military feel they are doing what they are doing for all citizens (which includes you), whether you agree with what they are doing or not.

You don't have to endorse the method to endorse the thought behind it.

'Militarism' is a buzzword. If you mean fighting, say it. If so, let me ask you: if you were assaulted and a bystander tried to help defend you, would you ask him not to bother? If so, you're respectably consistent - and you can certainly understand why your kind is endangered. If not, well, point made. (Note: I edited my first post to make my meaning clearer.)

But I digress... You asked, and there's my answer. I'll discuss it more if you like, but we seem to be at an impasse.
You can not compare the military to a fight in the street.

Nor do you seem to understand what pacifism is. Rather than repeat myself too many times:) I'll just link to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9462508&postcount=117) post.

You can respect the bravery of men and women who are willing to go into such situations, even if you think their choices are wrong.

You can respect someone willing to stand up and defend their ideals, even if you disagree with those ideals or their method of "standing up".

You can respect that those in the military feel they are doing what they are doing for all citizens (which includes you), whether you agree with what they are doing or not.

You don't have to endorse the method to endorse the thought behind it.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: agreed!

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.
There's absolutely no reason you should honor anyone or anything you choose not to honor. :)

You can not compare the military to a fight in the street.

Nor do you seem to understand what pacifism is. Rather than repeat myself too many times:) I'll just link to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9462508&postcount=117) post.
Well, I wasn't aware that there was some specific dogma involved in embracing nonviolence, Sinuhue. I suppose I'll have to consult with you lest I give offense.

Thanks for the heads up.

Well, I wasn't aware that there was some specific dogma involved in embracing nonviolence, Sinuhue. I suppose I'll have to consult with you lest I give offense.

Thanks for the heads up.
*sticks out tongue*
Of course there isn't. It's a personal choice.

And don't confuse the ability to do violence with the ability to win.

The situation you described...you could have fought. You may not have won. But you chose not to use violence. YOU CHOSE. Were you completly unable for whatever reason to not use violence, it wouldn't be a choice.

There's absolutely no reason you should honor anyone or anything you choose not to honor. :)
I'm not sure if it's a matter of 'choice', Eutrusca. It's dealing with things that are indelibly etched into my consciousness... but I'm not interested in picking apart your post.

We haven't agreed on much, and our dynamic has been volatile. I am, however greatly edified to hear this last of yours. I feel a certain sense of validation (and these days, that's a rare thing for one such as I).

I will refrain from the use of the word, 'pacifist', as apparently that term carries ideological baggage that might not prove applicable to my views. Though at this point I am unmoved so as to modify my views to suit other people's definition of what 'pacifism' means.

Thank you for extending this olive branch, Eutrusca. It is gladly accepted. (Though I'd still like to know that 'clear definition' of honour you alluded to yesterday)

Ever the eternal outsider,

Dobbs.

*sticks out tongue*
Of course there isn't. It's a personal choice.

And don't confuse the ability to do violence with the ability to win.

The situation you described...you could have fought. You may not have won. But you chose not to use violence. YOU CHOSE. Were you completly unable for whatever reason to not use violence, it wouldn't be a choice.
Yes, I chose. In all-caps, apparently. And apparently you're choosing now, as well.

Whatever, Sinuhue. Whatever.

Yes, I chose. In all-caps, apparently. And apparently you're choosing now, as well.

Whatever, Sinuhue. Whatever.
I'm not particularly sure what you're taking offense at here (or even if you are). Perhaps I could have worded my original post a bit better to make it clear that this is my concept of pacifism. I'm trying to get across the difficult idea that pacifism isn't just about 'running away' or being a coward...which is what many people try to make it seem like. The example that is always given is, "what if you or your loved ones were in danger...would you stand by and let you or them be hurt? If not, you aren't a pacifist". In my mind, pacifism does not preclude one from self-defense BUT self-defense is not automatically the choice. If I saw someone being raped...what would I do? Even if I used violence...could I stop the crime? Doubtful. But making an outcry, refusing to flee the scene in fear, hopefully shaming the aggressor into fleeing himself, I would still be putting myself in harms way, but choosing not to use violence.

I'm not judging you as 'more or less pacifistic' than me. I'm trying to add to the perspective that violence is not inevitable. If there is confusion on the part of anyone reading this, it's because it's not a black and white dogma.

So if you wish me to refrain from commenting on your beliefs, I will. But I kind of feel the need to add my voice to a view I agree with...especially when that view is almost universally denigrated.

Well, I wouldn't accept that as an axiom, so much as an opinion.
That's because you're like that three year old kid who think that money grows on trees, and that daddy only goes to work because he doesn't love him and wants to spend less time with his child. You just think that safety and security grow on trees instead, and that people only become soldiers because they think killing is fun.

I'm rather new to posting stuff on forums, but I think I deserve an opinion too. What I would say to this definition thingy is this- I think that it means to respect the military, not to join them or give them money for free, you don't even have to talk to them. Just respect them, and I do realize people have already posted that in this discussion (sorry for being a broken record). Also, all these people that are talking about being pacifists and such, yeah, it's fun to get off the subject every now and then, but do you realize that we went from talking about definitions of military to pacifism?

That's because you're like that three year old kid who think that money grows on trees, and that daddy only goes to work because he doesn't love him and wants to spend less time with his child. You just think that safety and security grow on trees instead, and that people only become soldiers because they think killing is fun.
You don't seem to understand the definition of axiom, then. The original quote was nothing ressembling a self-evident or universally recognized truth.

I don't need your honor, or even your respect. I'm not in the profession of arms for people like you. \..

Actually you are.

That's the entire point of the military, to physically protect the rights of those who will not or can not do it for themselves.

I disagree w/ Dobbs. I think her personal beliefs are naive and uninformed. She demonizes the military as a bunch of killers and sadists. She also has a severe martyr complex.

I will also fight for her right to speak her mind and maintain her ideology. I don't want her thanks or her honor. No matter what she may think, it's my (and your) job to do so.

I'm not particularly sure what you're taking offense at here (or even if you are). Perhaps I could have worded my original post a bit better to make it clear that this is my concept of pacifism. I'm trying to get across the difficult idea that pacifism isn't just about 'running away' or being a coward...which is what many people try to make it seem like. The example that is always given is, "what if you or your loved ones were in danger...would you stand by and let you or them be hurt? If not, you aren't a pacifist".
Yes, I'd noticed the tendency towards that very example, and made more than one mention about it myself in my earlier evening-killer of a post (#18, if I recall correctly). It's unfortunate, but I won't vet my sentiments through the filter of those who would detract from them. Why should I?
In my mind, pacifism does not preclude one from self-defense BUT self-defense is not automatically the choice.
Excellent. I applaud your sensibilities, though they may or may not be as mine.
If I saw someone being raped...what would I do? Even if I used violence...could I stop the crime? Doubtful. But making an outcry, refusing to flee the scene in fear, hopefully shaming the aggressor into fleeing himself, I would still be putting myself in harms way, but choosing not to use violence.
Kudos.
I'm not judging you as 'more or less pacifistic' than me.
Great.
'm trying to add to the perspective that violence is not inevitable. If there is confusion on the part of anyone reading this, it's because it's not a black and white dogma.
Agreed.
So if you wish me to refrain from commenting on your beliefs, I will. But I kind of feel the need to add my voice to a view I agree with...especially when that view is almost universally denigrated.
Add your voice all you want, I don't labour under the assumption of being a vocal soloist- I'm more than happy to be part of a choir. The more the merrier. the denigration is nothing new, though. There is a tendency among the non-violent to assume there was a time when reason, forethought, and even-handedness prevailed. It is our grave misfortune as a species that these and other sentiments have been routinely sidelined or even vilified throughout history, as those who would promulgate violence - those who, in my own 'biased' opinion, would stampede us all to our doom a dozen times over if given enough of a chance - are also those who would seek to wield executive power over all others, if only for the sake of wielding power over all others.

Blah blah blah ad nauseum.

Also, all these people that are talking about being pacifists and such, yeah, it's fun to get off the subject every now and then, but do you realize that we went from talking about definitions of military to pacifism?
Yes, such are the vagaries of an open discussion. Usually going off-topic is of greatest concern to the original poster. In this case, I am the original poster, and this drift is of little concern to me, or the topic-at-hand.

You are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for voicing your concerns.

Great!

Can I sing soprano then? :fluffle:

That's because you're like that three year old kid who think that money grows on trees, and that daddy only goes to work because he doesn't love him and wants to spend less time with his child. You just think that safety and security grow on trees instead, and that people only become soldiers because they think killing is fun.
I think you've rather missed the point. You are jangly. I'm not interested in your false suppositions and posturing. Thanks all the same.

And East Canuck got it down correctly. Please refer to EC's earlier post.

Goodbye, jangles.

Great!

Can I sing soprano then? :fluffle:
I think the Pagans have it right - 'As it harm none, do as thou wilt'.

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.
if you truly want to honor them, stay silent.

And i don't mean from now on, but on those occasions when people are honoring then. Veterans Day, for one, Independance Day, the day before, during and after, you can cease the attacks or even find those instances where the military (or soldier(s)) do something that you find honorable and praise them for that.

For example, the Solider who, by listening to the people in a small village and tries to help them, was made a sheik by them. or something like that.

you can Hate the Military, but still respect the soldiers.

if you truly want to honor them, stay silent.

And i don't mean from now on, but on those occasions when people are honoring then. Veterans Day, for one, Independance Day, the day before, during and after, you can cease the attacks or even find those instances where the military (or soldier(s)) do something that you find honorable and praise them for that.

For example, the Solider who, by listening to the people in a small village and tries to help them, was made a sheik by them. or something like that.

you can Hate the Military, but still respect the soldiers.
'Respect', as I've said in the past, is a word that has had its' meaning garbled and distorted in recent years.
I cannot 'respect' (in the truest sense of that word) the thinking from which militarism springs forth. Hence I cannot endorse those who, for whatever reasons, keep feeding the beast, or dedicate their lives to making that beast, and those who benefit from it's continuance, 'indispensible'. That 'indispensibility' is as illusory as the mind-set that gave rise to the disease of militarism in the first place.

Don't be too aggrieved, in any event - it's not like I've got an entire culture to affirm and re-affirm my point of view. I'm all I've got. I'm sure you'll agree it's hardly worth the bother.

The example that is always given is, "what if you or your loved ones were in danger...would you stand by and let you or them be hurt? If not, you aren't a pacifist". In my mind, pacifism does not preclude one from self-defense BUT self-defense is not automatically the choice. If I saw someone being raped...what would I do? Even if I used violence...could I stop the crime? Doubtful. But making an outcry, refusing to flee the scene in fear, hopefully shaming the aggressor into fleeing himself, I would still be putting myself in harms way, but choosing not to use violence.


SO-someone is being raped or otherwise assaulted-violently and against their will-thye are going to likely be damaged,both mentally and physically and you are going to shame them into stopping, or till they are thru and go on their way?
Again-I see violence as a last resort-Your rape scenario demands violence of ACTION-not words. Some people/some situations are such that the time for talking is long passed.

I have talked my way out of many potentially violent situations. But when the need was pressing, violence suited me fine. I dont dwell on violence, but I am capable of using it effectively at a moment's notice.

Sin-if I happened upon you being assaulted, or any victim, for that matter, my reaction would be swift, violent and very likely effective,stopping both any further damage/humiliation to said victim and likely preventing the same agressor from making a new victim tomorrow.
I'm not one to yell till they are done and move on-I'm going to stop this crime and prevent future crimes too.

I dont live a violent life. I dont worship violence or agression. My kids are growing up in a very peaceful atmosphere,learning to live and most live-for the most part.
But violence in me is under the surface, a tool I hope I never need again, but I am thankful I have.
I might add,on more than one occaision, a potential agressor has somehow picked up that vibe and moved on. Without knowing how, I have apparently been able to project that potential for violence. And I also appear capable, so that always helps.

Great!

Can I sing soprano then? :fluffle:

Sin- in my opinion, you may sing, whenever you like.

:D Please sing.

Sin- in my opinion, you may sing, whenever you like.

:D Please sing.
The singing gets even better when we all sing together, CL.

'Respect', as I've said in the past, is a word that has had its' meaning garbled and distorted in recent years.
I cannot 'respect' (in the truest sense of that word) the thinking from which militarism springs forth. Hence I cannot endorse those who, for whatever reasons, keep feeding the beast, or dedicate their lives to making that beast, and those who benefit from it's continuance, 'indispensible'. That 'indispensibility' is as illusory as the mind-set that gave rise to the disease of militarism in the first place.

Don't be too aggrieved, in any event - it's not like I've got an entire culture to affirm and re-affirm my point of view. I'm all I've got. I'm sure you'll agree it's hardly worth the bother.not at all, not aggrieved. and I won't argue or try to change your mind, I assumed when you said Honor, I thought you ment paying respects to those few who show, In your eyes, true integrety in the military.

sorry If I misunderstood.

The singing gets even better when we all sing together, CL.


I wasnt kidding-have you heard Sinuhue's song on that thread with people's voices? She has a really beautiful voice.

Now back to kidding-my singing voice sounds great in the shower-come on over and join me.

not at all, not aggrieved. and I won't argue or try to change your mind, I assumed when you said Honor, I thought you ment paying respects to those few who show, In your eyes, true integrety in the military.

sorry If I misunderstood.
Well, I'm sure my previous posts make clear my position regarding true integrity. Misapprehensions aside, I'd prefer people to earn my respect by, in turn, learning to indentify with other points of view (hey, maybe not even mine), and earning the respect of others in so doing... as opposed to steamrolling over top of, and dismissing out of hand, those points of view that fall outside one's own experience - while wholly (and most grudgingly)taking credit for the permittance of said alternative points of view - with the understanding that those closely-held beliefs amount to little more than some awkwardly, uncomfortably-granted indulgence of sorts, easily dismissed, and in any event elusive, ethereal, and by some unkind people's reckoning, naive and utopian.

I think there is little integrity to be had in, on the one hand, paying lip-service to intellectual freedom, while on the other, mocking, deriding, and denigrating said freedoms as some sort of pointless indulgence. Not that I'm implying this is the message you are transmitting, Junii - I think I'm being bitten by the same bug that prompted my evening-long post a few pages back.

Tired, still mildly throbbingly angry, still slightly frustrated, still somewhat bored - a curious combo, to be sure.

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.
It's not terribly complicated. You make it hard because you pull the wool of ideology over your own eyes.

Countries need armies for all sorts of reasons. Some contries have armies because they are good at sorting out young people. Some have them, because it's a highly effective way to send a political message. Others still, need an army because they couldn't hold on to power, if they didn't have an effective means of killing their own populations.. And yet others need vast armies to carry out expansionist policies. For many countries, it's a combination of all of the above, and for a few, an army is the only way to keep neighbours from annexing them.

People join armies for many, many reasons, reasons that usually have more to do with their prospects for the future, than a desire to help their country carry out it's policies.

If you take a moment to contemplate how armies are used, and why soldiers join, you will arrive at one of two conclusions.

One being that armies are nessecary in this world, and that soldier deserve your support, even if the scum who sends them off fighting doesn't. Whether you like it or not, you can't simply abolish the military and be done with it. It would be the end of your people. Thus, the very least you can do is to respect the people who do a job you can't make yourself do. Remember you are every bit as responsible for how your army is used, as every soldier or general is - assuming you live in a democrazy. Also, however far fetched you think it is, in reality the military is what ensures you can critizise it. Without military, the only pacifist is a dead or imprisoned one. Buying off enemies doesn't work for very long.

The other conclusion you can arrive at, would be the one you seem to have arrived at already. Namely, that you would last more than 10 minutes without a military and international military pacts, and a fuckload of young people joining every day. Most military personel I've ever known takes a certain perverse pride in knowing you wouldn't be able to have that attitude, if it weren't for them. As do I.

It's not terribly complicated. You make it hard because you pull the wool of ideology over your own eyes.

Countries need armies for all sorts of reasons. Some contries have armies because they are good at sorting out young people. Some have them, because it's a highly effective way to send a political message. Others still, need an army because they couldn't hold on to power, if they didn't have an effective means of killing their own populations.. And yet others need vast armies to carry out expansionist policies. For many countries, it's a combination of all of the above, and for a few, an army is the only way to keep neighbours from annexing them.

People join armies for many, many reasons, reasons that usually have more to do with their prospects for the future, than a desire to help their country carry out it's policies.

If you take a moment to contemplate how armies are used, and why soldiers join, you will arrive at one of two conclusions.

One being that armies are nessecary in this world, and that soldier deserve your support, even if the scum who sends them off fighting doesn't. Whether you like it or not, you can't simply abolish the military and be done with it. It would be the end of your people. Thus, the very least you can do is to respect the people who do a job you can't make yourself do. Remember you are every bit as responsible for how your army is used, as every soldier or general is - assuming you live in a democrazy. Also, however far fetched you think it is, in reality the military is what ensures you can critizise it. Without military, the only pacifist is a dead or imprisoned one. Buying off enemies doesn't work for very long.

The other conclusion you can arrive at, would be the one you seem to have arrived at already. Namely, that you would last more than 10 minutes without a military and international military pacts, and a fuckload of young people joining every day. Most military personel I've ever known takes a certain perverse pride in knowing you wouldn't be able to have that attitude, if it weren't for them. As do I.
So cut and dry. It's a comforting world that's oriented in such a rectilinear fashion, I suppose. For some, anyway.

I think there's more than two conclusions to be reached. I know that true change can only come from within, and I do honestly believe that militarism is a sham, a long and time-honoured chestnut, a thoroughly dispensible indulgence that has outlived all credible usefulness to the species and the societies to which they belong.

I'm not out to enforce my POV on anyone... I'm not trying to enact legislation to stand down the military, or change society against all wishes. I'm just hoping to demonstrate that there are other, valid approaches to living and getting along with each other that don't necessitate anybody lying in pools of blood, or being stampeded like a terrified herd of cattle.

If I can hope to persuade even one other person of the need to abandon outmoded means of settling disputes, I'll be a very happy sentient being. Obviously, the more the merrier. But in a time and place, when and wherein dissent is be considered a treasonable action, it makes my message rather more urgent. Whether anyone accepts my dissenting opinion as valid is of small concern. That that opinion is considered - is reasonably weighed against the prevailing 'party lines' - might just be sufficient.

I'd be happy to be that nagging doubt in the mind of someone with their finger on a trigger, about to end lives at someone else's say-so. Scum be damned, that's more than an onboard computer dedicated to trajectories and tactics residing within the confines of the human skull. May we all enjoy sufficient personal freedoms to employ that lumpy organ for purposes other than to maintain certain people's sense of entitlement, or 'indispensibility'.

Tired, still mildly throbbingly angry, still slightly frustrated, still somewhat bored - a curious combo, to be sure.


This sounds like a very familiar feeling to me. One thats crept up without warning and hung around.

And, as the summer starts to talk about ending, I'm getting a whiff of it again....*sigh*

I think there's more than two conclusions to be reached. I know that true change can only come from within, and I do honestly believe that militarism is a sham, a long and time-honoured chestnut, a thoroughly dispensible indulgence that has outlived all credible usefulness to the species and the societies to which they belong.

This may be true. The idea of using violence to get what you want may not be useful.

Here's the problem: Getting out of a situation where someone is inciting violence only works if that person agrees that it is possible to resolve it without violence. There are many, many people in this world who think that they can get what they want and assert their power over others through violence. They do not talk, they do not negotiate, they don't care about anything but exerting control over others. These types of people aren't going to sit down and talk about it - they aren't going to let those they are aggressive towards walk away without violence ensuing.

For those types, the only way to keep violence from occurring is to provide the suggestion that you are ready and willing (whether this is true or not) to use violence in retaliation - and that you will win.

If I can hope to persuade even one other person of the need to abandon outmoded means of settling disputes, I'll be a very happy sentient being.

You assume that anyone who is willing to meet violence with violence doesn't already agree with you. People willing to stand up and defend their ideals may fully agree that violence is an "outmoded means of settling disputes." However, when someone is using that outmoed means of settling disputes, sometimes the only way to stop them is to "sink to their level", as it were.

So cut and dry. It's a comforting world that's oriented in such a rectilinear fashion, I suppose. For some, anyway.

I think there's more than two conclusions to be reached. I know that true change can only come from within, and I do honestly believe that militarism is a sham, a long and time-honoured chestnut, a thoroughly dispensible indulgence that has outlived all credible usefulness to the species and the societies to which they belong.

Yups. So cut & dry. If you think that's comforting, however, you either misunderstand me horribly, or you're downright scary. A simple answer doesn't exclude a complex and utterly obnoxious reality.
Ideally, I can't see how military is desirable either, however, the world and all it's diverse humans, has a tendency to complicate issues. Thus armies are needed. They are rarely used for anything terribly good or important for mankind, but for people like you and me, the most important thing about our military is that it is there. If we had no army, others would annex our countries. If noone had armies, well that would just be friggin great, wouldn't it? The peoblem is most of the nations on the planet isn't at all interested in doing away with the military. Given the situation, we need them. How to weild our militaries can be debated, but not having one is suicide.

I'm not out to enforce my POV on anyone... I'm not trying to enact legislation to stand down the military, or change society against all wishes. I'm just hoping to demonstrate that there are other, valid approaches to living and getting along with each other that don't necessitate anybody lying in pools of blood, or being stampeded like a terrified herd of cattle.

If I can hope to persuade even one other person of the need to abandon outmoded means of settling disputes, I'll be a very happy sentient being. Obviously, the more the merrier. But in a time and place, when and wherein dissent is be considered a treasonable action, it makes my message rather more urgent. Whether anyone accepts my dissenting opinion as valid is of small concern. That that opinion is considered - is reasonably weighed against the prevailing 'party lines' - might just be sufficient.

I consider it my duty to my people, my country and to future generations, to voice any and all concerns I have about the way my country is run. I think it's irresponsible not to do so, if you believe you contribute something positive. If you think your nation can do without it's military, I think you should do your best to convince your countrymen. I assume you have some sort of alternative.

Regardless, I agree with you in theory. Just not in practise. I do not condone warfare of any kind, and I believe that most of the western hemisphere would benefit vastly from having much smaller armies. Excluding the USA of course, as their economy, and thus everyone's economy, would most likely collapse, if they didn't wage war on the unlucky half of the world.

I'd be happy to be that nagging doubt in the mind of someone with their finger on a trigger, about to end lives at someone else's say-so. Scum be damned, that's more than an onboard computer dedicated to trajectories and tactics residing within the confines of the human skull. May we all enjoy sufficient personal freedoms to employ that lumpy organ for purposes other than to maintain certain people's sense of entitlement, or 'indispensibility'.

I don't think you realize what you're saying here. That nagging voice get people killed. It's probably the number 1 cause of death for modern armies, such as the American and Israeli ones. People die from that doubt, whether it's their own, or the guy who should be covering them. Further, when people don't die because of it, they often spend their lives marred by guilt over their indecision. Basically you are wishing to be the cause of people's ruin.
Military training is about removing that voice. One of the main reasons you should at least feign respect, is to keep that little voice from popping up.

I think I'd be really angry with this last bit if I wasn't so damn tired. Soldiers are humans. They are your damn neighbours. Regardless of how you feel about them, you should at least acknowledge they do what needs to be done, and what your democratic government asks them to do. If you think that is wrong, cause change, don't wish for their ruin. That's just evil.

I honor soldiers because they endure hardships that most civilians can't begin to imagine. Treat them with respect because they would do so likewise.

Here's the problem: Getting out of a situation where someone is inciting violence only works if that person agrees that it is possible to resolve it without violence. There are many, many people in this world who think that they can get what they want and assert their power over others through violence. They do not talk, they do not negotiate, they don't care about anything but exerting control over others. These types of people aren't going to sit down and talk about it - they aren't going to let those they are aggressive towards walk away without violence ensuing.
It sounds almost like you're describing some other species, not some other people. Just saying. Anyway, I don't agree. There's a tendency, a prevailing tendency, to assume the worst in others. This is something we all need (myself included) to disavow ourselves of. Assume little, or nothing, of others instead and be pleasantly surprised when others demonstrate a tendency towards compromise instead of absolutism.
For those types, the only way to keep violence from occurring is to provide the suggestion that you are ready and willing (whether this is true or not) to use violence in retaliation - and that you will win.
Not to be appear to be inordinately clever about it, but that scheme doesn't seem to be garnering results these days. At least not the desired results - not the purported desired results, anyway.
You assume that anyone who is willing to meet violence with violence doesn't already agree with you. People willing to stand up and defend their ideals may fully agree that violence is an "outmoded means of settling disputes." However, when someone is using that outmoed means of settling disputes, sometimes the only way to stop them is to "sink to their level", as it were.
'Sinking to their level' is precisely what I'm opposed to, whoever we're talking about. I'll choose instead to 'buoy' the lot of you up to a higher standard, if it's all the same to you, Dem. But not to worry, it won't come overnight, it won't be foisted upon anyone... it'll (eventually) come to others as their own considered opinion.

I'm not troubled by taking a longer... a much longer view in these matters.

I think I'd be really angry with this last bit if I wasn't so damn tired. Soldiers are humans. They are your damn neighbours. Regardless of how you feel about them, you should at least acknowledge they do what needs to be done, and what your democratic government asks them to do. If you think that is wrong, cause change, don't wish for their ruin. That's just evil.
I don't wish for anybody's ruin, and I don't subscribe to Dualism. There's no such thing as evil, that's just a construct, Sim. Anyway, I'm glad you aren't actually angry. Sorry to hear you're tired (I am, too, as it happens).

There's little point in trying to change those things that I, as a minority, have no use for, but that a majority, rightly or wrongly, feel they cannot do without. My best hope for change stems not from legislation, but from interpersonal communication.

Heh.

I'll rid the world of the need for militarism one conscience at a time. Yeah, sure. But you know - there are worse hobbies to have, Dem. But no, I won't acknowledge my 'damn neighbours' for espousing beliefs and promulgating practices I feel were best left behind in the jungles of our past. I certainly won't "spit" on them, but no, I cannot feign support. It wouldn't ring true in any event, not for them, not for me, and not between myself and God.

Sorry.

It sounds almost like you're describing some other species, not some other people. Just saying. Anyway, I don't agree. There's a tendency, a prevailing tendency, to assume the worst in others. This is something we all need (myself included) to disavow ourselves of. Assume little, or nothing, of others instead and be pleasantly surprised when others demonstrate a tendency towards compromise instead of absolutism.

*looks back at what I wrote*

*looks at what you wrote*

*puzzles over what the hell it has to do with what I wrote*

Where did I say we should assume anything about anyone, much less the worst? I generally assume the best about a given person, until they demonstrate otherwise.

However, one cannot argue that there are not those who will assert control over others by force, regardless of rationality or discussion. Human history proves that to be true.

Not to be appear to be inordinately clever about it, but that scheme doesn't seem to be garnering results these days. At least not the desired results - not the purported desired results, anyway.

In truth, there is less warfare and general violence now than there has been at most any point of human history. We have had more years of general peace - in longer bouts - than at any other time in recorded human history.

Of course, our very current situation simply proves my point - there are those who will resort to violence, even when other options are on the table - even when those options are being heavily suggested and discussed - some still go for violence.

'Sinking to their level' is precisely what I'm opposed to, whoever we're talking about. I'll choose instead to 'buoy' the lot of you up to a higher standard, if it's all the same to you, Dem. But not to worry, it won't come overnight, it won't be foisted upon anyone... it'll (eventually) come to others as their own considered opinion.

I certainly hope that it will come to others - all others, over time. But until that time comes, there will be those who will attack without provocation, without regard for human suffering and human lives, and those people cannot be allowed to do as they wish.

I don't wish for anybody's ruin, and I don't subscribe to Dualism. There's no such thing as evil, that's just a construct, Sim. Anyway, I'm glad you aren't actually angry. Sorry to hear you're tired (I am, too, as it happens).

There's little point in trying to change those things that I, as a minority, have no use for, but that a majority, rightly or wrongly, feel they cannot do without. My best hope for change stems not from legislation, but from interpersonal communication.

Heh.

I'll rid the world of the need for militarism one conscience at a time. Yeah, sure. But you know - there are worse hobbies to have, Dem. But no, I won't acknowledge my 'damn neighbours' for espousing beliefs and promulgating practices I feel were best left behind in the jungles of our past. I certainly won't "spit" on them, but no, I cannot feign support. It wouldn't ring true in any event, not for them, not for me, and not between myself and God.

Sorry.
If I come pay you a visit, rip your legs off, and eat them, I'm fairly certain you'd consider me evil. You may think philosophy is a great thing, but don't discard reality. Actual humans use terms like good and evil to describe human behaviour. You can substitute those two terms for altruism, and selfserving bastards if that makes more sense to you. Duality has nothing to do with how I intended for you to understand my use of the word.

The fundamental problem with your attitude - to me - seems to be that you lack any ability to percive anything outside what goes on in your mind.
I'd love to see you explain how your country could possibly do away with it's military, without getting a good thrashing. Pacifism only work on an individual scale. You cannot ask your society to accept being annihalation. Most people will meet threats with threats if they can't escape, nd most people will fight back if they are attacked and can't escape.
That's basically the situation on planet earth. And that's why our nations can't and won't do away with their expensive military. If they don't have one, they'll get mauled.

The society you live in has certain military goals. Those goals aren't decided by the military. Thay are decided by YOU. If you think the priorities are wrong, then do something about it. Spewing semi-coherrent bollox on a forum isn't the way to go about it. Start writing newspapers instead. Organise with likeminded individuals. Make your voice heard and gain some kind of political platform. It isn't terribly hard.
Bringing people down for performing a role in your society, one you help maintain, is sheer bloodyminded hypocrisy. But I have no doubt you can't see that.

I cannot 'respect' (in the truest sense of that word) the thinking from which militarism springs forth. Hence I cannot endorse those who, for whatever reasons, keep feeding the beast, or dedicate their lives to making that beast, and those who benefit from it's continuance, 'indispensible'.


Then you are unable to respect someone because their thinking is different from your thinking. That is quite prejudicial really - you are rejecting a huge group of people simply because your way of thinking does not meet with their way of thinking. You reject a sect of society, not on the basis of individual encounters but on the basis that they have one characteristic that you cannot abide. In the end, how far is this from other forms of discrimination like racism or sexism? Not too far, I'll warrant.

This is not the way I would go about something. People are always to be respected, even if you do not agree with them or the way they think. I do not agree with Tony Blair but I respect him, for being able to become Prime Minister (not an easy thing) and for being able to hold down a government for three terms. I do not agree with socialism but I am still able to respect my socialist friends.

If you do not agree with someone, then argue with them or criticise them. But do that with respect, for these people are arguing for what they believe in, just as you argue for what you believe in.

Respect should always be the foundation of our relationships with other people, no matter who they are.

Then you are unable to respect someone because their thinking is different from your thinking. That is quite prejudicial really - you are rejecting a huge group of people simply because your way of thinking does not meet with their way of thinking. *snips*
I think you're confusing 'respect' with 'tolerance'. This was never a question involving tolerance, as it happens. And really, the thread originally had to do with 'honour', in any event.

I respect Dobb for his convictions, the strength of said convictions and Dobbs willingness to defend said convictions stands as a testament to his character. I could be wrong, obviously a forum is a poor way to get to know people, however I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I disagree that violence is inherently wrong (motivation vs. action), and that while it should be used carefully, it will continue to be necessary (so long as man exists).

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and -- thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." -Jean V. Debois,
Starship Troopers (Book, not the damn movie.)

If I come pay you a visit, rip your legs off, and eat them, I'm fairly certain you'd consider me evil. You may think philosophy is a great thing, but don't discard reality. Actual humans use terms like good and evil to describe human behaviour. You can substitute those two terms for altruism, and selfserving bastards if that makes more sense to you. Duality has nothing to do with how I intended for you to understand my use of the word.

The fundamental problem with your attitude - to me - seems to be that you lack any ability to percive anything outside what goes on in your mind.I'd say that was the least of my problems, if that were the case, which I'm not inclined to agree with in any event, Sim.
I'd love to see you explain how your country could possibly do away with it's military, without getting a good thrashing. I don't. Haven't. And am not moved to do so, as I've never made any claims in that regard.Pacifism only work on an individual scale. Well, that's the only level it's allowed to work on, so who knows. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. Maybe the truth lies somewhere between the two.You cannot ask your society to accept being annihalation. Haven't done.Most people will meet threats with threats if they can't escape, nd most people will fight back if they are attacked and can't escape.Well, I'm not most people. And neither are you. Just an FYI, there, Sim.That's basically the situation on planet earth. [QUOTE=Dobbsworld]In your opinion, at any rate.And that's why our nations can't and won't do away with their expensive military. If they don't have one, they'll get mauled.Well, that's food for thought, I suppose. Much and all as I think, in the longer view, you're incorrect.

Bringing people down for performing a role in your society, one you help maintain, is sheer bloodyminded hypocrisy. But I have no doubt you can't see that.
I can see you're eager to try to prompt some kind of rise out of me, but you won't get it, Sim. Not really, for all I'm typing. I'm ending up having to repeat myself ad nauseum, which tends to make me think you're passing over my responses to Dem in favour of some desired semi-private audience with me. I'd really prefer not having to state and re-state my views unnecessarily. Perhaps you could do both of us a favour and at least cursorily glance at the rest of the correspondence on this thread before perfunctorily re-treading what's just been discussed. And anyway, I'm tired and my head is really beginning to hurt like I've got a bastard miniature jackhammer plugging away at my frontal lobes. God, I hope it's just allergies and not the onset of a blood clot or an aneurysm or anything. Cheeerist, it hurts.

Anyway, if you came 'round and ate my legs off I wouldn't think you were evil - just deranged. Not the same thing at all. And yup, philosophy is a damn good thing. Made us the species we are today, and with a little luck and elbow grease, it'll make us the species we'd like to be in future. I don't see how philosophy is in any way divorced from reality.

The society you live in has certain military goals. Those goals aren't decided by the military. Thay are decided by YOU.
If my society has military goals, it's in spite of what I decide, not because of it.If you think the priorities are wrong, then do something about it.I am.Spewing semi-coherrent bollox on a forum isn't the way to go about it.In your opinion. The longterm effectiveness of this methodology has yet to be disproven, what with online forums being a relatively new development in human affairs.Start writing newspapers instead. Organise with likeminded individuals. Make your voice heard and gain some kind of political platform. It isn't terribly hard. I'm not interested in foisting my views on an entire population, there's nothing to be gained through demagoguery. Look at what that course of action has done for the United States - it's as deeply divided and polarized as it was immediately prior to the Civil War. I'll choose instead to take a more plodding course... what it lacks in glamour it more than makes up for in solidity. Thanks for the suggestions, all the same.

'Militarism' is a buzzword.
No it's not. Militarism is about the glory of fighting; it treats the military as an end in itself, not just as a means to an end.

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.
I cannot, do not, and will not endorse preaching, or Professional Religion, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the clergy, honour Religion, and specifically honour those who have chosen intellectual insult, fraud and charlatianisim for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open...

Oh wait... this isn't the Athiesim/anti-corporate/instutionalized Religion thread? :headbang:

Never mind. Continue to insult your choice of career choice. Makes you look nicely petty. You don't have to like someone's job, and you can think it is philiosophically stupid, but it is THEIR choice, and it is a LEGAL job. You know, sort of like how Prostitution is legal in Nevada. You may find it philiosophically/morally repugnant but they make more money than you and enjoy their work (many do anyway) and the aren't conning people out of 10% of their income because "God told them to".

Their decision. Their job/life. You "honor" them by keeping your trap shut whenever you get the urge to call them "babykillers" just because you don't like their LEGAL choice of employment. :mad:

No it's not. Militarism is about the glory of fighting; it treats the military as an end in itself, not just as a means to an end.
Shhh, dissent is frowned upon. Haven't you been keeping up with the times?

Their decision. Their job/life. You "honor" them by keeping your trap shut whenever you get the urge to call them "babykillers" just because you don't like their LEGAL choice of employment. :mad:
Such anger. And out with the 'babykillers' nonsense, again.

*sighs*

Syniks: Matador
Dobbs: Bull

Matador brandishes red cape.
Bull yawns. Takes nap.

Roll credits.

Everything else is just blah-blah.

Next!






































*edit: sneaky job, sneakily going and editing your message, post-my having replied to it. I wonder what I missed?

**edit: nothing that's going to keep me awake tonight, no doubt.

If you cannot even contemplate a justification for that type of achievement then you cannot honour it as the actions necessary are not honarable in your honour code.

For me I can honour military achievements but only if I agree with the cause (i.e. I can honour the international brigades fighting for the republic in spain but I can't honour the soldiers in iraq unless they do something I think is worthwhile (like desert mutiny or something along those lines) because in being there and following the orders they are being given even if they don't do any thing wrong apart from what they are orderd to do then I can't honour them as what they are doing is not honourable)

If you cannot even contemplate a justification for that type of achievement then you cannot honour it as the actions necessary are not honarable in your honour code.
I'm not sure what type of achievement you're referring to, specifically. But I think we're on the same, or at least a similar page. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
For me I can honour military achievements but only if I agree with the cause (i.e. I can honour the international brigades fighting for the republic in spain but I can't honour the soldiers in iraq unless they do something I think is worthwhile (like desert mutiny or something along those lines) because in being there and following the orders they are being given even if they don't do any thing wrong apart from what they are orderd to do then I can't honour them as what they are doing is not honourable)
I understand what you're saying. It's a tough one, being asked to forego your convictions in order to render validation to a concept or an ethos you are diametrically-opposed to. I think my stated opinion is clear enough. Yours is, as well.

Just don't go expecting anyone to go out of their way to validate your beliefs. Apparently this is not possible in times of war, though I've been assured this will all change for the better at some unspecified point in the future. *chuckles* It's just that I don't foresee a time in the future when there won't be a war, some war, any ol' war, to so interfere with said theoretical validation.

Perpetual war. Perpetual indispensibility of militarism. The future's so dim, I need a kleig light to find my shades.

Such anger. And out with the 'babykillers' nonsense, again. Since you seem unable to understand either sarcasam or bolding for emphasis, I'll rephrase: Maybe you dont specifically call military personnel "babykillers" but would you walk up to a priest/rabbi/imam/preacher/guru and tell them that you find their profession philisophically unendorsable? What is the real difference except one is an "acceptable" insult and the other, depending on where you live, could get you killed/arrested for a "hate crime".

You are a pacifist. Fine. I hope you don't have to die for your beliefs, but it is quite likely you will - and your killer will be free to kill again.

The very idea behind this thread is an insult to people who have chosen a legal, recognised profession. Any profession can be lived honorably or dishonorably by the individuals choosing it. By your choice to dishonor the entire profession - and lump all it's members it into your definition of unethical - you engage in Illicit Major fallacy (besides, as you correctly state, begging the question). You honor the members of a profession by not assuming that all members are automatically imoral simply because they chose that profession.

*sighs*

Syniks: Matador
Dobbs: Bull

Matador brandishes red cape.
Bull yawns. Takes nap.

Roll credits.

Everything else is just blah-blah.

Next! :confused:

Unlike physical confrontations between children, one does not "win" a debate by refusing to argue cogently.

<snip>*edit: sneaky job, sneakily going and editing your message, post-my having replied to it. I wonder what I missed?
This, (in bold), posted while you were typing your reply. My edit posted at 3:44, yours posted a 3:43. I did not subtract anything and only added a little bit of economic clarification.

Never mind. Continue to insult your choice of career choice. Makes you look nicely petty. You don't have to like someone's job, and you can think it is philiosophically stupid, but it is THEIR choice, and it is a LEGAL job. You know, sort of like how Prostitution is legal in Nevada. You may find it philiosophically/morally repugnant but they make more money than you and enjoy their work (many do anyway) and the aren't conning people out of 10% of their income because "God told them to".

**edit: nothing that's going to keep me awake tonight, no doubt.
I should hope not.

I'm not against militarism i'm just against imperial militerism (i.e. one country taking over another country for the benifit of the agressor country or some part there of)

I'm all for the use of military force in internal matters like the spanish civil war

Well, Syniks, as it happens, I don't see the need for clergy of any sort. I don't see the need for ecclesiastical middlemen. But really, I haven't been asked, directly or indirectly, to 'honour' religious figures. So while I appreciate your rather vigorous desire for some form of personal/public interchange, I'll happily choose to take a pass on your offer of discourse, at least until you've had more of a chance to settle down to a quiet simmering boil.

If you prefer to think that the entire basis of this thread is to insult, you are - and I know you'll most likely elect not to believe me when I say this - entirely incorrect. If you'd like to second-guess my motivations, of course, you're welcome to, all you like, in fact - but rest assured, you're wide of the mark.

Dobbs.

I'm not against militarism i'm just against imperial militerism (i.e. one country taking over another country for the benifit of the agressor country or some part there of)

I'm all for the use of military force in internal matters like the spanish civil war
Thanks for your clarification, Pantycellen.

You know its odd, I've been in dozens of scenerios like you've described, and I've diffused so many through body language and speech, both those that endangered myself and others. I've worked many jobs like security and conflict mediation, jobs that just seem to demand that fights will occur and yet there I am, preventing them by and large.

I stop fights, pretty much for a living.

Yet I consider myself a militarist. Sure, I don't consider myself the same kind of militarist I encounter on NS these days, but there are a few like me floating around this world. Not getting into fights, but preparing for them constantly. Obsessing about what we hope never to see.

I'm no pacifist. I fully explore my offensive options in any situation I find myself in; yet I fully believe your situation, those many years ago, did not require a fight. In fact, fighting would have been a terrible option for you, as you yourself had asessed.

From what I see; there is pacifism and militarism. Two sides of a coin. Both seek to "eliminate" the other and dominate the philisophical debate. Like most people, I would prefer not to live in conlict, but I find pacifism too limiting, too dangerous in this world. Ideals, not practicality. Ideals are sometimes worthy of striving for, but idealogy limits us or sets us against one another. Its a dangerous balance.


I can pretty much understand that... Few of us (by us, meaning me and those I served with) ever wanted a "fight" but we were prepared for it constantly. There is little difference in the operations of a Police Officer, or Fire-Fighter, and that of your average submariner. We're there to "keep the peace" so to speak.... And we handle that with the utmost capacity of our position. At sea, if in battle, my job was to make sure the enemy was stopped, and to make sure our missiles reached their target.... During peace, my job was to make sure that we knew where every potential hostile was at in our immediate area, and make sure we remained "hidden" quitely in our position; in this, I shared duty with others, equally of this calibre and mindset.... In port, sharing duties with others in reaction forces, and watch; it was my duty to make sure the boat, and its weapons remained "safe" and to repel those attempting to take control of the craft or its weapons....

Would I kill if necessary?.... I'd have to say yes.... As far any direct attempts which occured in peace, I was able to repel such with no loss of life... But would it come to killing, I would... As far as pacifism, I would not let this ship or its weapons (or my fellow shipmates) be subject to someone who may use these weapons indiscriminately, or have access to equipment that could very easily, cause harm to others indiscriminately...

Would I enjoy having to do it? No.... not at all.... I can't speak for those on the ground... But I placed my life as lesser value that those back home, or even civilians in battle-areas... I would never follow an order to target civilians... I would imediately dismiss such order as being unlawfull; and persuant to my duties (recongized under Article 92 of the UCMJ) refuse to carry out that order, and express my direct reasoning as to why...

Well, Syniks, as it happens, I don't see the need for clergy of any sort. I don't see the need for ecclesiastical middlemen. But really, I haven't been asked, directly or indirectly, to 'honour' religious figures. So while I appreciate your rather vigorous desire for some form of personal/public interchange, I'll happily choose to take a pass on your offer of discourse, at least until you've had more of a chance to settle down to a quiet simmering boil.

If you prefer to think that the entire basis of this thread is to insult, you are - and I know you'll most likely elect not to believe me when I say this - entirely incorrect. If you'd like to second-guess my motivations, of course, you're welcome to, all you like, in fact - but rest assured, you're wide of the mark.

Dobbs.
Oh, I assure you I am far from needing to settle down. You asked for an opinion and I gave it. I also do not believe that "Clergy" is a worthwhile profession, but it is still honorable... there is a difference.

Honor is a slippery concept - people often confuse it with "glorification", largely because they use the word to mean "an award" rather than as a synonym for "respect".

If you mean "Honor" as in cheer at parades, pass out medals and all that other Rah-Rah, then no, why should you? No one is really asking to do these things. If you think they are, then you are simply projecting.

On the other hand, if you take Honor to mean abide by/respect their choice and not castigate them for it, then you most certainly should "honor" them, in exactly the same way you should honor every other legal profession available.

In this respect you have been asked to honor religious figures. You honor them by not intimating that their profession is dishonorable. That's all anyone from the military really wants from people anyway - to just not be immediately dismissed as "dishonorable" - i.e. someone not worthy of simple respect.

Please don't confuse "glorify" with "honor". They are not the same.

In this respect you have been asked to honor religious figures. You honor them by not intimating that their profession is dishonorable. That's all anyone from the military really wants from people anyway - to just not be immediately dismissed as "dishonorable" - i.e. someone not worthy of simple respect.

Please don't confuse "glorify" with "honor". They are not the same.
With all due respect, you are quite incorrect. I was not raised to 'honour' religious figures. I was raised differently than that, which I touched on in - what was it - post #18? Look it up if you will. In fact, on more than one occasion, I most certainly have intimated ("intimated"? Hell's Bells! Stated outright, repeatedly, in fact) that that particular profession is needless and ultimately self-serving.
But anyway, I understand what you're saying, even though I can't accede to your wishes. Hmm. how best to put this to you so we don't end up chattering in circles all day and night? It's like - it's like asking a Jew in ancient Egypt to call Pharoah God. You know what? It's not gonna happen. No matter how angry you make yourself, no matter how hard you try pushing.
So... I think we're done, Syniks. There's no give, no take... I don't see much room here for compromise, so it's probably only for the best if we mutually agree we don't agree.
And I don't see the similarities between "glorifying" and "honouring", just between the two of us. Very different things.

You can not compare the military to a fight in the street.

Nor do you seem to understand what pacifism is. Rather than repeat myself too many times:) I'll just link to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9462508&postcount=117) post.

Noted, Sinuhue. Still, there are those people out there who truly believe that violence of any sort, for any cause, is never justifiable. That was the group to which I was referring.

For indeed, there is always a choice. In the 'last resort' cases you talk about, the choice is to fight or die (in some cases, both). There aren't always good choices, mind.

Actually you are.

That's the entire point of the military, to physically protect the rights of those who will not or can not do it for themselves.

I disagree w/ Dobbs. I think her personal beliefs are naive and uninformed. She demonizes the military as a bunch of killers and sadists. She also has a severe martyr complex.

I will also fight for her right to speak her mind and maintain her ideology. I don't want her thanks or her honor. No matter what she may think, it's my (and your) job to do so.

So sorry, the oath I swore was to the Constitution of the United States, not to the President, nor to the citizens thereof. In protecting the ideas in that document we protect the people it was designed to guard.

I have no interest in protecting those who will not protect themselves. They enjoy (perhaps resentfully) that protection as a byproduct of our actions, not as the intended result. If I had to relate our service to 'the people,' I would instead say that we protect the rights of those who would fight if they had to. By providing that shield, we free the rest of the people to do all the other things that make a country great - grow food, innovate, produce, be creative, etc. If we needed them to join us in defending the rights of the people, nearly all of them would do so. These people are my brothers, and I gladly defend them.

The people who resent the protection we give them have no moral right to it. It so happens that there is no practical way to separate them, so they get it anyway. But hey, they're kind of funny to listen to.

"Most people will meet threats with threats if they can't escape, nd most people will fight back if they are attacked and can't escape."

It would be more accurate to say that people will fight back if attacked and/or can't escape because it is human nature to fight back. The strongest instinct in every living thing is self-preservation. So what's wrong with that?

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

If you don't honor something society does, or vice versa, just keep any words you may say just that: words. I hate seeing a protest of some far left commies, or some far right bimbohead on the radio rattling slogans like a Madison Ave. exec.

If you don't honor something society does, or vice versa, just keep any words you may say just that: words. I hate seeing a protest of some far left commies, or some far right bimbohead on the radio rattling slogans like a Madison Ave. exec.
But while I am constrained to, as you say, 'keep any words (I) may say just that' if society does something I do not honour, the converse cannot be said to be true. Society is in no way constrained to silence, or omission of action when I do something it, in turn, does not honour. It's a one-way street.

Not that I'm complaining unduly, I'm just pointing out the inequity inherent in the status quo.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

the question; is it philisophically endorse or philisophically condem?

I for instance cannot philisophically endorse mimes but at the same time I see no harm in them and have no problem "honoring" them

the question; is it philisophically endorse or philisophically condem?

I for instance cannot philisophically endorse mimes but at the same time I see no harm in them and have no problem "honoring" them

The answer to your question lies in the body copy of my quotated question (appearing directly above your own, in your prior post), This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

And it sounds as though you have your answer, or at least, it sounds as though you were never in any real quandry regarding what profession you can or cannot philisophically endorse, and how one 'honours' (or cannot honour) that profession.

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.


"I may not agree with what you say, sir, But I will fight to the death, for your right to say it."

I dont like war, either.
In fact, I think almost all of the wars my own country has fought, were not ones of noble intentions.
However, that does not mean I dont have respect for those that have fought them.
To engage an enemy in combat is the hardest thing any man or woman can do.
Those that have the inner strength to not only fight, but fight well...must be respected for thier courage, even if you do not advocate what they are fighting for.

Personally, I despise the whole reasons behind the Vietnam conflict.
But Ive also had many conversations with veterans, and do to what some of them did, requires acts of bravery, you cannot imagine.

For example:

I used to work in a restaraunt.

One guy used to come in occasionaly wearing a hat that had his former military unit's numbers on it, he was clearly a veteran.
I got to talking about Vietnam with him one day, and he invited me to sit with him and keep talking after I had gotten off of work.

He used to be a K-9 patrolman in the war.
His dog was German Shepard, although Ive forgotten the dog's name.
They would clear tunnels, or do recon stuff.

One day, the guy was ambushed by a handful of Viet-Cong, and shot through the chest.
He sent the dog off, so it would get killed, or captured and possibly eaten.

The dog would go, and physically dragged him a 1/4 of a mile.
Finally the dog couldnt drag him any further, and went back to the base for help.

He brought half the platoon.

The guy was saved.

After the war, he went through a lot of hell, he said, to bring the dog home.
He didnt go into details about it, but from the jist I got, it was a pretty prolific battle to do so.

Apparently....of all the dogs that were sent over..only a handful were ever brought back.

If you cant at least respect a man who owed his life to a dog, and fought through that kind of red tape, to return the favor for the dog......you cannot respect anything.

"I may not agree with what you say, sir, But I will fight to the death, for your right to say it."

I dont like war, either.
In fact, I think almost all of the wars my own country has fought, were not ones of noble intentions.
However, that does not mean I dont have respect for those that have fought them.
To engage an enemy in combat is the hardest thing any man or woman can do.
Those that have the inner strength to not only fight, but fight well...must be respected for thier courage, even if you do not advocate what they are fighting for.

Personally, I despise the whole reasons behind the Vietnam conflict.
But Ive also had many conversations with veterans, and do to what some of them did, requires acts of bravery, you cannot imagine.
*snipped the dog story, sorry*

You know Backwoods, that's probably the first time I can recall someone employing that quotation with regards to this thread, or to my stated opinion. Not to be cute, but - I'd rather no-one have to die for the sake of a thought, or statement, either mine, their own, or anybody else's. I maintain I have little to no reason to fear such a fate, at least not from the given bogeymen of this, or any other day. On the other hand, I do perceive a certain threat from other, closer quarters - not by necessity from those whose profession I cannot endorse, but certainly from those who would censure legitimate voices of dissent in apparent seeming support of those same people.

You said that, "to engage an enemy in combat is the hardest thing any man or woman can do", and while I can appreciate the earnest, heartfelt nature of your statement, I will choose, repectfully, to counter your statement with the following: "To forego enmity and foster co-operation is yet harder still", but whereas the fruits of the former statement are murky at best, those of the latter are plainly evident - and do not require censure as a means of moral support.

I'll reserve my respects for those few among us having the inner strength to negotiate, facilitate, and arbitrate - and to do those things fairly, equitably, and even-handedly. There is courage there, too: the courage to actively work for compromise, mutual betterment, and greater understanding in the face of those would seek instead to resolve supposed conflicts through the auspices of the gunsight. Where then is the respect due to those who work diligently in the name of the common good, sans weapons, sans attendant romance and the glamour of Presidential soundbytes? It is as lacking, from a clear and vocal majority, as the respect felt due for unwanted actions of militarism are from the unheard minority.

I realize fully, now, that the umbrage taken with this thread, and against me personally, as the author of the thread, stems from the incredulity on the part of that vocal majority in actually hearing a decidedly minority opinion, a dissenting opinion. Well, if now is not a time for voices of dissent, when, I would ask, is?

I realize fully, now, that the umbrage taken with this thread, and against me personally, as the author of the thread, stems from the incredulity on the part of that vocal majority in actually hearing a decidedly minority opinion, a dissenting opinion. Well, if now is not a time for voices of dissent, when, I would ask, is?

Hey Dobbsworld-I have no problem with you personally. I understood what you feel and your reasoning behind it. I see it differently. I tried to show you my point of view, which I dont think you agreed with.
You dont seem to have a minority opinion, based on what many others have said.

So-while we dont agree on this, we'll both live again to talk about something else another day. maybe we'll agree this time and maybe we wont.
But I have no grudge against you just because we dont agree.
And I'm optimistic-some day we just may find ourselves on the same thread agreeing wholeheartedly.

<snip>

I realize fully, now, that the umbrage taken with this thread, and against me personally, as the author of the thread, stems from the incredulity on the part of that vocal majority in actually hearing a decidedly minority opinion, a dissenting opinion. Well, if now is not a time for voices of dissent, when, I would ask, is?

Dobbs, I've been following this thread with interest from the beginning. Just hadn't found the right opportunity to express my views. Some of my thoughts have been stated by others earlier on, and in the interest of avoiding redundancy and clutter, I've waited for a chance to say a bit.

I am personally appreciative of your post, your dissent from the majority. Not because I agree with your views - I have processed similar facts to yours, and come up with differing conclusions - but that's not the point.

I think it's imperative that well-reasoned (and yours surely is that) dissenting perspectives be presented regularly in our society, and that dissent against the majority not be shouted down in a knee-jerk ideological reaction. It forces all of us to re-evaluate personally-held beliefs and values, to question how we derived them and what they mean to us. It presents alternatives to prevailing views for some, permits compromise and fine-tuning of perspectives for others.

I like dissent, whether it suits my position or not. Personally, I find it intellectually more productive when dissent is well-stated than when it's screaming from the ideological poles - but my views on dissent stand regardless of extremes.

I like dissent when it comes from the heart and a good mind, and particularly when it comes from someone with commitment to their views - as opposed to someone just trying out a new ideology. Please dissent more, there is no better time for it than when there's a majority opinion.

I respect your views and your approach, and enjoyed the opportunity for introspection on my views - though they have not changed as a result. But they could have. I take no umbrage with you at all, I appreciate what you did.

As a future military officer, my legacy as an honored warrior is assured. My voice will echo through time long after yours has faded to a dim memory.

As a future military officer, my legacy as an honored warrior is assured. My voice will echo through time long after yours has faded to a dim memory.
Freeunitedstates, as you've yet to actually commence your military career, is it not somewhat early to be speaking of your 'legacy'? Legacies usually being the pervue of those whose careers are nearing their end... As for voices echoing through time, well... I'll allow future history to decide that.

At any rate, I'm not so concerned with my own voice "echoing through time", or with personal, long-term recognition for my ideals, I am more than happy to simply, hopefully see that the values I do espouse survive in others' conscious, or even sub-conscious thoughts, perhaps eventually to blossom at some later date, or some other place when, and wherein, those values might take root and be given the chance, in the fullness of time, to blossom and so benefit others.

I did say earlier that I'm willing to take a longer view, did I not? lol. It might take a generation - it might take a dozen. More. Who can say? Not I. But the seeds I sow today... may one day stand as an orchard. And that is more than ample recompense, in my own opinion.

At any rate, I'm not so concerned with my own voice "echoing through time", or with personal, long-term recognition for my ideals, I am more than happy to simply, hopefully see that the values I do espouse survive in others' conscious, or even sub-conscious thoughts, perhaps eventually to blossom at some later date, or some other place when, and wherein, those values might take root and be given the chance, in the fullness of time, to blossom and so benefit others.

I did say earlier that I'm willing to take a longer view, did I not? lol. It might take a generation - it might take a dozen. More. Who can say? Not I. But the seeds I sow today... may one day stand as an orchard. And that is more than ample recompense, in my own opinion.

Yamamoto Jin'emon sez:
Singlemindedness is all-powerful.
A man who will criticize you openly carries noconnivance.
A man exists for a generation, but his name lasts to the end of time.
Wrap your intentions in needles of pine.

And Yamamoto Tsunetomo sez:
It is said that one will ont be able to do great worksif he does not behave with some reserve towards his master, the chief retainers and elders. What is done casually and freely will not work out well. It is a matter of attitude
You speak of espousing values to the future, but without compassion, you cannot achieve thus. True compassion is selflessness, something which you seem to have not yet achieved. You cannot gain anything without giving something of equal value in return.Doing something for one's own sake is shallow and mean and turns to evil. Whatever you do should be for the sake of your master and parents, the people in general, and for posterity. THis is great compassion. As for yet attaining my goal: No matter what it is, there is nothing that cannot be done. If one manifests determination, he can move Heaven and Earth. I leave you with this thought:

To tell others that,
It is a rumor,
Will not do.
When your own heart asks,
How will you respond?

A hell of a lot.


I love you, man.

At any rate, I'm not so concerned with my own voice "echoing through time", or with personal, long-term recognition for my ideals, I am more than happy to simply, hopefully see that the values I do espouse survive in others' conscious, or even sub-conscious thoughts, perhaps eventually to blossom at some later date, or some other place when, and wherein, those values might take root and be given the chance, in the fullness of time, to blossom and so benefit others.

I did say earlier that I'm willing to take a longer view, did I not? lol. It might take a generation - it might take a dozen. More. Who can say? Not I. But the seeds I sow today... may one day stand as an orchard. And that is more than ample recompense, in my own opinion.
Part of me thinks this is just the same BS I've heard from others who voice your opinion yet their reasons are shallow or self-serving, but the other part respects you for holding your viewpoint and beliving in it vividly (the effects of 2:32am forum cruisin' :D )

And that, I believe, is the answer to your original question, though I doubt I will use as many big words as you have :) On a personal level, I think your viewpoint-that mankind will some day give up violence all together-is naive at best; people who follow your ideology are too few, human nature is too ingrained, and as long as there is scarcity there will always be conflict.

However I would not come up to you on the streets, spit in your face or say that your values are meaningless, outdated and other generally nasty words. I don't like what you think or say but I respect you for holding your views. That, I believe, is what people mean when they say "honor" or "respect" the military. They have chosen a path that, like you, they believe is the best course of action in life and for future generations; the only difference is in the methods. You think 'militarism' is outdated, and that's fine and dandy. All we're asking you is to not be condesending to those who do think that that form of thinking is better.

Yes you'll get assholes who'll insult you because of your value system; these types of people are everywhere, and we all must deal with them at one point or another, even the 'honored' military men and women who deal with ignorate teenage angst rebels who spit at them and call them baby-killers. Best way to go about it is to do what you've done in here, approach their arguments in a calm, collective manner.

Bah, brain overload, time for sleep

I cannot, do not, and will not endorse militarism, or the military, in general, and specifically as a viable career choice. And yet, there are repeated demands that all people honour the military, honour militarism, and specifically honour those who have chosen the military for their careers.

This begs the question: How does one 'honour' a profession they philisophically cannot endorse?

I throw the floor open.

You dont have to honor them. Just enjoy your life.

Under the umbrella of freedom they provide you. This isnt a candyland world.

Without your nations military you would be rolled over, it is how we humans are.

Personally I am a pacifist by choice. I wont get into fights because I have in the past and dont like the loss of control. But I am dang glad that others can do it, and control it.

Honor is well, hard, they dont do it for your respect. They do it because it is needed. They do it because they love their nation. They do it for their family. And they do it selflessly for their fellow citizens. Freedom does not come free.

Maybe listen to Toby Keith's American Soldier. I think that is a pretty good representation of why they do it. (and that is coming from someone who dang sure doesnt love country, but some are awesome songs for their message)

Yamamoto Jin'emon sez:
Singlemindedness is all-powerful.
A man who will criticize you openly carries noconnivance.
A man exists for a generation, but his name lasts to the end of time.
Wrap your intentions in needles of pine.

Yamamoto Jin'emon always said to his retainers, "Go ahead and gamble and lie. A person who will not tell you seven lies within a hundred yards is useless as a man. " Long ago people spoke in this fashion because they were only concerned with a man's attitude towards military matters and considered that a man who was "correct" would never do great works. They also ignored the misconduct of men and dismissed such matters by saying, "They do good works, too...''

And Yamamoto Tsunetomo sez:
It is said that one will ont be able to do great worksif he does not behave with some reserve towards his master, the chief retainers and elders.

Thanks, Yamamoto Tsunetomo. But you know, I could care less about the ethics of the Bushido code or the Hagakure, Free United States. I'm living in a 21st-century Western Democracy, not 17th-century Feudal Japan.

You speak of espousing values to the future, but without compassion, you cannot achieve thus.

Ah. An attempt to paint me into a corner. Either I protest and proclaim my compassion, at which point I can a) be derided as having a Messiah complex, or b) be seen to seeking your implied permission while validating your (or is it Yamamoto's?) supposition, or - I say nothing and appear to validate your supposition, anyway. Cute.

True compassion is selflessness, something which you seem to have not yet achieved.

Only a Samurai could so twist the meaning of 'compassion' so as to extend the definition of that word to encompass State-sanctioned murder. My compliments to Tsunetomo-San.

You cannot gain anything without giving something of equal value in return.

Ah, now this sounds decidedly more like the thoughts of the product of 21st-century American Consumerite culture. But more to the point, I am giving. I'm giving a Hell of a lot more than I'm gaining in return. In fact (and in fact, I'm yet again having to repeat myself) I'm happily willing to keep right on giving, knowing full well I'll never live long enough to see any kind of a return; so be it.

Doing something for one's own sake is shallow and mean and turns to evil.

What's this meant to be in aid of? Are you seriously warning me it's dangerous to want to pass good ideals up the line because you construe my notion of wanting something good (a life free of militarism, and the hierarchical structures that require the continuance of militarism) to come to pass at some unspecified time, in some unspecified place, for some unspecified number of people living in the future as shallowness?
Whatever you do should be for the sake of your master
I have no master. This is not the 17th century.
and parents,
My parents are both dead.
the people in general,
That's why I post here. In General. For the people. Har har.
and for posterity.
That's a pretty abstraction. And in my own way, I've already addressed the idea of posterity in my previous posts. I think we must both be thinking differently where the concept of 'posterity' is concerned.
THis is great compassion.
What is? Devoting myself completely to the service of others? Why don't I just go get myself measured for a Nun's habit, as that's ultimately what you're driving at. That's as ludicrous as it is romantic a sense of what compassion is. And maybe that's just the problem, here. Romantic notions. The sort of romantic notions of war that get cooked up in rigidly stratified, feudal societies that are safeguarded against change by equally rigid men in suits of armor who wax poetic about 'honour' while disembowelling people to maintain a lop-sided status quo.The sort of nonsense that should be consigned to the pages of history books and paperback bodice-rippers, not gracing the pages of the daily newspapers.
As for yet attaining my goal: No matter what it is, there is nothing that cannot be done. If one manifests determination, he can move Heaven and Earth.
So, you have no specific goal in mind as of yet, then. Other than, as you've stated previously, to have a career in the military.
I leave you with this thought:
Is that a promise?
To tell others that,
It is a rumor,
Will not do.
When your own heart asks,
How will you respond?
Moo?
.

I love you, man.
Hey, now.

Bah, brain overload, time for sleep
Agreed. Brain capsizing. Sleep is the only option.

You dont have to honor them. Just enjoy your life.
ok.
Under the umbrella of freedom they provide you.
no.

.

You know Backwoods, that's probably the first time I can recall someone employing that quotation with regards to this thread, or to my stated opinion. Not to be cute, but - I'd rather no-one have to die for the sake of a thought, or statement, either mine, their own, or anybody else's. I maintain I have little to no reason to fear such a fate, at least not from the given bogeymen of this, or any other day. On the other hand, I do perceive a certain threat from other, closer quarters - not by necessity from those whose profession I cannot endorse, but certainly from those who would censure legitimate voices of dissent in apparent seeming support of those same people.

You said that, "to engage an enemy in combat is the hardest thing any man or woman can do", and while I can appreciate the earnest, heartfelt nature of your statement, I will choose, repectfully, to counter your statement with the following: "To forego enmity and foster co-operation is yet harder still", but whereas the fruits of the former statement are murky at best, those of the latter are plainly evident - and do not require censure as a means of moral support.

I'll reserve my respects for those few among us having the inner strength to negotiate, facilitate, and arbitrate - and to do those things fairly, equitably, and even-handedly. There is courage there, too: the courage to actively work for compromise, mutual betterment, and greater understanding in the face of those would seek instead to resolve supposed conflicts through the auspices of the gunsight. Where then is the respect due to those who work diligently in the name of the common good, sans weapons, sans attendant romance and the glamour of Presidential soundbytes? It is as lacking, from a clear and vocal majority, as the respect felt due for unwanted actions of militarism are from the unheard minority.

I realize fully, now, that the umbrage taken with this thread, and against me personally, as the author of the thread, stems from the incredulity on the part of that vocal majority in actually hearing a decidedly minority opinion, a dissenting opinion. Well, if now is not a time for voices of dissent, when, I would ask, is?

It is my personal belief that the voices of dissent, of wich you speak are heard far too infrequently.

Always taking for granted, what we hear from our government, or religious leaders, and never questioning those answers we get in return, make us sheep.

Your idea seems to be..."I advently oppose war, and therefore,have no respect for warriors."

I can understand your sentiments, and even agree to a point.
I too, wish clearer heads would always previal, and fighting always, always, be the last resort.

I guess the only way I can explain my thoughts to you are thusly;

I dont like fire, but I dont have a problem with Firemen.

Its understandable to be angered by what seems like a nearly tyrranical government, waging a war of profit, even against the U.N, even while using U.N policy as a weak reason for invasion...
But why not give respect to where its due to the people, who are not unlike you and I, and only doing a job they were given?

I may not like several of the laws in this country, but I have no particular beef with police who enforce these laws...its thier job.

"Dont hate the player...hate the game."

Dobbs, just so you know, I wasn't being sarcastic. Then again, I wasn't being entirely serious either (obviously) but the point remains, that post a way's back was awesome.

Dobbs, just so you know, I wasn't being sarcastic. Then again, I wasn't being entirely serious either (obviously) but the point remains, that post a way's back was awesome.
Thanks Euraustralasamerica. I wasn't sure which post you were quoting, but if it's about that loooong one, I appreciate it.

Actually, Dobby, may I call you Dobby, the statement about attainment by giving equal measurement in return is from the Law of Equivalent Exchange.

Ahem:
Mankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain ,something of equal value must be lost.

About your parents:
Naoshige no kami said, "An ancestors good or evil can be determined by the conduct of his descendants." A descendant should act in a way that will manifest the good in his ancestor and not the bad. This is filial piety.

As for the Bushido code and the Way of the Warrior; I wouldn't commit seppuku nor tsuifuku for Bush, the main message is to serve others well, and to be polite in matters of everyday ettiquette. It teaches to be kind even to one's enemies, and to respect them, for they have met you on the field of battle, engaging in the most intimate human expression, the taking of life for the sake of life.

To hate injustice and to stand on righteousness is a difficult thing. Furthermore, to think that being righteous is the best one can do and to do one's utmost to be righteous will, on the contrary, bring many mistakes. The Way is in a higher place than righteousness. This is very difficult to discover, but it is the highest wisdom. When seen from this standpoint, things like righteousness are rather shallow.

By the way, is that how your heart truly responded?

seppuku n. ritual suicide in which the condemned would self-disembowel themselves. An attendant known as a kaishaku would deliver the coup de grace by severing the man's head.
tsuifuku n. seppuku of a retainer at the time of his master's death.

Actually, Dobby, may I call you Dobby, the statement about attainment by giving equal measurement in return is from the Law of Equivalent Exchange.

Just call me Dobbs. Look FUS, you seem a nice enough person, but I just can't get into this feudal 17th-century Japanese Bushido jazz. I understand it's a value-set, but honestly, "...the most intimate human expression, the taking of life for the sake of life"? What a lot of self-aggrandizing warrior-ethic crapola.

And no, my heart didn't say 'Moo'. My heart said 'thump-ump'. Like it always says, more or less continuously.

.

"Originally Posted by Tyma
You dont have to honor them. Just enjoy your life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobbsworld
ok.


Under the umbrella of freedom they provide you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dobbsworld
no. "

Why did you bother ? Why did I bother ? Did you intend to have a point I guess is why I did ?

Why did you bother ? Why did I bother ? Did you intend to have a point I guess is why I did ?
Nahh, it was late, my mind was on a job interview happening later that day, I'd just gotten through with FUS's post, and I didn't give your post its' due.

Apologies, it just seemed like a quick & cute way of getting it out of the way at the time. It wasn't fair to you or the time & thought you put into it, and for that I do apologize.

Sorry Tyma.