It's cowardice
- Thread starter TQM
- Start date
I entirely agree.DonQuixote said:
What I was alluding to, apparently not very well, is that I find it ironic that in my experience, many of those all in favor of "we" have to do something about Zimbabwe and Darfur also are those who are saying bring the troops home now. Although I would hope that diplomatic pressure would work, I agree with you that I fail to see how anything but military force will in fact do so - whether that military force comes from neighboring countries or from the West.
Professor T
When my number came up and it time to serve, I wore the uniform.
Can you say the same? Surely from your musings and concerns, there was a time for you to serve to validate your convictions.....so when this number came up, what was your response?
...and please, pass on the ontological sophistry.....
Pure self serving speculative conjecture by you.TQM said:
When my number came up and it time to serve, I wore the uniform.
Can you say the same? Surely from your musings and concerns, there was a time for you to serve to validate your convictions.....so when this number came up, what was your response?
...and please, pass on the ontological sophistry.....
woody,
of course it was self serving speculation from me. But it was in direct response to the very same self serving speculation from you. More to the point - I believe my self serving speculation.
There really is no sense in outlining what I've done (or not done) in real life. I could be boastful and I could be lying. You'd have no reason to believe or disbelieve any real world claims I made that I couldn't provide real world support for.
You see, it's inappropriate to engage in such bragging. If you can't support it, the only morally appropriate thing to do is shut up about it. Now if you can provide real world proof of your claims, then that changes everything. I can prove I've read, for instance, Thomas Hobbes - because I have the books at my finger tips (when I'm at home) and therefore can quote him. But I can't prove to you if I've served in any capacity, and if I could prove it, it would be equally stupid to offer such proof up.
The fact is, you're a lunatic for bragging about your service. It's an inappropriate and offensive game to play, given you can't provide proof. You may or may not be lying - but given the general calibre of your posts I can safely assume you ain't no general.
I'm not saying I think you're lying. I am saying I don't think much of you.
of course it was self serving speculation from me. But it was in direct response to the very same self serving speculation from you. More to the point - I believe my self serving speculation.
There really is no sense in outlining what I've done (or not done) in real life. I could be boastful and I could be lying. You'd have no reason to believe or disbelieve any real world claims I made that I couldn't provide real world support for.
You see, it's inappropriate to engage in such bragging. If you can't support it, the only morally appropriate thing to do is shut up about it. Now if you can provide real world proof of your claims, then that changes everything. I can prove I've read, for instance, Thomas Hobbes - because I have the books at my finger tips (when I'm at home) and therefore can quote him. But I can't prove to you if I've served in any capacity, and if I could prove it, it would be equally stupid to offer such proof up.
The fact is, you're a lunatic for bragging about your service. It's an inappropriate and offensive game to play, given you can't provide proof. You may or may not be lying - but given the general calibre of your posts I can safely assume you ain't no general.
I'm not saying I think you're lying. I am saying I don't think much of you.
Well, I can only back up what DQ said. TQM you've made several boasts about who you knew or what you have done that no one can possibly know is true or not. Kind of silly for you to be criticizing WoodPeckr for simply saying he had been in the service. Don't want to believe it then don't.
Indeed war posses a moral dilemma. It is very easy for those who see military life entirely as ceremonial parade to want to commit troops at the blink of an eye. It was this that General Sherman's famous "War is all Hell, boys" comment addressed.DonQuixote said:
However, not infrequently it is true that a greater evil/sin can only be eliminated by the perpetration of a lesser evil/sin.
So long as there has been prayerful reflection as to whether the cost to be paid in blood and treasure is justified by what is more likely than not to be obtained or prevented, I and many others can indeed live with and justify it. When this is not done that is an other story entirely.
It is never a decision to be made lightly.
Asterix,
That was just silly.
Anything I've "boasted" about I can provide a lot of evidence for - direct and indirect.
I take this so particularly seriously that I always provide detailed accounts and evidence to whatever extent it's wherever it's possible.
Whether it's a review of Jessica Jaymes, or details of my academic record, I provide only the kinds of details that someone who was making it up wouldn't be able to do. (My review of Sarah Blake, for the record, clearly shows that I have no interest in bragging, and only a straightforward desire for exacting truth.)
You will never, ever, ever find me doing this - saying you must be wrong because I'm an expert.... (or instead, "you're opinion doesn't count because you haven't served and I have......", or any variant.)
To use alleged unverifiable real life claims as a means of trying to win an argument as woodpeckr has done here and as DQ does with frequency is nothing more than a basic fallacious argumentum ad hominem.
So let me ask you this, Asterix? Disagree with me all you will. Think me foolish if you want. Do you think I've lied about anything here? Do you think I've expressed insincere beliefs here? If so, I'd be delighted to know about what. Let's see if you can give a sincere answer here.
So - for the rest of you - it's one thing to ask another about something they've done or experienced. It's another to assume you know something about them and try to "win" an argument by claiming you've done better (without providing a stitch of evidence).
Ultimately, this is just an electronic forum. You have some information about me, but don't know me. All you really have is the words I've typed. You all can imagine me a coward or the bravest of the brave - it doesn't matter. All that matters here is my words.
What DQ is simply incapable of understanding is that we have no way to judge whether he is, as he claims, "stating facts", or if he's making false boasts. DQ commits the simplest of non sequiturs when he says "stating a fact isn't lying." He's right! But it's entirely beside the point. We don't know if woodpeckr or DQ are stating the facts - and certainly DQ gives us plenty of reason to believe otherwise.
That was just silly.
Anything I've "boasted" about I can provide a lot of evidence for - direct and indirect.
I take this so particularly seriously that I always provide detailed accounts and evidence to whatever extent it's wherever it's possible.
Whether it's a review of Jessica Jaymes, or details of my academic record, I provide only the kinds of details that someone who was making it up wouldn't be able to do. (My review of Sarah Blake, for the record, clearly shows that I have no interest in bragging, and only a straightforward desire for exacting truth.)
You will never, ever, ever find me doing this - saying you must be wrong because I'm an expert.... (or instead, "you're opinion doesn't count because you haven't served and I have......", or any variant.)
To use alleged unverifiable real life claims as a means of trying to win an argument as woodpeckr has done here and as DQ does with frequency is nothing more than a basic fallacious argumentum ad hominem.
So let me ask you this, Asterix? Disagree with me all you will. Think me foolish if you want. Do you think I've lied about anything here? Do you think I've expressed insincere beliefs here? If so, I'd be delighted to know about what. Let's see if you can give a sincere answer here.
So - for the rest of you - it's one thing to ask another about something they've done or experienced. It's another to assume you know something about them and try to "win" an argument by claiming you've done better (without providing a stitch of evidence).
Ultimately, this is just an electronic forum. You have some information about me, but don't know me. All you really have is the words I've typed. You all can imagine me a coward or the bravest of the brave - it doesn't matter. All that matters here is my words.
What DQ is simply incapable of understanding is that we have no way to judge whether he is, as he claims, "stating facts", or if he's making false boasts. DQ commits the simplest of non sequiturs when he says "stating a fact isn't lying." He's right! But it's entirely beside the point. We don't know if woodpeckr or DQ are stating the facts - and certainly DQ gives us plenty of reason to believe otherwise.
Professor T
I merely pointed out how disingenuous you appear to pompously pontificate morality from your Ivory tower while all safe and comfy in your armchair. DICK Cheney & Dubya also exhibit the same, while making sure they were never exposed first hand to the results of being armchair generals.
There is lots of evil in the world and frankly even if the USA became 'policeman of the world', as you seem to favor, it's doubtful many would join your crusades, or that the USA could even afford to play this role as the trillions wasted in Iraq seem to demonstrate. Perhaps had you worn the uniform you may see this perspective you sorely seem to lack.
So far Dubya's Debacle(s) have cost more than the 20 years wasted in Nam!
How much more you willing to squander for the MIC before you see the light?
At times you seem kind of bright. When will you see you're being played for a fool & tool of the MIC, that Ike warned us about some 50 years ago?
We judge all the time.TQM said:
I merely pointed out how disingenuous you appear to pompously pontificate morality from your Ivory tower while all safe and comfy in your armchair. DICK Cheney & Dubya also exhibit the same, while making sure they were never exposed first hand to the results of being armchair generals.
There is lots of evil in the world and frankly even if the USA became 'policeman of the world', as you seem to favor, it's doubtful many would join your crusades, or that the USA could even afford to play this role as the trillions wasted in Iraq seem to demonstrate. Perhaps had you worn the uniform you may see this perspective you sorely seem to lack.
So far Dubya's Debacle(s) have cost more than the 20 years wasted in Nam!
How much more you willing to squander for the MIC before you see the light?
At times you seem kind of bright. When will you see you're being played for a fool & tool of the MIC, that Ike warned us about some 50 years ago?
woodpeckr
The issue is that you've said I'm all safe in my armchair.
It's an issue for two reasons (which I've previously stated and you are apparently too thick to understand):
1) You've made an assumption about my "safety". You don't know fuck all about me, but you've made an assumption.
Worse - you've made an assumption hoping that you could use it as a fallacious ad hominem attack. It's a fallacious ad hominem attack because even if I were the greatest coward in the world, it doesn't in any way mean what I've said here in this thread isn't true. You are, with your claims, attacking the person, not the argument. And you're attacking the person, based on assumptions that you perhaps hope are true - but have no actual evidence one way or the other to assume their true. That truly shows your ignorance.
Better yet - you showed yourself to be completely unself-aware. The moment I responded to you with the very same ad hominem right back at you, you took umbrage. Not a good argument, you said. I'm not allowed to make that argument, you think, but you are. Do you see how stupid that is? Can you be that blind?
2) Your claims of service, without substantive supporting evidence - are just that - claims - maybe true maybe false - made by a person clearly more interested in rhetoric than in engaging in debate.
The debate here is Zimbabwe - you apparently think it okay to allow these atrocities to continue. I don't. You hope the issue is my service. It's not. The issue is why you think it's good to allow these atrocities to continue. It really is that simple.
I'm very willing to debate that issue. I can understand the ostrich approach you want to take. I disagree with it - but I understand it. But making assumptions as to what I've done or haven't done is entirely irrelevant.
If I had listed a long list of service to my nation, you'd still not necessarily believe it. It wouldn't impact the discussion of Zimbabwe. You were out of line - completely - in making that comment - it's really the equivalent of a racial slur - attempting to disqualify me based on an assumption you have no evidence of one way or the other. You say you served, but you clearly have no sense of honour.
The issue is that you've said I'm all safe in my armchair.
It's an issue for two reasons (which I've previously stated and you are apparently too thick to understand):
1) You've made an assumption about my "safety". You don't know fuck all about me, but you've made an assumption.
Worse - you've made an assumption hoping that you could use it as a fallacious ad hominem attack. It's a fallacious ad hominem attack because even if I were the greatest coward in the world, it doesn't in any way mean what I've said here in this thread isn't true. You are, with your claims, attacking the person, not the argument. And you're attacking the person, based on assumptions that you perhaps hope are true - but have no actual evidence one way or the other to assume their true. That truly shows your ignorance.
Better yet - you showed yourself to be completely unself-aware. The moment I responded to you with the very same ad hominem right back at you, you took umbrage. Not a good argument, you said. I'm not allowed to make that argument, you think, but you are. Do you see how stupid that is? Can you be that blind?
2) Your claims of service, without substantive supporting evidence - are just that - claims - maybe true maybe false - made by a person clearly more interested in rhetoric than in engaging in debate.
The debate here is Zimbabwe - you apparently think it okay to allow these atrocities to continue. I don't. You hope the issue is my service. It's not. The issue is why you think it's good to allow these atrocities to continue. It really is that simple.
I'm very willing to debate that issue. I can understand the ostrich approach you want to take. I disagree with it - but I understand it. But making assumptions as to what I've done or haven't done is entirely irrelevant.
If I had listed a long list of service to my nation, you'd still not necessarily believe it. It wouldn't impact the discussion of Zimbabwe. You were out of line - completely - in making that comment - it's really the equivalent of a racial slur - attempting to disqualify me based on an assumption you have no evidence of one way or the other. You say you served, but you clearly have no sense of honour.
I'm being silly?
Do I think you've lied about anything here? Well no, but then I haven't given it much thought either. You make statements about your personal experiences like many others here, that can't possibly be verified. I have no problem with that, but I find it odd that you do. It's the nature of an anonymous board, and I find I actually trust those more, who go less out of their way trying to convince me about what they have done.TQM said:
asterix,
You've gone from making the claim that I make boasts about personal things that are unverifiable to I've talked about personal things that are unverifiable.
You do know there is a slight - okay, large - difference between the two.
Well - I don't think offhand that I've boasted about anything that's unverifiable, at least indirectly. (I've claimed to have degrees in philosophy - and I have certainly displayed some evidence to support those claims - and I'm glad to detail further evidence - but I can't imagine anyone would care.)
So - perhaps you mean by "verifiable" something like 100% proof. Well nothing gives you 100% proof except mathematics.
But the fact is, I've gone way out of my way to not pull unverifiable rank on anybody - because that's really stupid. I'd never say "You're wrong because I have a PhD."
Have I talked about personal things? Well maybe - can't think of anything off hand though. I guess I've claimed in the lounge to like "Last Year in Marienbad", and that's a personal claim that I guess you can't verify. But jeezus - who'd lie about something like that? And where's the boast?
The closest I come to boasting surely is my Jessica Jaymes thread. But I provide detail there and in fact only posted the review because I was asked to. Shoot me.
So sorry, asterix - I do my best to let my views do the boasting for me. But your answer proved to me something about you - that at the very least, you're man enough (read: adult human enough) to have given a full and honest answer. Even if you think me dim - even if you always disagree - you don't think I've lied - at least on anything that you can remember.
What follows from that is that you think me a relatively sincere person. Apply that to my responses to woodpeckr.
You've gone from making the claim that I make boasts about personal things that are unverifiable to I've talked about personal things that are unverifiable.
You do know there is a slight - okay, large - difference between the two.
Well - I don't think offhand that I've boasted about anything that's unverifiable, at least indirectly. (I've claimed to have degrees in philosophy - and I have certainly displayed some evidence to support those claims - and I'm glad to detail further evidence - but I can't imagine anyone would care.)
So - perhaps you mean by "verifiable" something like 100% proof. Well nothing gives you 100% proof except mathematics.
But the fact is, I've gone way out of my way to not pull unverifiable rank on anybody - because that's really stupid. I'd never say "You're wrong because I have a PhD."
Have I talked about personal things? Well maybe - can't think of anything off hand though. I guess I've claimed in the lounge to like "Last Year in Marienbad", and that's a personal claim that I guess you can't verify. But jeezus - who'd lie about something like that? And where's the boast?
The closest I come to boasting surely is my Jessica Jaymes thread. But I provide detail there and in fact only posted the review because I was asked to. Shoot me.
So sorry, asterix - I do my best to let my views do the boasting for me. But your answer proved to me something about you - that at the very least, you're man enough (read: adult human enough) to have given a full and honest answer. Even if you think me dim - even if you always disagree - you don't think I've lied - at least on anything that you can remember.
What follows from that is that you think me a relatively sincere person. Apply that to my responses to woodpeckr.
