posted
I think I am, too. I'll try to put it simply.
Let's say you were just as good at using conversational tricks and tactics as an experienced recruiter is, except you were able to do so in a way that persuaded against rather than for joining the military.
Would you object to you or another parent using those same methods (which would then correctly be called 'harrassment', even out of love) on their children as the recruiter did, for a good cause? I don't think you would, is my point, and thus the problem you have isn't the harrassment, but the end for which the recruiter harrassment is a means.
That's all. You don't get as protective as you do because it's a stranger butting in, you get as protective as you do because it's a stranger butting in trying to persuade your kid to do something you object to strongly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference in that a 17 year old prevented by a parent from joining the military can still join when he or she turns 18 and when the parental persuasion wears off. Wheras someone persuaded to join the military would not be able to reverse that decision when the recruiting glow wore off.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think trying to talk a child that I gave birth to and love dearly out of going to war, is the same as trying to talk him into going to war
I thought you expressed yourself perfectly.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a difference in that a 17 year old prevented by a parent from joining the military can still join when he or she turns 18 and when the parental persuasion wears off. Wheras someone persuaded to join the military would not be able to reverse that decision when the recruiting glow wore off.
I'm well aware of this difference. My point is not, and has never been, that talking someone into joining the military and talking someone out of it is the same thing. I'm really not sure why people are getting hung up on that.
It comes back to this, and to Dan's anecdote:
quote:In answer to the above question, yes, I would be horrified if someone harassed their children into joining the Marines! I think that’s a very personal decision that each adult must make for themselves.
Harrassing into: seriously wrong. Harrassing out of: good parenting. So it's not that the recruiters are sneaky and bothersome that's the problem, it's that they're those things to a perceived bad end. I'm addressing outrage or anger at recruiter sneakiness or conversational gambits here, and pointing out the appearance that this is not really what some people object to.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, staying out of the line of fire has a far lower mortality rate, so it's not that they're harassing kids into a particularly safe environment with promises of--what, glory and being all you can be? I don't know what recruiters say, but I doubt there's many that make the risks of military service clear.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, staying out of the line of fire has a far lower mortality rate, so it's not that they're harassing kids into a particularly safe environment with promises of--what, glory and being all you can be? I don't know what recruiters say, but I doubt there's many that make the risks of military service clear.
It could be argued that the risks of military service are obvious to anyone.
In fact, I'll go ahead and argue it: the risks of military service are obvious to anyone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with that. Who doesn't know that being a soldier carries a risk of being hurt or killed?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think trying to talk a child that I gave birth to and love dearly out of going to war, is the same as trying to talk him into going to war
I think that's pretty much Rakeesh's point here: the means are being evaluated based on the ends.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It could be argued that the risks of military service are obvious to anyone.
In fact, I'll go ahead and argue it: the risks of military service are obvious to anyone.
I'd argue that most of the teenagers who sign up for military service neither know the full risks involved in military service nor appreciate the true impact of the risks they do know about.
We've had mulitple threads about how teenage brains don't process risk well. This doesn't change when you approve of the risk that they are taking.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd argue that most of the teenagers who sign up for military service neither know the full risks involved in military service nor appreciate the true impact of the risks they do know about.
You'll notice I didn't say anything about 'appreciating the true impact'. And as for not knowing the full risks involved, I suppose I agree, but the risk that's under discussion here-death or serious injury-I say is clearly known even by teenagers.
Just because they don't respect the gravity of the situation doesn't mean they don't know the situation is there at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure most teenagers don't appreciate the risk of having every bone in their body broken as a result of trying to sign up for the Marines.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
One place I worked a few years ago, the mother/owner of the company was having trouble with her teenage kids. The oldest was not only looking forward to enlisting, but to spending time in Iraq. He once said, "When I get over there, and meet one of them Al Queda idiots, you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna walk right up to him, pull out a grenade, pull the pin, hand it to him and tell him its a new cel phone. He should just wait right there for it to ring. Those camel jockeys over there don't know anything, so the idiot will just hold onto it until, boom, one less Al Queda."
I pictured the confused Al-Queda idiot waiting until the American soldier stepped away from the live grenade, and then would throw it at him. Boom, one less immortal teen. No matter what I said to the kid, he didn't seem to understand the situations that our troops go through on a daily basis.
That pretty much refutes your argument that "the risks of military service are obvious to anyone." No they are not. Stupid people (and way too many teenagers qualify for that moniker) don't see the obvious until some Sergeant smacks them with it in basic training.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That I can remember, it's at least one of the only risks that's been singled out.
I'm not sure why that is relevant. Do you think that people here were only talking about those risks? It seems clear to me that they were not.
I'm pretty sure that when most parents try to stop their kids from signing up that they are thinking of many more risks than jsut that. Likewise, I'm willing to bet that a vanishingly small number of recruiters talk about them at all.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When talking abuot risky behavior, I don't think you can draw an equivilence between people (especially strangers doing it for their own ends) trying to manipulate kids into doing it and people who are trying to manipulate them into at the very least not doing it then.
If someone is going to assume risks, it seems important to me that they are making this decision with as clear a head and as complete an understanding as possible.
While I'd obviously prefer this for choosing to avoid risk (and for pretty much any other decision), the potential harm is much, much less.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When talking abuot risky behavior, I don't think you can draw an equivilence between people (especially strangers doing it for their own ends) trying to manipulate kids into doing it and people who are trying to manipulate them into at the very least not doing it then.
But when you talk about manipulation you can - and should - draw an equivalence between both those things.
It seems to me that this is the aspect Rakeesh has been talking about from the beginning. In fact, he has explicitly stated that he understands why a parent would approve of one and not the other. Moreover, he explicitly clarified why he brought this up - to bring out the fact that it's not interference with the independent thinking of young potential recruits that people find troubling in and of itself, but rather what the goal of that interference is.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But when you talk about manipulation you can - and should - draw an equivalence between both those things.
It seems to me that this is the aspect Rakeesh has been talking about from the beginning. In fact, he has explicitly stated that he understands why a parent would approve of one and not the other. Moreover, he explicitly clarified why he brought this up - to bring out the fact that it's not interference with the independent thinking of young potential recruits that people find troubling in and of itself, but rather what the goal of that interference is.
It appears to me that Rakeesh created this focus on manipulation in and of itself. It doesn't come out of what people other than he said.
[edit]Here's the statment, he was responding to:
quote:Still, I believe that a mother has the right to protect her children from their own valor.
That seems to line up very well with what I'm saying, at least to me.[/edit]
As I was pointing out, there is a huge difference between manipulations towards danger and manipulations towards safety. I don't think you're going to find many parents who are above manipulating their children towards safety.
quote:It appears to me that Rakeesh created this focus on manipulation in and of itself.
Well, yeah. That's the aspect of the conversation that interested him.
It's not like he's tried to hide that:
quote:I'm not disagreeing with your choice to make sure your kid focuses on other things. I'm pointing out that, in fact, it's not the harrassment that bothers you (from recruiters, for example), it's harrassment in a bad direction that bothers you (because you would, from what I understand, harrass to avoid that outcome).
The only reason I'm talking about this at all is that initially, it was sort of suggested that you were against recruiters harrassing because they were trying to trick a kid into joining, unduly influencing them, etc. etc., in some way violating the kid's otherwise independant thinking.
quote:The only reason I'm talking about this at all is that initially, it was sort of suggested that you were against recruiters harrassing because they were trying to trick a kid into joining, unduly influencing them, etc. etc., in some way violating the kid's otherwise independant thinking.
appears to me to be a much worse characterization that my interpretation.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point seems, to me, to be pretty simple and I thought I stated it clearly.
People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake. There is a huge difference between manipulation towards danger and that towards safety (or, as Tammy said, protecting them from their own valor). People are naturally generally going to look at manipulations towards risk and danger as being a bad thing, while manipulations towards safety (or protecting them) is considered, to a certain extent, a parent's perrogative.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is the ROTC programs that usually come in for chief criticism by the paranoid, anti-military Left.
Wow, I didn't realize the left was paranoid and anti-military. Maybe we should round them up and put them in camps since they are such a threat to our country.
Incidentally, I am very republican and I oppose the war. Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate this election and he is against the war because he saw it as ineffective and immoral.
Granted he has no chance of winning, but he has many republican supporters. In fact he got more donations the fourth quarter from active military then all the other candidates on both sides combined.
Maybe the military appreciates the wise and judicious use of force for America's defense.
quote:I don't think trying to talk a child that I gave birth to and love dearly out of going to war, is the same as trying to talk him into going to war
quote:My point seems, to me, to be pretty simple and I thought I stated it clearly.
People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake.
Then let me rephrase: I'm not sure why you presented your point in such a way as to make it seem it was in opposition to Rakeesh's point.
You're making a point he explicitly made himself a page ago: that people were not actually opposed to the manipulation for its own sake.
Seems you agree with him.
Of course what we were saying is similar in that very superficial manner. I don't understand why you think that is important or relevant, considering the large substantive differences in what we are saying.
For one thing, Rakeesh is saying "People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake, like they previously claimed to have a problem with." while I am saying "No one said that. You just made it up that they said that."
Yes, we both are saying that people aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake, but I think that this similarity is a pretty minor part of our statements.
Also, the reason Rakeesh gave for what people were really talking about differs very much from the reason I gave, or Tammy came out and said:
quote:If my just turned 17 or 9 year old boys, or even my 14 year old daughter, voiced the same opinion, I’d threaten to break their legs. I’d also quote Dan’s mother to anyone that called me/them trying to recruit them. They have very important things that they need to learn and experience before they consider joining the Marines. That’s just me, being a mom, keeping them on an organized path into adulthood.
He claimed that they are fine with manipulation as long as it is manipulation for something they agree with.
I, and I believe Tammy, were pretty clear that the difference is about protection and the legitimate role of a parent.
---
I think there's a large disconnect in how American culture says you are supposed to see people in the military and the reality of the situation.
It's politically correct to profess to believe that the American armed forces are by and large populated with serious, dedicated people who are standing up for their country with very high morals and behavior, that our leaders really care about their sacrifices and honor their service, and that returning veterans should be treated with the highest of respect.
To be sure, there are such individuals in the military and a few of our political leaders actually do really care and sometimes being a veteran can be advantageous, but a lot of it is no where near so pure. A lot of the people in the military are there for much less pure reasons than what we're supposed to believe. A lot of people really don't care much about them, when they're fighting or when they come back.
We need to coerce, trick, and manipulate less than pure (and at times less than suitable) candidates in order to sustain our military at the level we've become accustomed to. And while many pick up or refine skills that are going to help them in civilian life, many others would be a liability employed outside the military sector.
This has been the reality of having very large armies since the time of having very large armies. It's gotten much better, but it is still far from the fantasy picture that we're supposed to believe in.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For one thing, Rakeesh is saying "People aren't talking about manipulation for it's own sake, like they previously claimed to have a problem with." while I am saying "No one said that. You just made it up that they said that."
You're not paraphrasing me very well at all.
And, as a matter of fact, Tammy did say she would have a problem with a parent harrassing their child into the military, so strike that 'very well'.
quote:He claimed that they are fine with manipulation as long as it is manipulation for something they agree with.
I, and I believe Tammy, were pretty clear that the difference is about protection and the legitimate role of a parent.
The difference being that it's about protection and legitimate parenting is why the manipulation out of as opposed to into is alright. 'Manipulation' does not have to be an evil word, in fact it is an important component of parenting.
--------
On a slightly different topic, I think the reference to 9 or 14 year olds is pretty silly. I believe recruiters shouldn't actively court them, and to my knowledge it doesn't happen very often. Unless we want to talk about JROTC programs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, the reason Rakeesh gave for what people were really talking about differs very much from the reason I gave, or Tammy came out and said:
You mean the reason that Rakeesh actually accepted and understood after Tammy said it?
Did you not notice the words "sort of suggested"? Or the part where he says - after having a conversation with Tammy to clarify what was sort of suggested to him by the posts on the subject - that he doesn't disagree with her choice?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I respect your decision and your thought-process, even though you do contradict yourself, at least from earlier posts. Clearly it is not the harassment you mind, it's the harassment into making what you deem the wrong decision.
The one where he tells Tammy that 1) she's contradicting herself and 2) that previously she was saying that it was harassment in and of it self that she minded and 3) that the thing that she minds is that they are making the wrong decision, as opposed to it being a matter of manipulating towards risk versus manipulating towards safety and protection?
Or at least, that how it seems to me. Rakeesh, if I'm reading you so wrongly, could you explain what exactly you think was the contrdiction that you saw in Tammy's statements?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are you arguing this, Squicky? It looks like everyone around basically agrees - what are you trying to make happen with your argument?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, Probably because I don't think everyone agrees. I really don't think I'm being unclear here and it seems to me that people are carefully picking small pieces of what I'm saying to respond to in a way that ignores most of what I have said.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about you let Tammy speak for herself if she feels she has been misunderstood?
As it is, it looks like you're trying to pick a fight for murky reasons in a generally happy thread.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really don't think I'm being unclear here and it seems to me that people are carefully picking small pieces of what I'm saying to respond to in a way that ignores most of what I have said.
That's pretty much what it looks like you're doing to Rakeesh.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And the continual game of instead of looking for understanding and giving the benefit of the doubt, instead picking apart and thinking the worst and ignoring everyting but what supports the worst possible interpretation is a pretty ugly activity.
Wouldn't it be better to ask for clarification instead of accuse?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's pretty much what it looks like you're doing to Rakeesh.
How so?
I've been trying to be pretty clear here. If you are going to say "This is what it looks like you are doing.", could you show why you think that?
Also, if I say, here are the big things I think we disagree on, I think it is not really productive to say, "Well, it looks like everyone is in agreement." without addressing what I clearly think are significant disagreements.
edit: I think that differences in a parent manipulating their child to protect them versus a recruiter manipulating them to put them at risk constitute an important issue and very much inform the larger discussion. It doesn't look to me as if these issues were properly addressed and were instead dismissed as "Well, you think that because you are against your kids serving in the military."
I'm the only one of my siblings not in or contracting for the military. I considered signing up several times. If my child wanted to sign up and I was convinced that they really understood what it was they were committing themselves to, I'd support their decision fully. But I don't support what seems to me to be common recruiting tactics. And, if I felt that my child didn't understand or wasn't in a good place to make that commitment, I would feel it was my duty as a parent to do as much as I could to prevent them and make them rethink their decision.
---
Tammy, You bet. I've always liked you, you know. Also, this touches on the proper versus improper use of manipulation and "support the troops" issues, both of which I'm very interested in.
quote:I've been trying to be pretty clear here. If you are going to say "This is what it looks like you are doing.", could you show why you think that?
I have, repeatedly. You are focusing only on Rakeesh's statements about manipulation in and of itself and ignoring the repeated statements acknowledging the other factors - beyond manipulation - that go into evaluating each instance of manipulation.
quote:Also, this touches on the proper versus improper use of manipulation
Which is what Rakeesh has been discussing - the fact that what appeared to be a general blanket statement against manipulation was actually one about improper manipulation, with improper being evaluated by the relationship between the manipulator and the manipulatee as well as the desired end result.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are focusing only on Rakeesh's statements about manipulation in and of itself and ignoring the repeated statements acknowledging the other factors - beyond manipulation - that go into evaluating each instance of manipulation.
No, I'm not. In nearly every post I am remaking the case that the differences between manipulation towards safety or danger is different from manipulation towards something you agree or disagree with.
quote:the fact that what appeared to be a general blanket statement against manipulation was actually one about improper manipulation, with improper being evaluated by the relationship between the manipulator and the manipulatee as well as the desired end result.
When you say someone is contradicting themselves, you are claiming that they made a statement that they now disagree with. If Rakeesh was saying that it appeared that there was a general condemnation of manipulation, but that on examination, it turned out that the statement was actually meant to be about improper manipulation, there would be no grounds to say that Tammy contradicted herself.
Also, as I've said multiple times, Rakeesh was not (or so it appeared to me) talking about what either Tammy or I talked about, i.e. manipulation towards safety versus manipulation towards danger. Rather, he was saying that people don't have a problem with manipulation when they agree with the goal of manipulation. Those are two very different things.
quote:When you say someone is contradicting themselves, you are claiming that they made a statement that they now disagree with. If Rakeesh was saying that it appeared that there was a general condemnation of manipulation, but that on examination, it turned out that the statement was actually meant to be about improper manipulation, there would be no grounds to say that Tammy contradicted herself.
Tammy said this:
quote:I don't like harassment of any kind, especially harassment targeting young minds, or old minds for that matter and especially harassment into making what I deem wrong decisions. (emphasis added)
Oh, and she also said this:
quote:I'm all about contradicting myself Rakeesh!
Moreover, Rakeesh said this, specifically limiting it to what she posted earlier:
quote:even though you do contradict yourself, at least from earlier posts.
It's the picking and choosing which parts of Rakeesh's statements to attack without taking the entire context into discussion - something I've pointed out repeatedly you are doing - that amounts to "carefully picking small pieces of what [Rakeesh is] saying to respond to in a way that ignores most of what [he has] said."
quote:Also, as I've said multiple times, Rakeesh was not (or so it appeared to me) talking about what either Tammy or I talked about, i.e. manipulation towards safety versus manipulation towards danger. Rather, he was saying that people don't have a problem with manipulation when they agree with the goal of manipulation. Those are two very different things.
Yes: you and Tammy agree with the goal of moving towards safety. It's a subset of what Rakeesh was talking about.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't like harassment of any kind, especially harassment targeting young minds, or old minds for that matter and especially harassment into making what I deem wrong decisions.
And? I don't like manipulation of any kind. That doesn't mean that my reasons for being against recruiters manipulating come down to or rest primarily on this dislike of manipulation. Nor does it mean that I don't manipulate myself or support manipulation, when other needs outweigh it.
quote: you and Tammy agree with the goal of moving towards safety.
No, I don't. What I'm talking about is not a subset of what Rakeesh is talking about. As I said above, I would support my children signing up for the military. In other cases, I may think that parents are not correct when they are manipulating their kids towards safety. That doesn't change the fact that it is soemthing I feel is the perogative of those parents and something that is qualitatively different from manipulating someone towards danger.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And? I don't like manipulation of any kind. That doesn't mean that my reasons for being against recruiters manipulating come down to or rest primarily on this dislike of manipulation. Nor does it mean that I don't manipulate myself, when other needs outweigh it.
Again, Rakeesh's point.
quote:No, I don't. What I'm talking about is not a subset of what Rakeesh is talking about. As I said above, I would support my children signing up for the military. In other cases, I may think that parents are not correct when they are manipulating their kids towards safety.
In your case, the goal that would cause you to approve of manipulation (as part of "as much as I could [do] to prevent them and make them rethink their decision") would be moving away from uninformed danger.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think that differences in a parent manipulating their child to protect them versus a recruiter manipulating them to put them at risk constitute an important issue and very much inform the larger discussion.
If my child wanted to sign up and I was convinced that they really understood what it was they were committing themselves to, I'd support their decision fully. But I don't support what seems to me to be common recruiting tactics. And, if I felt that my child didn't understand or wasn't in a good place to make that commitment, I would feel it was my duty as a parent to do as much as I could to prevent them and make them rethink their decision.
Yes, exactly.
To be honest, I didn't really understand how I was contradicting myself, so, I joked about it, as I usually do.
I don't think that harassment is the word to use when I parent, advise, manage or guide my children. Harassment, to me, is more negative.
I've always liked you as well MrSquicky, but I think you already knew that.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We live in an area, and among a culture, that is highly aware of the military lifestyle. It would be hard to snow a kid in Northern Virginia about what to expect from the military; either they know through personal experience or through a friend.
I'd have to understand what exactly what we're calling manipulative techniques. Also, I think it's important to find out whether or not the military lives up to what is being promised by the recruiters.
As an example, it appears that Berkely set up an expectation to the Marines that if they did X, they would be able to conduct their business in Berkely. When the Marines fulfilled Berkeley's expectations, Berkeley DID NOT respond in kind.
Additionally, it appears that for the same sort of business, Berkeley discriminated in favor of other organizations, lowering their standards to allow those organizations easier access.
Does the military do the same?
I have a hard time buying the idea that a normal 17 year old does not know at least the basics (Boot Camp, possible combat, strict discipline, etc) of what enlistment means.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In your case, the goal that would cause you to approve of manipulation (as part of "as much as I could [do] to prevent them and make them rethink their decision") would be moving away from uninformed danger.
I also support parents' perogative to manipulate their kids away from informed danger and in many cases approve of it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Are you going to address the contradiction thing? It looks like you dropped it and it is a pretty important part of the discussion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
