posted
My Aunt was a Marine (Col.) for 40 years. She was the Marine expert on rapid mobilization, adn was active at Quantico for all of Desert Storm....for a total of 5 years total, actually.
She retired last year, and two days after she retired they called to re-activate her again....so she told them to go and FO....lol...
They argued with her, trying to say that she wasn't allowed toretire, but in the end she won.
I don't agree that Bush is the right choice at all...if your cousin pulled the same crap Bush pulled in the guard he would be arrested and court-marchalled.
But I hope your cousin stays as safe as posible, and makes it home healty as soon as he can.
posted
"I won't stand for a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief while he's over there."
Out of interest, if it were the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, would you still prefer that the Commander in Chief never publicly acknowledge that fact?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That'd be a terrible reason to vote anyone into office. For one thing, any President could get reelected just for starting a war if people voted on those grounds - even someone like Hitler. And for another, if it IS the wrong war then you are voting for a guy who might be needlessly killing your cousin.
I'm also fairly certain it's not your reason for voting for Bush.
posted
Xap's law: Any invocation of Godwin's law is an irrational excuse to avoid answering a point being made by the Hitler comparison in question.
The fact of the matter is, by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army. The suggestion that many people in military families or ex-soldiers DO vote like this would indicate a great danger for the country.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was a specific claim that entails a general idea - that its okay for one to vote against a candidate solely because they claim your family member's job is a "wrong war".
It'd be like if I said it's okay to reelect a president that would take away the rights of Muslims in this one instance. If I am saying that is okay then I am implying the same principle would stand for other instances - like when my own rights were being violated. I can't claim "Well, it's okay just in the instance where we are violating the rights of Muslims, but wrong in all those other instances where we are violating the rights of blacks or jews or even me!" The wrongness of the general idea implies the wrongness of the particular situation.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Also, that's an extremely low and unfair blow - and another excuse to ignore an important point. This is a critical issue that goes far beyond this one election. If we are going to maintain a democracy in this country, it is critical that we elect our leaders wisely. If we stand by and allow without refutation the idea that its okay to vote just based on whoever supports troops, this won't be America for long.
posted
No, tres. You are obscuring the situation. If you and Tom want to talk about general ideas, that's fine; but don't try to link them to members that make specific statements, okay?
quote:The fact of the matter is, by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army. The suggestion that many people in military families or ex-soldiers DO vote like this would indicate a great danger for the country.
Yet, as I've shown above, Chad's logic was simply that Kerry was the wrong guy for this situation.
Boom-tiddy.
[ November 05, 2004, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then you agree that it would be wrong to vote anyone into office just on the grounds that he supports a war the troops are in and his opponent does not?
I think Chad was implying a lot more than just that Kerry was the wrong man for the job.
quote:It was a specific claim that entails a general idea - that its okay for one to vote against a candidate solely because they claim your family member's job is a "wrong war".
But you don't know th extent of the general idea he was basing the specific statement on, nor the limitations he would impose on that general idea. You generalized his specific statement and attacked him based on you interpretation of it.
quote:It isn't so much that it's low and unfair. The "sore loser" stuff kind of lost its meaning on Tuesday, when the exit polls came out saying Kerry was ahead and Bush supporters started calling Kerry a sore loser.
Well, it's akin to someone coming out to argue in favor of tax reform, and then a Kerry fan telling folks to write off the entire point as "gloating." Not only is it writing off a point without consideration, it's also just plain untrue.
quote:But you don't know th extent of the general idea he was basing the specific statement on, nor the limitations he would impose on that general idea. You generalized his specific statement and attacked him based on you interpretation of it.
I didn't attack HIM in any way. I attacked only the general idea I said his post was showing. If he didn't mean that general idea that's fine (I said I figured that wasn't really his reason anyway), but the general idea it could be taken to imply is still both wrong and significant enough to point out.
posted
Then you really meant to say, "By the logic I'm assigning to Chad here, with no real basis to do so, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army," right?
quote:by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army.
If telling someone he would vote for Hitler isn't an attack, then I'm not sure what is.
posted
No, I had good basis to do so. I mean, his title is "Why I voted for Bush" and he did say "I won't stand for a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief while he's over there." He may not realize the general logic he is invoking implies it's okay to vote based on personal relationship with soldiers, but I think it's fairly clear that logic is suggested.
And I didn't say he'd vote for Hitler. I said by the logic there, he'd vote for Hitler. By the logic there, I'd vote for Hitler too. That's why neither of us should accept the general idea behind the specific claim.
posted
'I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there.' is not equivalent to "Kerry is the wrong man for the job." It also implies there's a reason why Kerry is the wrong man for the job, including (a) that Kerry calls the war wrong, and (b)that his cousin is fighting in the war. (This leads to (c)Him calling the war wrong when the cousin is fighting the war implies Chad shouldn't vote for him .)
posted
"I won't stand for a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief while he's over there."
Not a difficult concept, Xap. He's saying that during the war in Iraq, he won't support a 'Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time' Commander in Chief because his cousin's over there.
You have no basis for expanding the "there" to "any old war." You chose to do so. At least Tom asked it as a question - he didn't assume that the undisclosed reasoning process used to arrive at the conclusion was one that justified supporting Hitler in a war.
posted
Well, based on Chad's statement, it appears that he thinks having a Commander in Chief who does not believe that the war in which your relatives are currently fighting is a good thing is, in fact, a bad thing.
I responded specifically to clarify whether he would feel this way if the war were, in fact, a bad thing, or whether disapproving of wars while they're ongoing is the general principle to which he objects.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:'I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there.' is not equivalent to "Kerry is the wrong man for the job." It also implies there's a reason why Kerry is the wrong man for the job, including (a) that Kerry calls the war wrong, and (b)that his cousin is fighting in the war. (This leads to (c)Him calling the war wrong when the cousin is fighting the war implies Chad shouldn't vote for him .)
It could also imply that the reason Kerry is the wrong man for the job is precisely because he called the war wrong when it's not, depriving him of the moral authority to prosecute the war correctly.
posted
Dag, I believe that in order to ensure your beliefs about specific situations are truthful you must compare those to beliefs about other similar situations. Treating every specific situation as a totally different case isolated from all logic surrounding all other situations makes refining beliefs impossible.
For instance, if I say "It's okay to discriminate against blacks" I should first compare that to my beliefs about discriminating against other races - such as my own.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But we also know that Chad thinks this war is not wrong. And again, you didn't bother to ask. You guessed at his underlying logic and stated that he would vote for Hitler.
posted
Not to you maybe, but I bet that is what he was saying it meant to him.
Why do I feel that I have had this conversation before....
Chad was saying that in this instance he felt that his version of supporting the troops was a valid reason to pck Bush, as he felt that Kerry would not do the same, possibly putting his cousin at risk.
I don't agree with him about Kerry, and I do think it was the wrong time and place...but I see why it would matter to him...Obvoously if he felt the war was unjustified he would feel diferently, at leat a bit.
There were many people he questioned Kerry's ability to lead in wartime. Why they chose a deserter (that IS what he did, BTW...it's Absent Without Leave, and he didn't have leave) on place of Kerry I don't know, but it is over and done with..for now.
I stated elsewhere that overwhelming support of the military for George Bush is a major factor for me as well.
If those guys are out there putting themselves on the line for me and my children, then I think I would have to have a darn good reason NOT to give them the leader they want.
Edit: cousin, not brother
[ November 05, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But we also know that Chad thinks this war is not wrong. And again, you didn't bother to ask. You guessed at his underlying logic and stated that he would vote for Hitler.
No, I stated that IF he followed that logic THEN he'd vote for Hitler, which is entirely different. As I said in my first post, I didn't think that was the actual reason he was voting the way he did. I just said that what he seemed to be saying implied something I didn't think was right.
quote:This is another example of the infuriating tendancy of telling other people what their words mean.
Actually, this is an example of OTHER FOLKS telling ME what CHAD's words mean (and what I meant when I responded to Chad.) And, as I've said previously, there's nothing wrong with you doing that.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
I guess then, that we'll have to wait for Chad to post whether or not he meant Kerry specifically, or whether he meant in general.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, you said, "The fact of the matter is, by the logic Chad is discussing here, he WOULD vote for Hitler if his cousin were serving in Hitler's army."
Where's the if statement, exactly?
And I haven't said what Chad is saying. At most I've argued that what he said is insufficient to support the conclusions you've drawn.
As in "The matter of the fact is, by the logic that the Iraq War is good, I'd vote for Bush." It doesn't mean I'd vote for Bush. It means IF I accepted that logic I'd vote for Bush.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it that al the (ex)Kerry supporters seem to think they are smarter than everyone else? Just drop it, it doesn't matter.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I won't stand for a "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" Commander in Chief while he's over there.
Xap, the contextual ambiguity of the "there" term in Chad's original post has been pointed out to you. He might be talking about wars in general, or he might be talking only about Iraq. What follows logically from the post depends upon how that term is interpreted, so it's disingenuous to say that "by his logic" he would support Hitler. Why don't we wait for Chad to tell us what his logic is?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and I inferred it. I don't see what's all that wrong with that. The worst that happens if I'm wrong is that my point about wrong reasons to vote a given way still stands (and I think it's an important point) but Chad points out that's not what he meant to say.
quote:But really, give me an opening like that, and I gotta take it. It's like, law.
Now, see, forget Godwin's law. This is a real law I can agree with.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
@ Xap.
