posted
porter, None of the those statements took the form that I'm talking about (i.e. it is X that makes someone do something). As such, I don't think you addressed my point.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we're missing the real point of this thread, though — that for the first time, we have encountered an individual who has never acted except out of complete love and compassion for his family, who has never had a self-interested desire that overcame his loving motivation, and who has never had to resort to honor as a motivator to prevent him from doing something he would later regret.
Squicky, you are a god among men, and I'm very glad you started this thread to let us all discover your exceeding perfection Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I've treated you with respect and civility throughout this thread. I would ask for the same from you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am highly doubtful any statements that imply that every action ever undertaken was done out of the warmest and purest of emotions with no interference from personal desires.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am highly doubtful any statements that imply that every action ever undertaken was done out of the warmest and purest of emotions with no interference from personal desires.
I am unaware of statements to this effect anywhere in the context of this thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:None of the those statements took the form that I'm talking about (i.e. it is X that makes someone do something). As such, I don't think you addressed my point.
Every single one of those statements could be re-worded to that form. It's a different way of saying the same thing.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
Never?! Granted 'honor' is a very tricky, subjective term, but you have never felt even a bit of the tug of duty or honor or obligation reinforcing your pre-existing impulse to care for the people you love?
Apparently, your life is peopled entirely by saints and heroes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think we're missing the real point of this thread, though — that for the first time, we have encountered an individual who has never acted except out of complete love and compassion for his family, who has never had a self-interested desire that overcame his loving motivation, and who has never had to resort to honor as a motivator to prevent him from doing something he would later regret.
Squicky, you are a god among men, and I'm very glad you started this thread to let us all discover your exceeding perfection
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Apparently, your life is peopled entirely by saints and heroes.
I'm sorry, I have to ask again: why are some people allowed to engage in this type of insulting behavior and not get called on it? Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's true he never states the actual emotions that motivate him. For all he specifies, it could be fear.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Could you show me how you would reword those statements into the form that is what I'm talking about?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Never?! Granted 'honor' is a very tricky, subjective term, but you have never felt even a bit of the tug of duty or honor or obligation reinforcing your pre-existing impulse to care for the people you love?
Of course I have. Why is this question relevant?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, I have to ask again: why are some people allowed to engage in this type of insulting behavior and not get called on it?
I'm often called on it. But quit your whining, Jutsa. In the arguments between you and me, you started that behavior, and not me. And you've kept it up. So cry me a river.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was hunger that made me eat salad last night. It was a desire to eat better that made me eat salad last night. The fact that I found it in my fridge made me eat salad last night.
The remainder are left as an exercise for the interested student.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
porter, To my eye, You've significantly changed the meaning of your statements.
You cannot say those statements together like you could the first ones. The first formulation talks of contributory things. The second, the thing that made you do it. Also, you've moved from active to passive.
These are very different things to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, I have to ask again: why are some people allowed to engage in this type of insulting behavior and not get called on it?
Jutsa, are you insinuating that the two specific people you cited receive some sort of special benefit that others don't? From what I've seen, insulting behavior is pretty common here, on all sides of every line (though far less so than in other places I've been).
I'd call my behavior towards Squick "mocking" rather than "insulting", personally. Perhaps "satire" if I'm generous with myself
He is holding himself up as an counterexample to OSC's assertion that honor is an important motivator to caring families, claiming that he needs no honor because of his pure, overwhelming love that overrides all other concerns. I think it's a silly thing to have done, given that his opponents are using the much-more-believable claim of their own IMperfection to bolster their own arguments. Mockery seemed the most appropriate response. Sorry if anyone was offended.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot say those statements together like you could the first ones. The first formulation talks of contributory things. The second, the thing that made you do it.
The second talks of contributory things as well. The meaning is exactly the same in the two lists.
quote:And your point would be...
How can you ask that with a straight face?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
That's how I interpreted your statements. Clearly, it must be possible for someone to make a statement that reads a certain way, though it was intended in another.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you would care to clarify your position, Squicky. It sure seems like different things you've said in this thread are entirely contradictory.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. You haven't named your motivations that are so strong you have no need of honor. Those motivations could be anything. You haven't claimed love but you seem to repudiate it when someone has put that motivation on you, so maybe it's something else. Fear? Brainwashed? The voices in your head tell you to? You have no desires other than to serve?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you would care to clarify your position, Squicky. It sure seems like different things you've said in this thread are entirely contradictory.
Yes, because I've been given such reason to believe that the people on this thread are treating me with respect and in good faith.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the OSC article, and I have a couple curious question for him, that I'll get to in a moment, sorry if I'm stepping on the toes of the family debate going on here, I'll create a second thread if you guys want.
I liked what he had to say about individual honor, and I especially agree with him about honor in business practices.
1. Why on earth does he still call himself a Democrat? It's no longer about him just being ashamed of "his party." He doesn't really seem to agree with them on ANY issue. I don't know if he identifies with Republicans any better, but he certainly likes them more.
2. Was he paying attention AT ALL during the the Midterm elections? Even Blue Dog Democrats, who really were basically just left of center almost Republicans won across the board, but they won based on the issue OSC is claiming they are reneging on. If anyone even turned on a news channel during the midterms, they would have heard about how the Democrats were running on a SINGLE issue, and that issue was the war in Iraq. And after it was over, that turned into a Democrat mandate to end the war and bring the troops home. So how exactly did they break their word when they literally spent the ENTIRE campaign HAMMERING this issue?
3. Does he remember what the Republican congress did during Clinton's administration? When US troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993 is was because the REPUBLICAN Congress pressured and then forced Clinton to do so. What is so honorable about Republicans? What has been honorable about what they have done during the last seven years especially?
Bush isn't being bashed for firing US Attorneys, it's the WAY it was done. If they were being fired for the sake of politics, then fine, presidentials generally do that (they usually do it when their administration starts, and not 7 years later, but whatever), but lying about it to make it NOT look political is worse. He's ruining the careers of innocent individuals to make himself look better while playing partisan politics. So DUH he'll be attacked for that.
4. It's funny OSC should bring up the power of the American presidency and Congress. I spoke about the exact same thing in a recent blog essay of my own. Though I took the polar opposite position of OSC. I think too many of us take 21st century presidential power as a given. But presidents, historically, have NOT had the kind of power that Bush currently enjoys. Congresses are NOT there just to rubber stamp whatever the hell he wants, and when citizens start thinking that way, I wonder how many steps away we are from a dictatorship where Congress becomes a useless puppet.
Augustus Ceasar took control of the Roman Empire by using past institutions of the Republic that people remembered fondly and using them as tools of Imperial control. And it worked oh so sweetly. Slowly over the last 100 years, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, and continuing onward since, the Imperial Presidency has risen sharply in American politics. Congress DOES have the power to START and END wars. If they choose NOT to ratify the treaties that the president makes, then the war stands. At the end of the first World War, Wilson’s treaty was NOT ratified by the Congress, which is part of why the League of Nations failed miserably (it’s also why some American wineries can still call much of their sparkling wine Champagne, even though it isn’t from France). Congress also has the power of the purse. Bush does not have carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants, and if the legally elected Congress decides to stop funding a war, the war ends. Suck it up Bush. If the man can’t convince them of the merits of the war, then he’s failed in more than one way, not just the prosecution of the war. And while the Congress doesn’t make tactical decisions either, they are actively, or should be, involved in the war itself. They should be overseeing contracts, they should be involved in making sure funds are going where they belong, and they should be making sure that the funds they’ve turned over to a foreign government are not being misused. The President automatically get whatever he wants. THAT is the separation powers, and frankly, I hope the Democrats do “shatter” the presidency. Bush needs it to happen to him. He shows open CONTEMPT for another branch of the government because they don’t give him everything he wants.
5. Does he think the insurgency is really in its last throes? Muslim insurgents have been fighting in Palestine for DECADES. They are already ready for the long haul. Even if we stayed for another five years, they would be there, waiting, attacking, waiting, attacking, they’ve made it into a sadistically powerful art form. Leaving tomorrow isn’t going to embolden them anymore than they already have been, because frankly they are WINNING the real war. The war that needs to be one, the POLITICAL war. It’s a war that Bush has seemingly totally ignored in favor of a brute force effort. America might be exposed as unreliable, but we’ve already been exposed as undeniably STUPID in our efforts over there. Maybe if we started listening to our allies and paying attention to experts and GENERALS IN THE FIELD then we wouldn’t be in such a mess right now.
6. Has he seen the state of the US military lately? People are leaving it in DROVES. By the THOUSANDS. We have equipment shortages, we have training shortages, we have manpower shortages. They don't all want to stay until the job is done. Many thousands of them think we are wasting our time fighting a war that can’t be won with guns.
Frankly I’m not entirely convinced that the Democrats have a solution that is any better. But trying to shut them up, especially in an effort to support the clusterfrick that is the Bush Administration’s handling of the war is the dumbest thing I have seen suggested for a citizenry to do in quite some time. The Democrats are asking important questions that the Republicans have been shushing them on since the war started, and I find it insanely hard to believe that an intelligent person would seriously support that effort.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He doesn't really seem to agree with them on ANY issue.
This just flat isn't true. Gun control is the one that leaps readily to mind, but there are many others, especially in the economic policy area.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll concede that, but the question stands. I only ever see him beating up on present day Democrats, so I really am curious to see what it is that supposedly keeps him in the party.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your #6 is hard to swallow. Leaving by the THOUSANDS? Are you being hyperbolic?
quote:And after it was over, that turned into a Democrat mandate to end the war and bring the troops home. So how exactly did they break their word when they literally spent the ENTIRE campaign HAMMERING this issue?
I disagree. It seemed to me that the thrust of the Democrats' message was more along the lines of Bush's mismanagement and possible deception, NOT specifically troop withdrawal.
quote:When US troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993 is was because the REPUBLICAN Congress pressured and then forced Clinton to do so. What is so honorable about Republicans? What has been honorable about what they have done during the last seven years especially?
OSC said:
quote:But George Bush, Sr., found his honor when Kuwait was invaded. "This will not stand," he said, and he put together the coalition that made it true.
Thus, after a couple of decades of being missing, we became, once again, a nation that kept its word.
Oh, wait. I forgot about that call for an uprising against Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, which we then did nothing to support.
And about Rwanda, where we did nothing to save the Hutus even though any display of force would have stopped the genocide.
Oh, yes. Somalia, too.
OSC criticized both the Reagan and Bush I administrations for dishonorable conduct in foreign affairs.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My impression was that the blame was being pinned on Clinton for leaving after Mogadishu, and not Republicans. I was curious as to whom he believes was at fault there.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on our perceptions of the midterms. In dozens of articles and stories I saw and read during the run-up to the midterms, Democrats were pounding the message that we needed to bring the troops home. Yes that was tied into the greater argument on how Bush botched and bungled the war itself, but the thrust of the argument was to pull out. "Bring the troops home," was an anthem. They also talked about raising the minimum wage and other big hot ticket liberal items too, but ending the war was easily the biggest campaign issue, and from day one they said it would be a top priority.
Newly elected Blue Dog Democrats knew exactly what they were getting into. It's why Rahm Emmanuel specifically went looking for ex-soldiers who just got back from the Iraq War and were wholly disenchanted by it.
#6 is not hyperbole. There are major manpower shortages in the Army right now. People really are leaving in droves. The Army has had to steal personnel from the Navy and the Air Force and task them to non "combat" roles (though such a post doesn't exist in reality) like driving trucks in order to free up more troops for the front lines. It's also why they've had to severely lower the requirements, both in age, criminal records, and physical condition for new recruits, in order to shoehorn them in the door. They also like more recruits to at least be high school graduates, and yet new recruits have the highest drop out rate from high school since the draft ended. In other words, not only do we have fewer recruits, but the ones we are getting are increasingly too old, too fat, too unhealthy or less educated than we used to want them to be.
And if you read the Army Times and other military magazines, you'll see polling data that indicates thousands of US troops think we can't win the war through military means, and thousands more who think we should just leave.
On top of that, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars (and that is not hyperbole at all) more this year than we were just two years ago on enticing people to stay in the military. We're offering outlandish bonuses to soldiers to resign. Frankly I wonder at what point they stop being soldiers and start being mercenaries. We're spending a couple billion dollars on bonuses to keep soldiers in who otherwise wouldn't reenlist. Doesn't sound like they are eager to finish the job to me.
And I wasn't being hyperbolic about the readiness state of the Army either. Equipment is breaking down, or it's just plain not available. And resupply isn't keeping up with the rate our materiel is breaking down or being destroyed.
To be honest, I don't have specific data on who has left the service in the last year, or more, but I know from articles that I have read that the numbers are high, and given everything that's being done to force or cajole them to stay in the service, and given the high disapproval ratings the war has amongst the enlisted ranks, I don't think my statement was hyperbole at all.
Edit to add: The drain of soldiers isn't just among the enlisted men, it's also among the officers. West Pointers, especially recent graduates, are either dropping out of school, or they are leaving the service after just a few years. 46% of officers who graduated in 2001, and more than %53 of those who graduated in 2000, had left the service by January of 2007. It is the highest rate of officers leaving after their mandatory 5 year service in the last 30 years.
quote:My impression was that the blame was being pinned on Clinton for leaving after Mogadishu, and not Republicans. I was curious as to whom he believes was at fault there.
OSC doesn't even mention Bill Clinton in relation to foreign affairs.
We have precisely one line from which you're deriving your criticism-- and in context of the article, your point of view does not hold up.
quote:I don't have specific data on who has left the service in the last year, or more, but I know from articles that I have read that the numbers are high, and given everything that's being done to force or cajole them to stay in the service, and given the high disapproval ratings the war has amongst the enlisted ranks, I don't think my statement was hyperbole at all.
By "leave," I think you mean, "doesn't re-enlist." I have found some numbers on it, and you're right, there are lots of people electing to not re-enlist, or to retire. I don't imagine that the 15-month deployment change is going to help things at all...
That treats mostly with the US Army in Europe, but mentions that re-enlistment rates for soldiers in Iraq/US are predictably lower.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For myself, I shudder to think of the family in which it takes honor to drive these things.
&
The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
&
I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
It's not a matter of not having it. It's a matter of being horrified at the idea that all the other things that, in my opinion, should drive this behavior aren't there or are insufficient.
If you're interested in an explanation for the surprised and mocking reactions to what you said, Mr. Squicky, I'll give it to you now as politely as possible (and please bear in mind, my use of the word 'mocking' is not meant to be insulting in and of itself, but as a mere description of what happened).
The first quote is not so objectionable, in my opinion. I agree with you, a family that takes care of each other solely out of obligations of honor and duty is deeply disturbing at best to me. I feel the same way about the second quote, although I and many others did not read the OSC quote the same way you did...and to be honest, given many other statements OSC has made in the past regarding family and committment, I do believe that ours was the more reasonable, rational interpretation. But be that as it may, well-meaning people can disagree on all of that, and I still agree with the statements you made, when I take into account the interpretation you were working from, despite disagreeing with that interpretation.
It's the quotes in bold that, in my opinion, led to the reaction you got. You're certainly a proponent of speaking your mind to someone you're disagreeing with, even if the thoughts are rude or aggressive, so I'm not going to shy from doing so here. I'll try to keep it as cut-and-dried as possible, though.
When I think of my family, I can easily recall numerous times in the past when they upset me deeply, or just exasperated me, or wore me out, a variety of things. They've been my family for over 26 years now, that's only natural. I can also think--and I know that for other members of my family, it is the same with them--of times when I was so upset that I refrained from saying or doing things, in the heat of the moment, because they were my family, and one of the things I believe about life is that you Stick By Your Family. Blood is thicker than water. There are many aphorisms about this, pointing to the idea that love alone is not, as you claim is the case for you, the only force needed to drive you to do the right thing.
This goes as equally true for the rest of my family as well, as discussed both after arguments and in general, just about beliefs, the way people discuss the things they believe. Also, it goes as true for some of my closer friends in life, and at work. From many people I know well, I have heard stories of times when they would have rather just done their own thing instead of owning up to their obligations and duties. Instead of behaving honorably. Now, if they didn't feel those obligations, would they just have left or done the selfish thing? Who can say? The best we can do is guess, but I'm not interested in guessing. I am pointing out that for much of my family and many of my friends, from numerous walks of life, love alone was not the only thing which kept them tied to doing the right thing for their families.
Thus to me, your statement is a very surprising one. I'll be honest: I do not believe you when you say it, because it's so surprising and unlikely to me that it turns your statement from just a statement into sheer brag and bluster. I do not arrive at this conclusion because it is you doing the speaking, but for the reasons I've outlined above. And when you add in a descriptive and critical word such as 'horrifying' into your statements, well, I'm going to feel pretty insulted.
So, this is the reason why I, at least, responded the way I did. I'm not going to apologize for it, because I've thought about it for a day now, and it's still the conclusion I come up with. I wouldn't mind hearing how you meant it, but I submit that my interpretation was very reasonable...and perhaps the only interpretation that could be drawn from your words alone.
quote:I am pointing out that for much of my family and many of my friends, from numerous walks of life, love alone was not the only thing which kept them tied to doing the right thing for their families.
I never said it was for me either.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The second talks of contributory things as well. The meaning is exactly the same in the two lists.
So, would you say it is fair to say that the media coverage of Columbine made the VA Tech shooter do what he did?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have rejected honor as a motivation, and stronly implied that people are wrong when they assume your motivation is love. What are your motivations?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same things that most decent people feel in regards to the people they care about.
What are your motivations for taking care of the people you care about?
edit: If I had any belief that this would be an actual discussion with people trying to understand what I'm saying as opposed to people looking for ways to pick apart what I say and pile on the insults again, I might respond differently.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am pointing out that for much of my family and many of my friends, from numerous walks of life, love alone was not the only thing which kept them tied to doing the right thing for their families.
I never said it was for me either.
Mr. Squicky,
It sounded like you were for me. I'll show you what I mean...
quote:I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
It's not a matter of not having it. It's a matter of being horrified at the idea that all the other things that, in my opinion, should drive this behavior aren't there or are insufficient.
The first statement clearly says that in your life, you don't remember ever needing anything beyond love to take care of the people you love. In the second statement, you reinforce that opinion by saying you're horrified at those who have needed honor and obligation as a prod to do so.
quote:The second talks of contributory things as well. The meaning is exactly the same in the two lists.
So, would you say it is fair to say that the media coverage of Columbine made the VA Tech shooter do what he did?
Exactly as fair as it would be to say "The VA Tech shooter did what he did because of the the media coverage of Columbine."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you said, but it really does seem plain to me. You said that you don't remember ever needing honor or obligation to take care of the people you love.
Well then, what did you need? Edit: You've answered this with "the same things that most decent people etc. etc.", which to me seems to plainly be pointing at "love".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But quit your whining, Jutsa. In the arguments between you and me, you started that behavior, and not me. And you've kept it up. So cry me a river.
Incidentally, I checked with my brother and sister in law. "He started it." isn't something they'd accept as a valid excuse from my 4 1/2 year old neice for bad behavior on her part.
I don't think it is something we should accept from adults either.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Love, honor, trust-- to me they're very similar things. EDIT: That is to say, I recognize a semantic difference between them, but philosophically they're so intertwined in my brain that there's not much sense in picking one out to put above the others.
Who feels differently?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I can understand being afraid of being treated the same way you treat others. Of course you don't want to say - when someone else shared their motivations, you immediately attacked. Of course you're paranoid - you expect others to act the way you do.
quote:So, is that a fair thing to say?
I find this question to be ridiculous, manipulative, and disingenuous.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:edit: If I had any belief that this would be an actual discussion with people trying to understand what I'm saying as opposed to people looking for ways to pick apart what I say and pile on the insults again, I might respond differently.
Gee, when I do something like that (except I actually answer the questions asked) you accuse me of game-playing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
