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.
Are you kidding me?
They may have heard stories, but if they've led a normal, maybe slightly sheltered life at all, they've got no idea what they'd be in for. I'd assume a more street smart kid, that wasn't as protected growing up would be more inclined to handle it or understand the reality of it.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where? You showed that Tammy said that she was against manipulation. I responded showing how that I shared this but that my reaction here couldn't be said to defined by that and suggesting that the same was true for Tammy, which she then confirmed. Then you dropped it, only responding to my statement in the context ofa different part of the discussion.
Do you think Rakeesh was correct to say that Tammy contradited herself? Because neither she nor I do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Could you explain why you think this is relevant? Sorry. I thought that request for explanation was implied in my statement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this mean you don't actually disagree with Rakeesh but are instead trying to argue semantics of what might have been said earlier?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conversation among friends deserves the benefit of the doubt and little give and trust. You'd do better to come up with either.
It looks like you're picking a fight for the sake of itself. What, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? It isn't peace or understanding or a better or substantial conversation. What is it that you want?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Are you kidding me?
They may have heard stories, but if they've led a normal, maybe slightly sheltered life at all, they've got no idea what they'd be in for. I'd assume a more street smart kid, that wasn't as protected growing up would be more inclined to handle it or understand the reality of it.
That's why I said "basics." I don't think anyone really knows what it's like to be a soldier without actually being one.
I think Squicky's qualifier is important-- that when the parent feels that the child's desire is sincere, and that the child has made an informed choice, THEN the parent can (at least intellectually) accept the child's decision.
What's important to me is that there is an honest attempt at communicating the realities of military life, and that the military lives up to their promises.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, I really don't think you are reading me correctly. If you wish to participate in the discussion, I'd appreciate if you addressed what I've said with more than shots from the sidelines.
If that is going to be your only contribution, I'm pretty sure that you will have no productive effect on the conversation, nor will you come any closer to understanding what I am trying to say.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
It was relevant precisely because you made the preceding statement. I'm not sure why that statement was relevant, of course. After all, I was demonstrating how your beliefs about when manipulation is acceptable depend in part on the goal of the manipulation. Your response didn't address that aspect at all.
However, to the extent that you considered your statement about when manipulation is acceptable relevant, a statement about what Rakeesh has said on that subject is just as relevant.
quote:Do you think Rakeesh was correct to say that Tammy contradited herself
He was correct to say it at the time he said it, given the state of the conversation at that point. Had subsequent clarifications been made at the time, he might not have been correct.
But those clarifications hadn't been made, so he was correct to say it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have a hard time communicating the realities of military life and an especially hard time assuring my child that the military lives up to their promises.
I've not seen proof of either one first hand.
I can only go with what I know and what I've researched.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think this really depends on how deep your defition of know is. The kids may havea superficial intellectual awareness of these things, but I think that a large percentage of them have little comprehension of what these things actually mean. I know from many anecdotes that many people feel remarkably unprepared even for boot camp, let alone actual combat.
I want to get back to a point I made earlier, which is that while we're supposed to believe and it would be great if it were true that most recruits are more or less ready for and informed about the things that they are going to go through, this often isn't the case.
However, the world being what it is, America maintaining its military forces relies on recruiting being far less than ideal.
Honestly, I'm not sure where to go with that. All the simple answers seem incredibly stupid to me. I think it is an important point, though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:He was correct to say it at the time he said it, given the state of the conversation at that point. Had subsequent clarifications been made at the time, he might not have been correct.
What subsequent clarifications? I don't see ones that would clarify this from Tammy made after Rakeesh's statement.
edit: For that matter, all the statements that you used to defend Rakeesh's use of contradiction in the first place came after his statement saying that Tammy contradicted herself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Perhaps this is where our conversation strayed into the fog bank, heh.
I don't think harassment (ugh, I've been spelling it wrong all this time!) is necessarily a bad thing, despite its obvious connotation.
To use a topical example, protestors harassing the government or a company into, say, doing better by the environment or making hiring practices more fair. Such a thing would certainly meet the definition of the word'harass', and I don't think it would be a negative thing.
It's sort of like the idea some people express that some parents 'brainwash' their children. Obviously people who say such a thing usually mean it badly, but in my mind, 'brainwashing' is a component of good parenting.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is fine. Could you point to me Tammy's clarifying statements so I can see what you think cleared it up?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: the world being what it is, America maintaining its military forces relies on recruiting being far less than ideal.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
quote:I'd have a hard time communicating the realities of military life and an especially hard time assuring my child that the military lives up to their promises.
I've not seen proof of either one first hand.
I can only go with what I know and what I've researched.
What I'm interested in is your assertion that the military doesn't live up to the promises it makes to its recruits. Can you show evidence (non-anectdotal) of a systematic tendency to not live up to its promises?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, There's an earlier post where I went into some detail.
Basically, in a perfect world, I don't believe anyone should join the military who doesn't know what they are getting into. It's an enormous decision that carries with it some very significant risks. They should also be people who are going to go out and perform their jobs with competance and high moral behavior.
However, this is not and will never be the case, unless we want to drastically slash the number of people in the military.
It's a disturbing thought, for me at least. We don't want dumb kids going in, not really understanding what they are signing up for, we don't want recruiters tricking people into joining up, but we need for those things to happen or we won't have the military power that we do. edit: And heck, for some of the kids who did it for the wrong reasons, it's a really beneficial experience.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I'm interested in is your assertion that the military doesn't live up to the promises it makes to its recruits.
I don't think that you understood what Tammy said. If I read her correctly, she didn't make this assertion, only said that she doesn't have first hand knowledge of it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I'm interested in is your assertion that the military doesn't live up to the promises it makes to its recruits.
I don't think that you understood what Tammy said. If I read her correctly, she didn't make this assertion, only said that she doesn't have first hand knowledge of it.
quote:We don't want dumb kids going in, not really understanding what they are signing up for, we don't want recruiters tricking people into joining up, but we need for those things to happen or we won't have the military power that we do.
I don't know that this is true. Can you show why you feel it is?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe 15% of the people I grew up with went into the military. I've got 8 relatives (including my siblings) in the military or recently retired from it. I'm drawing from their anecdotal experiences. And I very much care about people in the military.
It's obviously not an objective study, but look at the recruiting stories and talk it over with people you nkow in the military. I think you'll get a similar picture.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How significant are you estimating recruit stupidity and recruiter subterfuge are in enlistment numbers?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like a good question. I wonder how much it is required to lie to recruits in order to meet quota? Is it a signifigant percentage? Enough that it's a general practice? Hardly ever happens?
How prevelant does it need to be before all recruits are characterized as liars?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, I have no desire to discuss it with you, either.
I would be very interested though definitely surprised if you and/or Scott pursued this on your own though.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have much first hand knowledge, correct.
I do know quite a few people who have either served, or are currently serving in some military capacity. I've heard both wonderful and gut-wrenching stories.
One of our good friends is a wonderful gentleman that I respect very much. He's a General in the National Guard. I get regular "unclassified" e-mails from him, updating us on some really cool things that have been happening lately. He generally only sends us the good stuff. For example,
"Caveats: NONE
Tomorrow evening, the show "American Chopper" will open its season with the Patriot Chopper build. As you are aware, the Patriot Chopper was built for the ARNG by Orange Country Chopper (OCC). We have three bikes, one of which is on display at the Readiness Center and the other two are on constant tour throughout the United States. Time and channel information are below. Please take the time to watch and pass this information to soldiers throughout your command. Thanks. "
At one point, I may ask him to have a frank discussion about the realities of war with my kids. I'd respect anything he'd have to say on the subject.
My brother joined the Marines and went through boot camp in California when he was in his early 20's. He had several horrific experiences. In his words, he needed to toughen up, so he joined the Marines. He had no clue, absolutely no clue what he was getting into. It was a rash, spur of the moment, decision on his part. He's not dumb by any means, just impulsive. He did not talk to anyone before he signed up. Maybe his experience would have been a little different if he would have joined for more mature reasons.
Rakeesh - I looked at the definitions in your link. I don't deal with my children in those ways. I understand what you're saying, I do. I just can't use the terms, harass and brainwash, the way you're using them when it comes to the communications I have with my kids.
posted
I'd love to hear about your personal experiences with the dastardly military. You don't have to commit yourself to anything provable - any stories of lying to recruits?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
First thing, I know some people for whom joining the military was the best decision they ever made. And I think in a large amount of cases that is true. But, I have a friend who went through boot camp. After hearing his stories, I would strongly oppose my child going into the military. I know his experiences aren't typical, but the fact that no one was punished for what happened to him means they don't get my child. (I don't have his permission to share details).
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodness. Reading this thread got me interested. A brief "google" of "military recruitment tactics" came up with a lot of stuff to sort through!
Tammy, I don't think that it is a contradiction to be against strangers manipulating teenagers into harm's way and parents manipulating or even coercing minor children to keep them from harm.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Scott, Honestly, I don't have any desire to discuss this with you.
Okay.
quote:I would be very interested though definitely surprised if you and/or Scott pursued this on your own though.
Why "definitely surprised?"
In light of our interactions in the past, I'm trying to keep things civil. I didn't mean to offend you; I don't think I said anything or implied anything about your character. I thought I was addressing the topic and your statements about the topic, not your personality.
Did you feel that my question:
quote:How significant are you estimating recruit stupidity and recruiter subterfuge are in enlistment numbers?
was insulting?
I think it was a fairly phrased question, given your assertions in the post to which I was responding.
Yes, I'm skeptical of your reasoning. I work with former military types; I ride to and from work with military and law enforcement personnel; I'm friends with active, ex-, and reserve military folks.
None of them have expressed the cynicism about recruits, the recruitment process, or military strength that you have.
NOW, numerically, you may have a point about the army needing 'dumb kids.' On paper, recruitment numbers rose by about 7000 people after the military lowered testing standards. (This from a comparison of the Pentagon's recruitment report from 2005-2006) Of course, there's no evidence to show causation; but I think there's a definite correlation.
I really don't know how you'd go about proving that recruiter subterfuge was responsible for X% of recruits though.
If you are interested in discussing this after all, I'd ask you (in addition to the questions I asked before) how you define "dumb" in "dumb kid."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Goodness. Reading this thread got me interested. A brief "google" of "military recruitment tactics" came up with a lot of stuff to sort through!
Tammy, I don't think that it is a contradiction to be against strangers manipulating teenagers into harm's way and parents manipulating or even coercing minor children to keep them from harm.
Agreed on the literal points.
However, I disagree with the portrayal of the military as a stranger whose purpose is to connive impressionable children into getting into their car in exchange for delicious tuition money.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Goodness. Reading this thread got me interested. A brief "google" of "military recruitment tactics" came up with a lot of stuff to sort through!
Kate, you might be interested in the link I put of the first page to a GAO report on "Recruiter Irregularities," including a recent increase in criminal violations.
---
Edited to add: caveat caveat caveat (also spread all through that original post)
These incidents do not describe most recruiters. Of course. Of course!
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Scott, my use of "stranger" was not intended to invoke "stranger danger" connections. In fact that had not occured to me. My use of stranger was to contrast someone that did not have a prior relationship to the teenager with a parent who is responsible for the teenager.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was rereading the GAO report this morning, and I realized I'd missed the introductory letter from the GAO to the Committee on Armed Services. It may shed some light on why there is a (rising) concern about harrassment, misstatements, and other troublesome irregularities in recruitment practices.
excerpt (the rest of it is a good read, though, and provides context):
quote:Determined to find ways to succeed in a challenging recruiting environment, some recruiters, reportedly, have resorted to overly aggressive tactics, such as coercion and harassment. Such tactics are violations of recruiting policies and diminish the public’s perception of, and confidence in, the recruiting process. Furthermore, recruiter irregularities can negatively impact the services’ recruiting ability by damaging relationships with potential applicants, and causing those who have influence over potential applicants to question military service. ... Given the large numbers of servicemembers DOD must recruit every year, there is ample opportunity for recruiter irregularities to occur. A 2005 internal DOD survey reports about 20 percent of active duty recruiters believe that irregularities occur frequently. (2)
[italics added for emphasis]
(2) citation: Department of Defense, Defense Human Resources Activity, Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies, 2005 Recruiter Quality of Life Survey, Topline Report, JAMRS Report No. 2006-002 (Arlington, Va.: February 2006).
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You could have used the word "recruiter."
Except that would have missed the distinction I was was trying to make, that of a parent and someone who doesn't know the kid.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I signed up for Selective Services today. Had to. Made me a bit angry.
The website has a bunch of pictures of hip, happy-looking teenagers playing guitars and holding frisbees. It feels so dishonest, and I don't like it.
Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tammy, I don't think that it is a contradiction to be against strangers manipulating teenagers into harm's way and parents manipulating or even coercing minor children to keep them from harm.
I'd point out that I don't think this statement is a contradiction either, but at this point I wonder if anyone would listen when I say I was questioning the idea that people are against harrasment, as opposed to recruitment and recruitment tricks.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the difference is how they define harassment. There is a t level of connection within a family that allows for more leeway for some behaviors that it does for non-family members. I know my family can say things to me that would be incredibly rude if a non-family member said it, but I am less offended when my family says it.
Usually.
However, there is a point when such things can still be considered harassment.....which is why people don't live at home their whole lives. They move on to take decisions for themselves.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
