Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[Guest coot]

You just say that because you're pro-war, have the ability to serve, but choose not to. I guess you have to justify your position somehow.

[Argus]

You just say that because you're pro-war, have the ability to serve, but choose not to. I guess you have to justify your position somehow.

Why? You don't.

[M.Dancer]

Had we conscription instead of an all volunteer force I would say the argument that people who can't or won't go shouldn't have a say might have a microgram more weight....

[Guest coot]

Why? You don't.

What's your justification for calling people stupid for not being able to decipher a dictionary, and then showing how you don't even understand how they display adjectives?

That was the funniest thing I ever saw on this forum.

[ScottSA]

You just say that because you're pro-war, have the ability to serve, but choose not to. I guess you have to justify your position somehow.

Actually, you're only wrong in one of your observations. Unfortunately for you, it's the one without which your entirely argument crumbles.

But whether one goes to war or not has no bearing whatsoever on their right, in a democracy, to have an opinion on that war. All you're doing is pulling out a putrid anti-democratic cheapshot aimed at anyone not actively engaged in hostilities. By your own reasoning, you ought not have an opinion on the war either, so I await your silence with bated breath. You wouldn't want to be a hypocrit, would you?

[Guest coot]

Are you saying cowards and hypocrites have no right to an opinion? Of course they do. It's just that their opinion might point out the fact that they are cowardly immoral hypocrites, which (I agree) they have every right to be in a democracy.

Edited November 25, 2007 by coot

[Higgly]

That's funny, coming from someone who doesn't click links.

There are people who post links with little else and there are people who digest what they have read and come up with a cogent post. I read cogent posts and if I doubt what I have read, I will look at links. If the post is little more than a link, then I'm going to pass.

I see this forum as a debate, not a literature search. So sue me.

[ScottSA]

Are you saying cowards and hypocrites have no right to an opinion? Of course they do. It's just that their opinion might point out the fact that they are cowardly immoral hypocrites, which (I agree) they have every right to be in a democracy.

Well, I guess it is possible to so misunderstand plain English that when regurgiutated back it bears no similarity to what was said in the first place. Have you sought professional help yet?

[Guest coot]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I pointed out the cowardice of an able-bodied person supporting a war but being unwilling to serve in it. As I understand it, you took that off in a direction that I would deny this coward's right to their opinion to support that war. I wouldn't. I would just point out that they're a coward. Is there something I'm missing?

[M.Dancer]

. Is there something I'm missing?

Logic, common sense.....a few screws....

[Moxie]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I pointed out the cowardice of an able-bodied person supporting a war but being unwilling to serve in it. As I understand it, you took that off in a direction that I would deny this coward's right to their opinion to support that war. I wouldn't. I would just point out that they're a coward. Is there something I'm missing?

I'm support the war, should I run out and sign up. NO, for starters I have a heart murmur and I'm underweight. I'd fail the medical, would I volunteer my time to help the Canadian Military. Yep I already do, there are many ways one can support the military without burdening them with those of us that aren't fit enough to serve. So if that makes me a coward, so be it. At least I can't serve because I'm unfit not because I'm a coward who needs to make excuses.

[ScottSA]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I pointed out the cowardice of an able-bodied person supporting a war but being unwilling to serve in it. As I understand it, you took that off in a direction that I would deny this coward's right to their opinion to support that war. I wouldn't. I would just point out that they're a coward. Is there something I'm missing?

Yes, Momo is right, but I'm never as succinct as he is, so let's reverse the logic. If it is cowardice to support the war yet not serve in it, it is doubly cowardly to not support the war so as to ensure that one doesn't serve in it. Such logic as you're using, and in this case retreating to, has an antithetical logic as well.

But let's examine this a little closer. You no doubt support police officers, who put themselves in danger everyday, protecting you from the depredations of evil warmongers and werthugs like me, but I assume you're not a cop. Does that make you a coward? Do you support daycare workers? And are you one? If not, are you a hypocrit because you're not? You support socialism, but I daresay you're not a politician. See where this is going? See how flawed your attempt at logic is?

[Guest coot]

Logic, common sense.....a few screws....

I didn't think you could answer that question. You're afraid, like Argus, that once you try to explain yourself too deeply, your lack of comprehension is exposed, so all y'all can do is insult.

[Guest coot]

Do you support daycare workers? And are you one? If not, are you a hypocrit because you're not?

That is the precise reason why you would consider passive warmongering okay: you consider soldiering to be just another service, like childcare, policing, or plumbing. But war is different.

War involves killing people, so a rational, moral person would only engage in war in a situation where it is absolutely necessary.

Therefore, the only morally justifiable war is the necessary war. To be necessary, it would require a threat to our freedom, our livelihood, or a direct attack from a discernable enemy. If it meets these requirements and is necessary, then it requires our full support; if it is unnecessary, the only moral option is to not support it.

You can't have it both ways.

[M.Dancer]

That is the precise reason why you would consider passive warmongering okay: you consider soldiering to be just another service, like childcare, policing, or plumbing. But war is different.

War involves killing people, so a rational, moral person would only engage in war in a situation where it is absolutely necessary.

Therefore, the only morally justifiable war is the necessary war. To be necessary, it would require a threat to our freedom, our livelihood, or a direct attack from a discernable enemy. If it meets these requirements and is necessary, then it requires our full support; if it is unnecessary, the only moral option is to not support it.

You can't have it both ways.

Again you start with false premises and run away with them.

1) Soldiering is a service, but not like childcare but certainly closer to policing.

1) War often involves killing but more often it involves not letting the enemy kill. So a rational person would say it is beneficial to be a strong deterent and proactive rather than be reactive.

3) The only justifiale war is a war to defend either ourseleves or our allies.

In afghanistan we are doing both. You can't have mnations descending into anarchy and think that the ramifications end there.

[Topaz]

Canada declined the party invitation for Iraq....we didn't have much TV or internet during WW2.

What I heard from a US official, was that Canada was NEVER asked to send troopers to Iraq but would take anyhthing like ships and money.

[Guest coot]

Again you start with false premises and run away with them.

1) Soldiering is a service, but not like childcare but certainly closer to policing.

1) War often involves killing but more often it involves not letting the enemy kill. So a rational person would say it is beneficial to be a strong deterent and proactive rather than be reactive.

3) The only justifiale war is a war to defend either ourseleves or our allies.

In afghanistan we are doing both. You can't have mnations descending into anarchy and think that the ramifications end there.

Talk about false premises. My argument was not whether the war is justifiable or not. My premise was that those who feel it is justifiable have an obligation to do something about it.

War always involves killing people, and the only way you can “prevent” the enemy from killing is by killing them. War is, by definition, killing, whether it be enemy combatants or innocent bystanders and usually it is both.

If you consider the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan necessary and that it is absolutely essential that we prevent these nations from deteriorating into anarchy, what the hell are you doing sitting typing on your computer? Why do you feel it’s okay to not make any sacrifice towards victory? Why do you feel it’s okay to let others kill and die for you to maintain your freedom? Why are you unwilling to make any sacrifice for a cause you believe in?

I think I clearly pointed out the distinction between soldiering and normal police actions or daycare. Soldiering requires war, and war requires justification, and that justification requires a threat to our way of life. You clearly believe our way of life is threatened. If that is the case, there is no excuse for your complacency.

[Guest coot]

I'm support the war, should I run out and sign up. NO, for starters I have a heart murmur and I'm underweight. I'd fail the medical, would I volunteer my time to help the Canadian Military. Yep I already do, there are many ways one can support the military without burdening them with those of us that aren't fit enough to serve. So if that makes me a coward, so be it. At least I can't serve because I'm unfit not because I'm a coward who needs to make excuses.

You missed the part where I said "able-bodied."

[bush_cheney2004]

What I heard from a US official, was that Canada was NEVER asked to send troopers to Iraq but would take anyhthing like ships and money.

Canadians were in Iraq....Canadian frigates continued picket and interdiction duty for US battle groups. But this is all Canada could have provided...like Gulf War I, Canada simply does not have the force levels to be in Afghanistan and Iraq with significant numbers. PM Chretien knew this, and sat on the fence very well.

[Guest coot]

Logic, common sense.....a few screws....

To those who lived through the world wars, it was second nature for a person to do what they could to achieve victory, and they would even question the patriotism of a person like me who doesn't support his country's military action.

Nowadays, they would be considered to be without "logic, common sense, and a few screws" for expecting others to make any effort whatsoever.

[kengs333]

Canadians were in Iraq

JTF2

[LonJowett]

If that is the case, there is no excuse for your complacency.

Okay, coot, you clearly out-debated these lightweights who could only attempt to change the subject, insult, or misunderstand the meaning of "able-bodied" to come up with a rebuttal, but I think arguing that passive warmongers who avoid service are hypocrites is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. I take issue with them being called immoral though, because, as you said, war is murder. How could avoiding killing people (even if you support others doing the killing for you) be immoral? Because war is, by definition, killing, then war is by definition immoral itself. Avoiding it may be cowardly (and nothing wrong with that, I say), but ultimately they aren't hurting anybody else in the process.

In any case, what's this topic have to do with calling someone a racist? Somebody's trying to change the subject from how this forum is attempting to be a haven for bigots.

[ScottSA]

Okay, coot, you clearly out-debated these lightweights who could only attempt to change the subject, insult, or misunderstand the meaning of "able-bodied" to come up with a rebuttal, but I think arguing that passive warmongers who avoid service are hypocrites is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. I take issue with them being called immoral though, because, as you said, war is murder. How could avoiding killing people (even if you support others doing the killing for you) be immoral? Because war is, by definition, killing, then war is by definition immoral itself. Avoiding it may be cowardly (and nothing wrong with that, I say), but ultimately they aren't hurting anybody else in the process.

In any case, what's this topic have to do with calling someone a racist? Somebody's trying to change the subject from how this forum is attempting to be a haven for bigots.

This kind of post does more to undermine the credibility of the poster than anything anyone else can say.

Edited November 28, 2007 by ScottSA

[Guest coot]

This kind of post does more to undermine the credibility of the poster than anything anyone else can say.

Why? He sounds to me like a hard-core pacifist, a la Gandhi. Do you think Gandhi had no credibility either for believing that there is no jsutification for war under any circumstances? I would say he has a lot more credibility than a passive warmonger who can't even make a coherent argument.

But to lonjowet, I would say there are, indeed, necessary wars, most notably everyone's favourite example---WWII. In fact, I think it would have been immoral to stand by and watch and let Hitler do what he wanted to do.

I respect pacifists in theory; I just don't think they're living in the real world.

Edited November 29, 2007 by coot

[Higgly]

But let's examine this a little closer. You no doubt support police officers, who put themselves in danger everyday, protecting you from the depredations of evil warmongers and werthugs like me, but I assume you're not a cop.

OK, deal with me.

Sure I support cops. They put themselves in danger every day? Yes they do, but their mortality and morbidity rates are lower than fishers and firefighters.

Even more, I support civilian police commissions. Civilian oversight. Don't like it? Work for a security company.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Higgly