Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Kuciwalker]

Possible example: I think Iraq is a good idea. I'm currently a social aid worker. It could very well be that, in my job as a social aid worker, I can do a lot more good than I can as a soldier in Iraq. As I understand your posts, you'd consider me a hypocrite, whereas IMO the only moral choice in that position is to support Iraq but not enlist.

[Az]

Kuci, this example is slightly different - utilitarianism is sort of my territory in this forum.

Hypocricy is always on itself a bad thing, but can be justified if there is a larger benefit at stake.

If we consider a case where a person is rooting for people to go fight on the ground in Iraq, but himself decides not to, he is hypocritical. However he might still be doing the right thing, if the damage done to himself, and to his surrounding is smaller than the added benefit of him serving in another role. This is quite a complex situation, if we include whether any of his roles would be taken by other people, and their degrees of prowess. The ethical value of these actions is rather hard to calculate.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az
If we consider a case where a person is rooting for people to go fight on the ground in Iraq, but himself decides not to, he is hypocritical.

No more than me supporting the fire department putting out fires, and even running into burning buildings to save people, is hypocritical because I haven't volunteered to be a firefighter.

[Az]

No more than me supporting the fire department putting out fires, and even running into burning buildings to save people, is hypocritical because I haven't volunteered to be a firefighter.

Bad analogy:

How about you support a crackdown on street crime, while meanwhile getting a desk job with the police, when you are fully fit to be a street cop?

[Kuciwalker]

Fine, if you're more qualified (and would be more productive) as a paper pusher.

[Az]

Fine, if you're more qualified (and would be more productive) as a paper pusher.

Not necessarily. If you're more qualified as a paperpusher, but your take of the paperpushing job will be instead of an only slightly less qualified person, whereas you were way more qualified in the field position than the person that will take your place in the field, you're still in the wrong.

I may've made a mistake typing it all, so just remind yourself of the relative advantages in international trade shenenigans.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc


I will still repeat my statement. If one is"gung-ho", all worked up, actually, about like you, concerning a dangerous deployment, and then gets the opportunity to go on this deployement, and then does not (and you still do not respond to my point about the push to get people from the Air Force and Navy onto the ground in Iraq) that person is, very simply, a hippocrit.

Not IMHO. By definition. Not as bad as a chickenhawk, those are a paticularly offensive form of hippocrit. But, as long as the opportunity to at least attempt to volunteer is there, and that person does not attempt it,then they are a hippocrit. Now, you specifically are not by YOUR actions. That is why I respect you, even if I very definitely disagree with you.

Ow my Head!

I joined the Navy before the Iraq war started, as a Cryptologic Technician Maintence person. The Navy has almost no billets, none, for a guys with a TS/SCI clearence on the ground in a Warzone. The only two large commands I can think of is the Base in Korea and the the one in Bahrain, whcih are "technically" warzones. To be on the ground in Iraq I would have to go work on a PC (one spot of a CT on each boat) or go TCS with the SEALs. As I'd rather put a bullet in my head than work with those idiots, and running through a mini-BUDS is not my idea of fun, that ain't gonna happen.

The Navy will not (Listen to me), WILL NOT stick you in a billet that requires a lesser security clearence than whatever your maximum is. If the Navy is gonna spend thousands of dollars performing background investigations, polygraphs, blood-samples to prove you've never been cloned, you WILL NOT be allowed to use your "shore" rotation driving a forklift in Iraq or someplace. They will let you push boots, which I always find odd. (Something I wouldn't want to do either, by the way)

Lonestar - you don't know how food stamps work -

Clearly. I was under the impression that if you make x a year but you have y kids then you need z to help get food. Am I right? Or am I grossly misreading it? (If so, please draw me a picture.)

And where did I get my info? From the number of babies at our unit (our as in local) in it was either Fort Campbell, or Fort Know, that were waiting the them when they got back. Go to the Courier-Journal Web site and do a search on some of their articles, they will find it. They even had a curve showing how astronomically high the number of babies were - sorry guy the wartime baby boom, even if it's just local, is well documented time and time again. It's those fairwell f*cks.

Or when guys come home on 2-week furloughs...I know for soldiers based in Germany that's been an issue.

USE CONDOMS! THE DOD PROVIDES THEM FOR FREE!!!!

[Mr. Harley]

Lonestar - (been out of sorts a couple of days, BP medication interaction) - Food Stamps can be calculated off of Net, or Gross. The figure I quoted was "Net", which is calculated after allowances are subtracted from the Gross, or as applied to certain situations like subsidized housing. This avoids the issue of what the value of base housing is. By the way, the housing allowance is grossly understated, I believe it was under $400 which in most urban areas is ridiculously low. However, the Net figure simplifies this, and let's us figure it for an E1 on base. FYI - Food Stamps started off as a military program, due to the number of draftees in WW2 who were not fit due to malnutrition. Strange how programs can metamorphisize over the years.

When it comes to the hypocracy - that's why I was very careful never to state whether you were being one or not, I only stated the a very rational set of criteria to make that judgement. YOU know if you fit that criteria, I happen to know that the military services are making a big push to get people deployed into Iraq. My friend has a high security clearance - he is in intel, after all - and the billet was offered to him.

However, I also know that certain billets would not be permitted to take one that would end up with them deployed in Iraq. One of the two young men I raised in my late twenties was deployed on the Nuke as a tech in the power room - they probably would not let him volunteer for ground service in Iraq, especially now that he is teaching. Just like Patroklos volunteered - you know if you actually had the opportunity. If you didn't, then you weren't a hypocrit. Remember my base premise is that I respect those who serve.

As for civilians who state "They have better things to do," like our wonderful VP Dick Cheney reference the draft, while being gung-ho chickenhawks, contempt is too weak a word for what I feel. Az very nicely summed it up very nicely, with the absolutely most favorable interpretation for those who are "gung-ho" but do not serve. I am a might bit less charitable.

Reference using Condoms - you are not a virgin, right? And when you've had a girlfriend, and she says she is on birth control, you still use condoms every time, right? As in you have NEVER had sex without a condom, right? There is an off chance you can answer the last two questions with a "yes" - I am betting you cannot. In marraige the case is even stronger, i.e. not having a frigging condom on every time. Very often it is the wife, not the husband, who determines if one has children. And having that special person go off to possible death kicks in - I don't know, instinct, social conditioning, whatever it is - and the result is children.