Some People think all Veterans Are Evil

[SlowwHand]

15 people in Oklahoma. We've thrown a lot more that that into the river and told them to swim north. You better count again.

[Kidlicious]

I don't care. I'm going to watch everything go to hell here, in Texas and in every state. Then I'm moving to Cuba.

[SlowwHand]

Ok, then. I hope you don't crash head-on into all those bastards swimming to here.
Good luck!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ok, then. I hope you don't crash head-on into all those bastards swimming to here.
Good luck!

I hope I do crash head on to them... with my speed boat.

[SlowwHand]

Take out as many as you can manage.

[Kidlicious]

Meh, I couldn't really do it, because of family and all. I guess I'll just have to suffer here.

[SlowwHand]

Ever been to Lake Eufaula? That looks nice. I want to get to Beaver's Bend area someday, in the s.e.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ever been to Lake Eufaula? That looks nice. I want to get to Beaver's Bend area someday, in the s.e.

I've been to Tulsa, and a few towns around Oklahoma City, and that's it. I just got a car this year, but I've been to broke to go on any trips.

[SlowwHand]

Camp.

[Kidlicious]

Yea. I love to go camping. I hope to pretty soon. My son is 10 now. He'll like it a lot more than he used to.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aeson


Having talk of veterans in a thread talking of veterans is not anarchy. Sorry. The owner's of this site can do as they wish, we don't have free speech here, but I do still find it hypocritical to try to limit discussion of a topic, in a thread specifically for discussion of said topic, to only discussion of the topic which is from the "proper" viewpoint... when the topic is one which is supposedly honoring those who served to protect the right of free speech.



Who are you quoting? And where? I specifically was talking about Che's statement in the Remembrance thread. He said there, "If there were no vets, there would necessarily have been no wars." The wording matters. (I am sure you can see the difference between the quotes so will not bother to explain.)

I think the order matters - saying "no vets -> no wars" means you blame the existence of vets for wars. It's obviously the opposite - wars create veterans, of course. If he meant "If there were no wars, then there would not have been any veterans", then he should have said that. (It's also logically fallacious in any event - it is certainly possible to have a war without any veterans. It simply means there were no survivors...)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think the order matters - saying "no vets -> no wars" means you blame the existence of vets for wars. It's obviously the opposite - wars create veterans, of course. If he meant "If there were no wars, then there would not have been any veterans", then he should have said that.

The exact phrase you are referencing is technically correct (with the exception noted below) and does not assign "blame" in-and-of-itself.

(It's also logically fallacious in any event - it is certainly possible to have a war without any veterans. It simply means there were no survivors...)

The term "veteran" encompasses those who died in action as well.

It is possible though to have a war without any veterans. (Using the definition of "veteran" used in reference to "veterans day" at least.) A war fought with no human participants would qualify. Perhaps some future war fought between AI (who hypothetically are not given veteran status for whatever reason) will be such.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Aeson


Having talk of veterans in a thread talking of veterans is not anarchy. Sorry. The owner's of this site can do as they wish, we don't have free speech here, but I do still find it hypocritical to try to limit discussion of a topic, in a thread specifically for discussion of said topic, to only discussion of the topic which is from the "proper" viewpoint... when the topic is one which is supposedly honoring those who served to protect the right of free speech.



Who are you quoting? And where? I specifically was talking about Che's statement in the Remembrance thread. He said there, "If there were no vets, there would necessarily have been no wars." The wording matters. (I am sure you can see the difference between the quotes so will not bother to explain.)

That wasn't his complete thought in that post.

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
If there were no vets, there would necessarily have been no wars.

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
BK, classy input.

Not really. The poem is dedicated to evil. Rather than opposing war, it asks for people to join in the struggle (and make the world safe for British imperialism).

I am not sorry to say, but if you want to walk up to me as I read that poem and tell me it is evil, I will punch your lights out.

Let's just say we'll both be expressing ourselves freely and I'll take my chances with a jury.

[Aeson]

Vets and wars are homogeneous, offered without qualification in the first phrase. (As they are in my own statements that sparked the discussion between Snoopy and I.)

The specific acts described in the poem are being linked to evil. It's separate subject matter. The "evil" being referenced is Che's view of British imperialism. (I myself do not know the background of the poem so did not comment on that.)

[notyoueither]

That seperate subject matter is part of what che chose to unload on us.

The blurb about no vets having meant no wars was not his complete expression.

I expected such expression in the thread today, afterall I've seen others in the past and was under no illusions about modesty when it comes to the moral superiority of a bunch of pimply kids behind compter screens who have experienced no greater hardship than a shortage of ice cream or the game disk being scratched.

Che of course is going to protest. He has seen hardship. He has had to collect unemployment and, gasp, he had to find another job before it ran out!

However, the comrade was not content to leave off with a statement we would all have marvelled at the widom of. No. He instead ploughed on like a deranged yak in the last mudhole to enlighten us on how a poem that is used to mark the service of vets not only of wars but peacekeeping is somehow evil.

Well. I only have one thing to say to such nonsense. It's nonsense. Say that nonsense to my face. I dare you.

I have zero understanding of it, and I don't feel any is merited. If you want to be so profoundly ignorant and smear said ignorance in the faces of others, you deserve the ass whipping you have coming to you.

Feel free to be morally superior as you receive it, BTW. Far be it from me to frustrate your feelings of worth.