willhud9 wrote:See what Willie71 and others still are not understanding is that no one here has ever said that everything the military does is great and every one who serves in the military is some hero to be worshiped.

Those pictures in a link are awful and from what I gather the people responsible have been tried (at least I hope so because I cannot find anything that says they were not).

But does Willie71 and others think those pictures are the ultimate representation of the US military?

You see the accusation of propaganda cuts both ways. Some one can be constantly around anti-military posts and behaviors and ideologies for so long that they be programed to be the same way instead of free thinking and capable of rationalizing that just like an organization there are pros and cons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Should I judge all British soldiers for the actions of those that engaged in torture, murder, and inhumane ? Should I lambaste Britain for being such an enabling country because it went to war?

Lest anyone forget Canada had the Somalia Affair 23 years ago.

The point being that there are some soldiers that do fucked up things and those soldiers should be penalized by the law for doing those fucked up things and people should recognize that what they did was fucked up.

But that by no means negates every single action by the military nor does it mean when someone supports the actions of a soldier or the support of soldiers that they are pro-military and also supporting the fucked up things done by those soldiers that fucked up. It is a false dilemma to make the argument that supporting the military means unanimous support for everything the military does. There is no evidence of that being the case. And it especially does not mean that those who support the military are indoctrinated to do so. I support the military. I support veterans, and I support the fact that many of them are off overseas doing the bidding of politicians who say they care about them but don't really. But I am not blind to facts, and just because I support our troops does not mean I unanimously agree with everything they do, or every war time decision made by those in charge and I especially have a distaste for inhumane acts of violence against prisoners, women, and children.

It is really, really simple. So there is no explaining anything away. There is a lot of explaining, which is really unfortunate because I know kindergarteners whom already understand how simple this all is.

willhud9 wrote:See what Willie71 and others still are not understanding is that no one here has ever said that everything the military does is great and every one who serves in the military is some hero to be worshiped.

Those pictures in a link are awful and from what I gather the people responsible have been tried (at least I hope so because I cannot find anything that says they were not).

But does Willie71 and others think those pictures are the ultimate representation of the US military?

You see the accusation of propaganda cuts both ways. Some one can be constantly around anti-military posts and behaviors and ideologies for so long that they be programed to be the same way instead of free thinking and capable of rationalizing that just like an organization there are pros and cons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Should I judge all British soldiers for the actions of those that engaged in torture, murder, and inhumane ? Should I lambaste Britain for being such an enabling country because it went to war?

Lest anyone forget Canada had the Somalia Affair 23 years ago.

The point being that there are some soldiers that do fucked up things and those soldiers should be penalized by the law for doing those fucked up things and people should recognize that what they did was fucked up.

But that by no means negates every single action by the military nor does it mean when someone supports the actions of a soldier or the support of soldiers that they are pro-military and also supporting the fucked up things done by those soldiers that fucked up. It is a false dilemma to make the argument that supporting the military means unanimous support for everything the military does. There is no evidence of that being the case. And it especially does not mean that those who support the military are indoctrinated to do so. I support the military. I support veterans, and I support the fact that many of them are off overseas doing the bidding of politicians who say they care about them but don't really. But I am not blind to facts, and just because I support our troops does not mean I unanimously agree with everything they do, or every war time decision made by those in charge and I especially have a distaste for inhumane acts of violence against prisoners, women, and children.

It is really, really simple. So there is no explaining anything away. There is a lot of explaining, which is really unfortunate because I know kindergarteners whom already understand how simple this all is.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:See what Willie71 and others still are not understanding is that no one here has ever said that everything the military does is great and every one who serves in the military is some hero to be worshiped.

Those pictures in a link are awful and from what I gather the people responsible have been tried (at least I hope so because I cannot find anything that says they were not).

But does Willie71 and others think those pictures are the ultimate representation of the US military?

You see the accusation of propaganda cuts both ways. Some one can be constantly around anti-military posts and behaviors and ideologies for so long that they be programed to be the same way instead of free thinking and capable of rationalizing that just like an organization there are pros and cons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Should I judge all British soldiers for the actions of those that engaged in torture, murder, and inhumane ? Should I lambaste Britain for being such an enabling country because it went to war?

Lest anyone forget Canada had the Somalia Affair 23 years ago.

The point being that there are some soldiers that do fucked up things and those soldiers should be penalized by the law for doing those fucked up things and people should recognize that what they did was fucked up.

But that by no means negates every single action by the military nor does it mean when someone supports the actions of a soldier or the support of soldiers that they are pro-military and also supporting the fucked up things done by those soldiers that fucked up. It is a false dilemma to make the argument that supporting the military means unanimous support for everything the military does. There is no evidence of that being the case. And it especially does not mean that those who support the military are indoctrinated to do so. I support the military. I support veterans, and I support the fact that many of them are off overseas doing the bidding of politicians who say they care about them but don't really. But I am not blind to facts, and just because I support our troops does not mean I unanimously agree with everything they do, or every war time decision made by those in charge and I especially have a distaste for inhumane acts of violence against prisoners, women, and children.

It is really, really simple. So there is no explaining anything away. There is a lot of explaining, which is really unfortunate because I know kindergarteners whom already understand how simple this all is.

Dahmer was a nice guy too, well, except for the murder thing.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Well said Will!

The sad part is that it even had to be said at all on a forum devoted to rationalism and skepticism. Explaining it to young children is understandable since they’re still in the process of assimilating ideas, concepts, making value judgements and so on. However, to have to explain it on a forum such as this is simply mind-boggling... simply mind-boggling.

Skinny Puppy wrote:...

An intelligent and productive post which addressed and (from an opposing POV) dismantled the many points that he raised would have been welcome, but instead all he received is a pathetic, puerile and childish Henny Younman one-liner.

...

Boyle wrote:

willhud9 wrote:See what Willie71 and others still are not understanding is that no one here has ever said that everything the military does is great and every one who serves in the military is some hero to be worshiped.

Those pictures in a link are awful and from what I gather the people responsible have been tried (at least I hope so because I cannot find anything that says they were not).

But does Willie71 and others think those pictures are the ultimate representation of the US military?

You see the accusation of propaganda cuts both ways. Some one can be constantly around anti-military posts and behaviors and ideologies for so long that they be programed to be the same way instead of free thinking and capable of rationalizing that just like an organization there are pros and cons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Should I judge all British soldiers for the actions of those that engaged in torture, murder, and inhumane ? Should I lambaste Britain for being such an enabling country because it went to war?

Lest anyone forget Canada had the Somalia Affair 23 years ago.

The point being that there are some soldiers that do fucked up things and those soldiers should be penalized by the law for doing those fucked up things and people should recognize that what they did was fucked up.

But that by no means negates every single action by the military nor does it mean when someone supports the actions of a soldier or the support of soldiers that they are pro-military and also supporting the fucked up things done by those soldiers that fucked up. It is a false dilemma to make the argument that supporting the military means unanimous support for everything the military does. There is no evidence of that being the case. And it especially does not mean that those who support the military are indoctrinated to do so. I support the military. I support veterans, and I support the fact that many of them are off overseas doing the bidding of politicians who say they care about them but don't really. But I am not blind to facts, and just because I support our troops does not mean I unanimously agree with everything they do, or every war time decision made by those in charge and I especially have a distaste for inhumane acts of violence against prisoners, women, and children.

It is really, really simple. So there is no explaining anything away. There is a lot of explaining, which is really unfortunate because I know kindergarteners whom already understand how simple this all is.

Support them how? I hear this all the time. What, exactly, about my mission do you support?

The_Metatron wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:...

An intelligent and productive post which addressed and (from an opposing POV) dismantled the many points that he raised would have been welcome, but instead all he received is a pathetic, puerile and childish Henny Younman one-liner.

...

I know, man. Nothing like those sophisticated images you like to post, eh?

You've long ago used up the credibility to make such a critique.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

willhud9 wrote:

Boyle wrote:

willhud9 wrote:See what Willie71 and others still are not understanding is that no one here has ever said that everything the military does is great and every one who serves in the military is some hero to be worshiped.

Those pictures in a link are awful and from what I gather the people responsible have been tried (at least I hope so because I cannot find anything that says they were not).

But does Willie71 and others think those pictures are the ultimate representation of the US military?

You see the accusation of propaganda cuts both ways. Some one can be constantly around anti-military posts and behaviors and ideologies for so long that they be programed to be the same way instead of free thinking and capable of rationalizing that just like an organization there are pros and cons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Should I judge all British soldiers for the actions of those that engaged in torture, murder, and inhumane ? Should I lambaste Britain for being such an enabling country because it went to war?

Lest anyone forget Canada had the Somalia Affair 23 years ago.

The point being that there are some soldiers that do fucked up things and those soldiers should be penalized by the law for doing those fucked up things and people should recognize that what they did was fucked up.

But that by no means negates every single action by the military nor does it mean when someone supports the actions of a soldier or the support of soldiers that they are pro-military and also supporting the fucked up things done by those soldiers that fucked up. It is a false dilemma to make the argument that supporting the military means unanimous support for everything the military does. There is no evidence of that being the case. And it especially does not mean that those who support the military are indoctrinated to do so. I support the military. I support veterans, and I support the fact that many of them are off overseas doing the bidding of politicians who say they care about them but don't really. But I am not blind to facts, and just because I support our troops does not mean I unanimously agree with everything they do, or every war time decision made by those in charge and I especially have a distaste for inhumane acts of violence against prisoners, women, and children.

It is really, really simple. So there is no explaining anything away. There is a lot of explaining, which is really unfortunate because I know kindergarteners whom already understand how simple this all is.

Support them how? I hear this all the time. What, exactly, about my mission do you support?

I 1) Support and hope that all military members are safe and taken care of overseas.
2) Support and hope that all military members are not used as pawns by an overreaching government
3) Support the rights of all military members to come home from unnecessary wars.
4) Support and realize that while I have no substantial ability to bring them home, I will continue to support via morale the constant struggle deployed troops have to go through.

That is for oversea military members.

For veterans:

1) I support the right of all veterans to get quick and expediated health care. PTSD is not a fun thing and it is underdiagnosed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10426462
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259292814_Post-Traumatic_stress_disorder_An_under-diagnosed_and_under-treated_entity
2) I support the right of veterans to be treated by the government with due respect. For 17 years my father was told to do x, y, and z by the government and when they finally released him he was out on his own. Near the last days of his life he was struggling to find work, his health was failing, and he was struggling to afford the mortgage that provided a home for his wife, and two children. He had to struggle with the VA to get anything done, and even then he ended up dying from a heart attack when his doctor promised him a catheter several months before he passed away. Veterans should be treated a hell of a lot better than that. Yes this one is personal.
3) Many veterans come back unable to adjust. There needs to be more open and active support groups. I support the implementations of such groups.


These are just some of the things I mean by I support our troops/veterans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-astore/support-our-troops-what-i_b_832030.html

But as this HuffPo article suggests I am no way under the delusion that support our troops means blind acceptance of everything my government makes the US military do.

Hope that answers your question.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:...

An intelligent and productive post which addressed and (from an opposing POV) dismantled the many points that he raised would have been welcome, but instead all he received is a pathetic, puerile and childish Henny Younman one-liner.

...

I know, man. Nothing like those sophisticated images you like to post, eh?

You've long ago used up the credibility to make such a critique.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And you’ve used up your credibility to know that one doesn’t knock the poster, one knocks the post.

Regardless of how many pictures I post, don’t post, never post or always post… your reply has F-all to do with that post.

Regardless of what I do, don’t do, never do or always do… your reply still has F-all to do with that post.

Here's an example:

Poster A: ‘I think that X’s sentence is ridiculous because…’

Poster B: ‘Of course you’d say that, you’re fat!’

Sound familiar?

Over 16,000 posts and you still don’t get it?

How ‘bout addressing the post I wrote (with regards to Will's post) rather than failing (miserably) to address the actual post and its contents…

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:See what Willie71 and others still are not understanding is that no one here has ever said that everything the military does is great and every one who serves in the military is some hero to be worshiped.

Those pictures in a link are awful and from what I gather the people responsible have been tried (at least I hope so because I cannot find anything that says they were not).

But does Willie71 and others think those pictures are the ultimate representation of the US military?

You see the accusation of propaganda cuts both ways. Some one can be constantly around anti-military posts and behaviors and ideologies for so long that they be programed to be the same way instead of free thinking and capable of rationalizing that just like an organization there are pros and cons.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/iraq-torture-claims-new-allegations-against-british-soldiers-to-go-to-international-criminal-court-9923409.html

Should I judge all British soldiers for the actions of those that engaged in torture, murder, and inhumane ? Should I lambaste Britain for being such an enabling country because it went to war?

Lest anyone forget Canada had the Somalia Affair 23 years ago.

The point being that there are some soldiers that do fucked up things and those soldiers should be penalized by the law for doing those fucked up things and people should recognize that what they did was fucked up.

But that by no means negates every single action by the military nor does it mean when someone supports the actions of a soldier or the support of soldiers that they are pro-military and also supporting the fucked up things done by those soldiers that fucked up. It is a false dilemma to make the argument that supporting the military means unanimous support for everything the military does. There is no evidence of that being the case. And it especially does not mean that those who support the military are indoctrinated to do so. I support the military. I support veterans, and I support the fact that many of them are off overseas doing the bidding of politicians who say they care about them but don't really. But I am not blind to facts, and just because I support our troops does not mean I unanimously agree with everything they do, or every war time decision made by those in charge and I especially have a distaste for inhumane acts of violence against prisoners, women, and children.

It is really, really simple. So there is no explaining anything away. There is a lot of explaining, which is really unfortunate because I know kindergarteners whom already understand how simple this all is.

Dahmer was a nice guy too, well, except for the murder thing.

I pity poor Will; all of the time and effort that he expended explaining his POV and all he receives in reply is an answer that would shame, brutally shame even a 2-year-old.

An intelligent and productive post which addressed and (from an opposing POV) dismantled the many points that he raised would have been welcome, but instead all he received is a pathetic, puerile and childish Henny Younman one-liner.

I wrote this earlier:

Skinny Puppy wrote:
Well said Will!

The sad part is that it even had to be said at all on a forum devoted to rationalism and skepticism. Explaining it to young children is understandable since they’re still in the process of assimilating ideas, concepts, making value judgements and so on. However, to have to explain it on a forum such as this is simply mind-boggling... simply mind-boggling.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=2374545#p2374545

At the time I had no idea just how stupid a sentence could actually be written in reply to his post.

The_Metatron wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:...

An intelligent and productive post which addressed and (from an opposing POV) dismantled the many points that he raised would have been welcome, but instead all he received is a pathetic, puerile and childish Henny Younman one-liner.

...

I know, man. Nothing like those sophisticated images you like to post, eh?

You've long ago used up the credibility to make such a critique.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And you’ve used up your credibility to know that one doesn’t knock the poster, one knocks the post.

Regardless of how many pictures I post, don’t post, never post or always post… your reply has F-all to do with that post.

Regardless of what I do, don’t do, never do or always do… your reply still has F-all to do with that post.

Here's an example:

Poster A: ‘I think that X’s sentence is ridiculous because…’

Poster B: ‘Of course you’d say that, you’re fat!’

Sound familiar?

Over 16,000 posts and you still don’t get it?

How ‘bout addressing the post I wrote (with regards to Will's post) rather than failing (miserably) to address the actual post and its contents…


The_Metatron wrote:
Never heard that approach before. You get your ass handed to you, and you whine about getting attacked.

You have a command of English. I've seen it. Now, take a close look at your "Poster B" example above. See the attack there? "...you're fat!" Note the form? "You are <insert epithet here>". Now, take a really hard look at what I wrote. Take your time, I can wait. Ask for help if you must.

What you see is commentary on your critique of another's posting style. Very much like your critique of Willie71's post in which you called it "pathetic, puerile and childish". Your use of cute little graphics is equally pathetic, puerile and childish. The implication is that you lack the standing to criticize in others what you do yourself.

How does that work then? You get to say whatever you want about others' posts, but yours aren't subject to the same treatment? That's convenient for you, isn't it?

That's more than a little full of shit, isn't it?

FUA
1.2.c. You may robustly criticise the content posted by other members but may not direct criticism towards the members themselves.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:It was a criticism of you to the exact same extent your obnoxious contributions are criticisms of others. It was just far more direct and honest.

Yeah, it was critical of how you conduct yourself on this forum. That's exactly what you do whenever you criticise and condescend and dismiss the contributions of others here.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

FUA
1.2.c. You may robustly criticise the content posted by other members but may not direct criticism towards the members themselves.

Your post here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/viewtopic.php?p=2374652#p2374652

Did not address my post in any way, shape or form, it was (in its entirety) criticising me personally.

And I’m sorry; I have no intention to ‘shut it’ as you’ve so quaintly put it.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:It was a criticism of you to the exact same extent your obnoxious contributions are criticisms of others. It was just far more direct and honest.

Yeah, it was critical of how you conduct yourself on this forum. That's exactly what you do whenever you criticise and condescend and dismiss the contributions of others here.