! MisGuided Rhetoric !

[telkanuru]

Funny how that dosn't actually happen in all those other places that have gun laws. Oops?

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Funny how that dosn't actually happen in all those other places that have gun laws. Oops?

Untrue. As a matter of fact, DC's gun prohibition has resulted in such a sustained and demonstrable increase in violence and other crimes against law-abiding urban poor, that the US Congress is now planning to step in and overrule the DC laws.

[telkanuru]

Actually, I was referring to England, as it is rather easy to step outside of DC and purchase a firearm. Somehow 60 odd yearly gun deaths in a country that more or less prohibits all guns versus our 10,000 seems disproportionate. Perhaps large scale test scenarios are better than localized ones, no?

Gah. We really need to stop with the gun debates.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Oh for crying out loud. The military is opposed to a draft, because its all-volunteer force is of a much higher caliber than what they'd have under a draft. And as for the upper classes being more likely to serve if there was a draft, just who do you think got out of it back when there was one?

You're kidding, right?
Higher caliber in the volunteer force?
Uhhh, not.
Weapon systems today are so technically advanced with significantly more complex operational instuctions and requirements, which is one of the reasons we are seeing more contractors there now, in harm's way, providing the higher level of support.
The armed services would benefit from the draft again - except for the resistence - and would do well to have these better educated men and women.

[Soldier]

No offense, Maeve_Mari, but you speak from what kind of military experience, again? There's still infantry, out pounding the ground with hand-held weapons. Those tanks and aircraft are still driven by people. Morale and motivation have huge effects on this, and whether you volunteered or were drafted has a huge effect on morale.

Ask anyone with any kind of leadership experience in the military, and they'll tell you two things:
1. Technology does not mitigate these human factors.
2. A volunteer force is of a much higher caliber than a drafted force.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No offense, Maeve_Mari, but you speak from what kind of military experience, again? There's still infantry, out pounding the ground with hand-held weapons. Those tanks and aircraft are still driven by people. Morale and motivation have huge effects on this, and whether you volunteered or were drafted has a huge effect on morale.

Ask anyone with any kind of leadership experience in the military, and they'll tell you two things:
1. Technology does not mitigate these human factors.
2. A volunteer force is of a much higher caliber than a drafted force.

Well, that's why I clarified my comment with the "other than the resistence." Morale and motivation are going to be difficult hurdles if there was a today's draft, but the basic caliber of the individuals would be higher than what the volunteer services are getting right now.

And, yes I do have a background and experience in military sciences, and althought it ages me to admit, it is of longer duration than you have years.

[Soldier]

And exactly what experience is this?

Yes, maybe we'd get more technically-sound people. But there's a reason for enlisted technical school, a requirement of a degree for officers, and, of course, specific training while in the service.

And "other than the resistance" is still a huge omission.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Are you back in England pestering Louweasel again?

LOL!

No, and Moses didn't speak English, either, but pick up the nearest motel Bible and voila...

The argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy pertains not to citing and authority but to citing an extraneous or inexpert authority. Thus to advert to, say, Adam Smith or Milton Friedman on a matter of economics would
( probably ) be valid; to advert to Albert Einstein would not. The latter is an authority, to be sure, but not regarding economics.

Aristotle is the ur-authority on logic, and he first explained the fallacy in question, so you can't have a more apposite authority on the matter than that...


But the fact that you linked the two implies that YOU think "pacifist" is some sort of dirty word...

I give up.

( Not really. )

In haste, then off to Zurich and then Frankfurt... I dont think I will see Louweasel this time, tho will be briefly in UK....

Of course Moses speaks English - I saw Charlton Heston play him in the movies. .Anyway, I would say that Aristotle is far from the last word in logic, and using a general aphorism as a final debate weapon is far too inclusive. It presupposes an equivalence of condition(moral and otherwise) that is asserted but not proven.

Later, auf Deutsch...

[Inquartata]

Piffle! Aristotle, at least with regard to the fallacies he identified and iterated, has only been confirmed and elaborated upon by logicians since. None to my knowledge has quarrelled with them or asserted that they are false. None has argued that they may be modified, dispensed with or disregarded situationally, or when there is sufficient moral weight to the question at issue.

So I'm afraid that you are all by yourself on that one. Logically, that is.

And my name is not Auf Deutsch.

[geezer]

Hum....Logos vs. Tao...how will we ever decide....?

[damion18d]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Actually, I was referring to England, as it is rather easy to step outside of DC and purchase a firearm. Somehow 60 odd yearly gun deaths in a country that more or less prohibits all guns versus our 10,000 seems disproportionate. Perhaps large scale test scenarios are better than localized ones, no?

Gah. We really need to stop with the gun debates.

That maybe the answer and that maybe great if this were England. BUT oh that's right it's not. England doesn't share many of America's problems, so on it's face that's a pretty p!ss poor arguement.

[telkanuru]

"well, we're not them" is a pretty piss-poor argument.

[40Saberthieves]

Why then does the majority of the active military vote republican?

[telkanuru]

Why then do you come up with a complete nonsequitur?

I could have numerous takes on that ranging from the offensive (military intelligence being oxymoronic) to the valid (republicans give the military more money). In any case, I object to your claim that republican == gun supporter and that being in the military implies that you must support the complete legalization of guns. All generalizations are false (except for that generalization).

[Soldier]

Who made that claim?

[telkanuru]

I can see no other reason for RogueNine's statement. If you say in a debate about guns that "the majority of the active military vote republican", this to me is the claim above.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

This service rivalry: if I were in charge, I would tell those involved - in no uncertain terms - to shut up and start sounding like a team.


A question for the military types out there: Are there really high-ranked officers (or politicians with duties pertaining to the military) voicing my opinion above?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Peter-
Many people have tried and failed to curtail service rivalry. Sailors and Marines fight each other until the Army MPs show up. Then we beat up the MPs and tell the Airmen watching the fight from under the table that they can leave without getting busted. Everybody then runs (staggers, carries their buddies) for their respective base. We unite and act like a team when their is a common enemy. The guy who I was fighting the night before might be the guy who saves my bacon the next day or vice-versa. No hard feelings about it.

[Soldier]

Much better put, gojujay.

[damion18d]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

"well, we're not them" is a pretty piss-poor argument.

To this one little snide sentence I must have wrote for an hour. Then I stopped and realized that no matter how much no matter how clever you and I will never ever agree. I refuse to cease though. I just think you and I should excuse ourselves to the PM so there is no interuption. No opportunity to side step questions. No outside influence.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Peter-
Many people have tried and failed to curtail service rivalry. Sailors and Marines fight each other until the Army MPs show up. Then we beat up the MPs and tell the Airmen watching the fight from under the table that they can leave without getting busted. Everybody then runs (staggers, carries their buddies) for their respective base. We unite and act like a team when their is a common enemy. The guy who I was fighting the night before might be the guy who saves my bacon the next day or vice-versa. No hard feelings about it.

Well it becomes even more fun when the rivalry is between services and regiments in the same branch. Airborne vs infantry vs armour vs artillery vs REMF. Seriously though, as troops you get trained and encouraged to fight. Who are you gonna pick a fight with? Some namby civvie who's gonna call the cops and sue your wife or some bad *** fellow soldier who, coincidentally, is from a rival unit and has a big mouth? The attitude that seems to elude most civvies is that there is a vast difference between a drunken brawl and a real fight.

Hope this helps.