Switch Theme:

Pentagon says women will now serve in front line ground combat positions  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Avatar of the Bloody-Handed God






Inside your mind, corrupting the pathways

True, but ignoring the fact that the majority of those serving in armed forces around the world encounter about as much danger in their day to day job as pretty much anyone else.

Less if your government doesn't enjoy sending your colleages out to exciting and exotic places with oil.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 SilverMK2 wrote:
True, but ignoring the fact that the majority of those serving in armed forces around the world encounter about as much danger in their day to day job as pretty much anyone else.

Less if your government doesn't enjoy sending your colleages out to exciting and exotic places with oil.


They're still the ones on the hook if something needs done though. McDonald's employees and street sweepers aren't going to be the ones getting the call. They are still putting the needs of their fellow countrymen before that of their own safety and their own desires.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/06 00:17:29


   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord







So this is like, what? Volunteer Comfort Corps?

I'm sure soldiers will be devastated with this news...


   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 Medium of Death wrote:
So this is like, what? Volunteer Comfort Corps?

I'm sure soldiers will be devastated with this news...



What are you talking about?

   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

 Hordini wrote:
 Ashiraya wrote:
Nothing. There is no more 'honor' or 'glory' in being a soldier than working at McDonalds or being a street cleaner.

I will respect you based on your behaviour, and you could be John Rambo for all I care otherwise.


There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others. If you believe in the concept of honor at all, claiming that there is no honor in service and claiming that there is no honor in risking life and limb so others don't have to is a pretty difficult one to make. And if you don't believe in honor then why even mention it?


Alternatively, they sign up for the money, or because they enjoy killing, or because they think ME people deserve to die and this is a legal way to getv started. You can't know someone's intentions just because they're a soldier. There is nothing difficult at all about it.

To quote a wise person, 'the position alone is not inherently worthy of respect, given how many horrible things soldiers have done in the past.' War is risky, that's true. Being a window cleaner on very tall buildings is risky as well. You know the risks when you take the job. And you get paid for your trouble.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/06 00:43:28


Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 Ashiraya wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
 Ashiraya wrote:
Nothing. There is no more 'honor' or 'glory' in being a soldier than working at McDonalds or being a street cleaner.

I will respect you based on your behaviour, and you could be John Rambo for all I care otherwise.


There's nothing wrong with working at McDonald's or being a street cleaner. That said, soldiers willingly put themselves into harms way for the benefit of others. If you believe in the concept of honor at all, claiming that there is no honor in service and claiming that there is no honor in risking life and limb so others don't have to is a pretty difficult one to make. And if you don't believe in honor then why even mention it?


Alternatively, they sign up for the money, or because they enjoy killing, or because they think ME people deserve to die and this is a legal way to start. You can't know someone's intentions just because they're a soldier.

To quote a wise person, 'the position alone is not inherently worthy of respect, given how many horrible things soldiers have done in the past.' War is risky, that's true. Being a window cleaner on very tall buildings is risky as well. You know the risks when you take the job. And you get paid for your trouble.



It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.

   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

 Hordini wrote:


It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.


It is all about the intentions. If someone is going to give you a gift, but they drop it and it breaks right before they can give it to you, most people would be grateful for the intention even if there was no result.


Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Hordini wrote:
It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.


So a sadistic murderer who joins the military because they get to kill people legally deserves credit for "honor"?

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 Ashiraya wrote:
 Hordini wrote:


It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.


It is all about the intentions. If someone is going to give you a gift, but they drop it and it breaks right before they can give it to you, most people would be grateful for the intention even if there was no result.




Actions matter more than intentions, and to argue otherwise is completely spurious. All throughout history, there are countless examples of how people who actually do things are taken more seriously and given more credence than people who intended to do things. I'm not saying good intentions are bad, and in the case that you have provided I would certainly be appreciative - but it's because they actually got a gift. A better example might be, if someone kept saying they intended to do something and never did.

   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord







I think people confuse the bravery of soldiers with the stupidity of command/politicians.

Your soldiers might not be fighting the battles that you want them to but they go and and do it regardless.

The recent resurgence of this attitude has probably been perpetuated by the misuse and abuse of Western armed forces over the last 2 decades.

It's a complex situation but you can hardly dismiss every single soldier because one or two might no be in it for honourable/patriotic intentions.

It's safe to assume the vast majority of them are.

 Hordini wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
So this is like, what? Volunteer Comfort Corps?

I'm sure soldiers will be devastated with this news...



What are you talking about?


I was making the suggestion that men might enjoy having women around.

It wasn't a super serious comment.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 Peregrine wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
It's not about their intentions. It's about their actual actions. The one thing that they all have in common, regardless of intentions, is that they are putting themselves at greater risk so that the overwhelming majority of the population doesn't have to.


So a sadistic murderer who joins the military because they get to kill people legally deserves credit for "honor"?


Sadistic murderers don't tend to make it far in the military, if they can even get in at all. If they do successfully gain entry and proceed to commit sadistic murders and get caught, they go to prison.

It's interesting that the "sadistic murderer" angle keeps getting brought up by people who seem to think that there is no honor in service for others.

   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

 Hordini wrote:
Actions matter more than intentions, and to argue otherwise is completely spurious.


There is nothing at all spurious about it. Actions is what you do now, but intentions reflect what happens in the future, and it tells us far more about the person who we are supposed to respect or not.

Also see what Peregrine said.

Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 Medium of Death wrote:
I think people confuse the bravery of soldiers with the stupidity of command/politicians.

Your soldiers might not be fighting the battles that you want them to but they go and and do it regardless.

The recent resurgence of this attitude has probably been perpetuated by the misuse and abuse of Western armed forces over the last 2 decades.

It's a complex situation but you can hardly dismiss every single soldier because one or two might no be in it for honourable/patriotic intentions.

It's safe to assume the vast majority of them are.

 Hordini wrote:
 Medium of Death wrote:
So this is like, what? Volunteer Comfort Corps?

I'm sure soldiers will be devastated with this news...



What are you talking about?


I was making the suggestion that men might enjoy having women around.

It wasn't a super serious comment.


Isn't that why the Emperor needed a Whoremaster? To see to the comfort of his Marine legions?

That being said, I think this conversation is interesting in how, to my view, the opinions seem to be formed along conservative and liberal lines as I perceive the various posters. Both sides intelligent, but opposed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/06 01:06:23


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




I've always had mixed feelings about respecting soldiers just cause they saw action or respecting a person just because they were in the military. Just to clarify I was in the military and I saw action(although I don't discuss it with anyone, nit even my father who was in Vietnam). But I didn't do it to get respect or be called a hero. I mentioned earlier in this thread that people who choose to respect vets should do so irregardless if they saw combat or not.

I used to say "respect is earned not given". I knew plenty of lame asses in the military. From all branches. I also met the best people I've ever known in the military. I also determine a person's worthiness of respect by their actions, Not their job.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Hordini wrote:
Sadistic murderers don't tend to make it far in the military, if they can even get in at all. If they do successfully gain entry and proceed to commit sadistic murders and get caught, they go to prison.


I don't mean someone who murders illegally once the military gives them a gun, I mean someone who joins the military because they want to blow stuff up and kill people. There's no "getting caught" because they're killing the enemy in battle within the laws of war and the military. They're just doing it because they want to kill people, not because they're sacrificing their own safety to protect others. Should this person really be given credit for their "service"? Or should we recognize that they're just a horrible person who found a clever loophole to let them kill people legally?

It's interesting that the "sadistic murderer" angle keeps getting brought up by people who seem to think that there is no honor in service for others.


That's a nice straw man, but it isn't true. I never disagreed with the idea that there is (or at least can be) honor in service to others, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of claiming that we shouldn't care about intent. If someone joins the military for dishonorable reasons then they shouldn't be given "honor" credit just because they're wearing a uniform.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord







Relapse wrote:
Isn't that why the Emperor needed a Whoremaster? To see to the comfort of his Marine legions?


Whoreus Loosercu... [REDACTED BY THE ORDO ABSTAINICUS]

   
Made in gb
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





Colne, England

I dunno, my cousin joined up as he clearly likes blowing things up (chemistry degree and heading for bomb disposal, was the last I heard), so honour is what you make of it I suppose.

Also the thing about one standard being set and equal opportunity not equal outcome needs to be repeated several times if necessary.

Brb learning to play.

 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 Peregrine wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
Sadistic murderers don't tend to make it far in the military, if they can even get in at all. If they do successfully gain entry and proceed to commit sadistic murders and get caught, they go to prison.


I don't mean someone who murders illegally once the military gives them a gun, I mean someone who joins the military because they want to blow stuff up and kill people. There's no "getting caught" because they're killing the enemy in battle within the laws of war and the military. They're just doing it because they want to kill people, not because they're sacrificing their own safety to protect others. Should this person really be given credit for their "service"? Or should we recognize that they're just a horrible person who found a clever loophole to let them kill people legally?

It's interesting that the "sadistic murderer" angle keeps getting brought up by people who seem to think that there is no honor in service for others.


That's a nice straw man, but it isn't true. I never disagreed with the idea that there is (or at least can be) honor in service to others, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of claiming that we shouldn't care about intent. If someone joins the military for dishonorable reasons then they shouldn't be given "honor" credit just because they're wearing a uniform.


It's not a straw man, it's just something that I noticed that actually happened in this thread. I assumed (wrongly) that you were arguing in support of an argument that appeared to be being made by another poster. My bad on that. I suppose I'm being a bit too radical in claiming that intent doesn't matter at all, and on further reflection I don't think I really believe that. Perhaps it would be better to rephrase it as I think that intent matters, but I think that in general, actual actions matter more.

I think I was a bit riled by the statement that being a soldier is no more honorable profession than working at McDonald's or being a street sweeper. And again, while there is nothing wrong with either of those jobs, I still think that, in general, being a soldier is an honorable profession, due to the fact that regardless of one's reasons for joining, that person is willingly putting their own well-being and security behind that of others, so that others don't have to. If someone has murderous intentions, then no, that is not honorable and they shouldn't be honored for those murderous intentions. But that someone is still potentially putting themselves in harms way in order to protect others. I also think those people are in the minority and that doesn't detract from the profession as a whole. Just as if someone who works at McDonald's because they want to spit in people's food doesn't make working at McDonald's a bad thing. The difference with the military is that it requires its members to give up their own safety and security to ensure the security and safety of others. To me, that's honorable. If an individual soldier or groups of soldiers do bad things, which has obviously happened, that is a horrible thing and should be (and is) widely condemned. That doesn't mean that the ideal that soldiers should strive for, that of service to others above themselves, isn't honorable.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




 Medium of Death wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Isn't that why the Emperor needed a Whoremaster? To see to the comfort of his Marine legions?


Whoreus Loosercu... [REDACTED BY THE ORDO ABSTAINICUS]


Exalted. Now run along with those nice gents in silver armor to get rewarded for your knowledge.

Not even to go into, "Moral Officer" Duties in the Emperor's Children.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
yellowfever wrote:
I've always had mixed feelings about respecting soldiers just cause they saw action or respecting a person just because they were in the military. Just to clarify I was in the military and I saw action(although I don't discuss it with anyone, nit even my father who was in Vietnam). But I didn't do it to get respect or be called a hero. I mentioned earlier in this thread that people who choose to respect vets should do so irregardless if they saw combat or not.

I used to say "respect is earned not given". I knew plenty of lame asses in the military. From all branches. I also met the best people I've ever known in the military. I also determine a person's worthiness of respect by their actions, Not their job.


This nails it. A friend of mine who was in Desert Storm told me of a guy in his unit no one could stand because he was a total gak bird. He ended up getting drunk, twisting his knee and getting sent home. He was kitted out with the, at the time new desert camouflage BDUs, and was hailed as a hero getting off the plane, even being put in the newspapers flashing the "V" sign. I was told when his unit heard about it and saw the paper with him in it, there was much disgust.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/12/06 02:02:54


 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Hordini wrote:
I still think that, in general, being a soldier is an honorable profession, due to the fact that regardless of one's reasons for joining, that person is willingly putting their own well-being and security behind that of others, so that others don't have to.


The issue with that sentence is that you cancelled out the middle of it (reasons for joining) by overriding it with a better, more honorable reason at the end - sacrificing their own safety and security so that others don't have to.

I definitely know at least one person who joined the military because they wanted to, in a nebulous way, protect America. However, out of all the people I personally know that were in the military, my friends and family, that is not the majority reason. Most of the people that I know that have joined the military did it because they wanted to benefits, to get away from a bad situation, or because they had no other good options. And you know what? That's OK. Those are good reasons. However, it doesn't make you a hero, either.

The problem with the fetishism surrounding the military, with everyone being a hero, is that you can't then look at that organization with an honest appraisal. A guy shoots up a village or beats a detainee? How can he be wrong, when he's a hero, and they're the "bad guys"? On larger level, you can't honestly ask if our military adventures are making us safer as a nation, if the incredible amounts of blood and money we have dumping into getting pretty much nothing accomplished over a decade, were worth it, or if we need to change course. Why aren't you supporting the troops?

Not every person who joined the military is a hero, and not everything they do is heroic, any more than anyone else doing a dangerous, dirty, low-paying job that is nonetheless vital.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 Ouze wrote:
 Hordini wrote:
I still think that, in general, being a soldier is an honorable profession, due to the fact that regardless of one's reasons for joining, that person is willingly putting their own well-being and security behind that of others, so that others don't have to.


The issue with that sentence is that you cancelled out the middle of it (reasons for joining) by overriding it with a better, more honorable reason at the end - sacrificing their own safety and security so that others don't have to.

I definitely know at least one person who joined the military because they wanted to, in a nebulous way, protect America. However, out of all the people I personally know that were in the military, my friends and family, that is not the majority reason. Most of the people that I know that have joined the military did it because they wanted to benefits, to get away from a bad situation, or because they had no other good options. And you know what? That's OK. Those are good reasons. However, it doesn't make you a hero, either.

The problem with the fetishism surrounding the military, with everyone being a hero, is that you can't then look at that organization with an honest appraisal. A guy shoots up a village or beats a detainee? How can he be wrong, when he's a hero, and they're the "bad guys"? On larger level, you can't honestly ask if our military adventures are making us safer as a nation, if the incredible amounts of blood and money we have dumping into getting pretty much nothing accomplished over a decade, were worth it, or if we need to change course. Why aren't you supporting the troops?

Not every person who joined the military is a hero, and not everything they do is heroic, any more than anyone else doing a dangerous, dirty, low-paying job that is nonetheless vital.



I never said anything about people in the military being heroes, nor did I imply such. Something being an honorable profession, and someone taking part in an honorable profession doesn't make someone a hero. I also don't think that claiming something is an honorable profession because it is based on service to others is fetishism. I do see the problems in the issues that you are discussing, but that's not what I'm putting forth by claiming that the military profession is an honorable one. I also don't think that the military is the only profession that is honorable.

And to be clear, someone who shoots up a village or beats a detainee is in no way a hero. Just as a teacher who abuses a student isn't a hero, or a police officer who abuses their authority isn't a hero. If there is really some kind of cognitive dissonance going on there about how being part of an honorable profession is an excuse for abuse (it isn't), it's probably because whoever is experiencing that cognitive dissonance isn't considering the topic very deeply to begin with.

   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

Fair enough.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

I am really not convinced.

But then, the difference in mindset is rather significant. Soldiers being put on a pedestal is not really a thing here.

Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Hordini, I think the problem here is that you're considering the profession honorable rather than the person in that profession. When you give credit to the profession as a whole you have to make those awkward "but not this person" exceptions when someone in the profession clearly isn't honorable. Instead of trying to make broad rules with a bunch of exceptions it's much easier to just say that some individual soldiers are honorable and give them credit for their service, without making any statement about the profession as a whole.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/06 02:29:22


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord







 Ashiraya wrote:
Soldiers being put on a pedestal is not really a thing here.


So progressive!

SWEDEN YES!


   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 Ashiraya wrote:
I am really not convinced.

But then, the difference in mindset is rather significant. Soldiers being put on a pedestal is not really a thing here.


I don't think that recognizing that being in the military entails more sacrifice in order to provide something that is necessary for a free society, and that such service is more honorable than working at McDonald's is the same as putting soldiers on a pedestal. Do you truly not see any difference whatsoever?

   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer

What Peregrine said. When you are applying nebulous 'honor' to an entire profession rather than individual people you encounter who deserve such praise, then yes, you are putting it on a pedestal, and I see absolutely no reason to do that.

And Medium of Death, please can you not.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/06 02:32:55


Currently ongoing projects:
Horus Heresy Alpha Legion
Tyranids  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 Peregrine wrote:
Hordini, I think the problem here is that you're considering the profession honorable rather than the person in that profession. When you give credit to the profession as a whole you have to make those awkward "but not this person" exceptions when someone in the profession clearly isn't honorable. Instead of trying to make broad rules with a bunch of exceptions it's much easier to just say that some individual soldiers are honorable and give them credit for their service, without making any statement about the profession as a whole.


Perhaps it would be better to say that I think the profession is grounded in honorable ideals and I see that as a positive thing, but I recognize that there also exist those within the profession who don't live up to those ideals. I suppose it's a bit like saying there is always someone who feths it up for everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ashiraya wrote:
What Peregrine said. When you are applying nebulous 'honor' to an entire profession rather than individual people you encounter who deserve such praise, then yes, you are putting it on a pedestal, and I see absolutely no reason to do that.

And Medium of Death, please can you not.


But just because a profession is honorable doesn't mean that there aren't those within it who aren't worthy of that honor. I certainly do (or don't, as the case may be) apply honor to individual people.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/06 02:34:58


   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka




Sounds reasonable, put in that context.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Hordini wrote:
Perhaps it would be better to say that I think the profession is grounded in honorable ideals and I see that as a positive thing, but I recognize that there also exist those within the profession who don't live up to those ideals. I suppose it's a bit like saying there is always someone who feths it up for everyone else.


It's grounded in honorable ideals, but it's also grounded in dishonorable ideals. Soldiers have been honorable defenders, but they've just as often been aggressive conquerors and that's just as much a part of the history of the profession as the good parts. That's why it's so important, IMO, to consider the honor or dishonor of the individual soldier instead of trying to decide whether the profession as a whole is good or bad.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: