OT: Galactic sterilisation

[President_Elect_Shang]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Its interesting that you completely ignored the post and just focused on the aside...

Perhaps you need to stop looking at the military from the bottom up, and look from it from the top down. You will then be able to see other points of view on this issue.

Umm sure OK. It's amazing how you can pick and choose what you want. Can you define bottom up and top down, I don’t want to apply it differently than you. When I think of bottoms up I think of drinking.

[ January 09, 2004, 17:08: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]

[Fyron]

Ok... try to think of the military as the military, not as the faces of the soldiers themselves. The soldiers make up the forces of the military, but not the ideal of the military, nor the decisions of the military, nor the overall purpose and goals of the military, etc. Just looking at the specific people in the military is looking at it from the bottom (the people) up (the abstract nature). It is focusing not on the military itself, but on people. Looking from the top down is instead focusing on the military itself. It is directly akin to saying that the tech supporters and the programmers working for Microsoft are evil people because Microsoft has some evil business practices. The people working those jobs do not necessarily represent or embody what is done with their skills overall by the company (and its top level executives). It is looking at the issue from the wrong angle.

As for your definition of military, it is most certainly not the definitions on m-w.com.

1 a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces
2 a : performed or made by armed forces b : supported by armed force
3 : of or relating to the army

Even from these partial definitions, it can be seen that "military" does not necessarily mean "the soldiers in the army."

[President_Elect_Shang]

I think what you are referring to is called the Department of Defense. AKA: DoD, that would be more accurate I think. As for the other side of your explanation I served for 11 years, and now my wife serves. With that said, and using an analogy since you did. It would be similar (in an analogy sort of way) to asking me to think that dogs are really cats and cats are really dogs. But it goes even deeper than that, what you are asking me to do is divorce myself from over a decade of first hand experience to substitute the concept of DoD for the concept of the military. Substitute a disembodied organization for a group of men and women that I know, that I served with, that I call my friends. If I stretch my understanding than I can see the point of view you are coming from, but I am sure you can appreciate mine? I will not undo what I have learned, and honestly since I have more first person experience I feel that you should at least give a few minutes consideration to revising your terminology. Not to say that I am telling you that you need to or even that you must. No, that would way out of lines for my beliefs, I would never dream of imposing my will on another. But simply that it would not kill you to try a little. As for my part I agree to ask others to clarify whether they mean DoD or military (the men and women) before I offer my opinion.

[President_Elect_Shang]

Bump for my buddy Fyron, who has posted elsewhere since mine, but must have just overlooked this thread.

[Fyron]

Don't be so impatient. Those Posts took very little time to write and could be squeezed in between turns for various PBW games.

You do not have to classify "the military" as the Department of Defense (assuming you are talking about US military in particular) in order to still not have it be directly about the soldiers personally. Doing so certainly helps in some regards, but it is not necessary. "The military" does not equal "the soldiers" any more than "the government" equals employees of various agencies.

Now about cats and dogs... "the military" is "cats" and "the soldiers" are "dogs" (for purposes of reference to your post only, no real connection with either animal). Two separate entities that should not be confused.

Of course, there are some soldiers that deserve to be made fun of (such as Jessica Lynch), but that is another issue.

I understood your point of view from the beginning. I have been trying to portray the other point of view (the less "sensational" one). If I did not understand your point of view, how could I hope to explain another to you?

[President_Elect_Shang]

It is very easy to debate a point without understanding the other persons point. I see where you are coming from with your Version of the cats and dogs analogy, but I sense that you missed mine. Mine was that a cat is a cat and a dog is a dog, nothing to do with soldiers or military, which is why it was an analogy. In my framework (of the cat and dog) you are asking me to reverse the names. I am very disheartened by what seems to be a lack of compromise on your point, and an attempt to prolong this debate so that you can avoid reaching a compromise. Do you agree to meet me half way or not Fyron?

[Fyron]

It is quite possible that we have reached a cultural impasse here with our terminology. The terminology is not so important, as the concept is. Call it what you wish, but just keep in mind that there are many people that mean the organiztions of the military rather than the specific soldiers in it when they use the term "the military."