"They Died For Your Right To..."

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I don't want to restart the locked thread but I would like to use it as a jumping-off point to discuss a topic that's been brewing in my brain for a few days, especially after conversations here with members of the military.

First if you haven't read it, here is the story which began the other thread -

Navy SEALs are always taught

1) Keep your priorities in order and
2) Know when to act without hesitation.

A Navy SEAL was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU. One day he shocked the class when he came in, looked to the ceiling, and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes."

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting."

It got down to the last couple of minutes when the SEAL got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him, knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The SEAL went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence.

The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the SEAL and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The SEAL calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid **** and act like an *******. So He sent me."

The story isn't true, naturally. It's one of those right-wing chain emails like "The Christian Student versus the Atheist Professor" (I'm sure you've read various versions) in which the leftist antagonist receives a satisfying comeuppance.

But, what do you think of the subtext of the story, that soldiers are due extra veneration and authority because they served?

In the story the soldier is (pointedly) a vet of both Iraq and Afghanistan, whereas the antagonist is just as obviously a sissy professor who is a card-carrying ACLU member.

In the story, the professor asks what could justify the SEAL assaulting another person, and the SEAL replies that the professor needs to shut up in appreciation of the (superior) members of the military who are dying to (supposedly) ensure his right of free speech.

What do you think about the rhetorical tactic that "Soldiers died so you could be antiAmerican/criticize the President/post things I disagree with," etc.?

Especially, what is the opinion of military veterans on this rhetorical tactic?

Personally I don't like it, but I don't quite know why. I think soldiers deserve respect for having served. But I think there is a contradiction in the use of the tactic that is exaggerated into an example in the story - the SEAL simultaneously says the professor has the right to say what he disagrees with, and knocks him out for saying it. All too often I think the tactic boils down to "Don't you dare say something that I think disgraces the sacrifices of soldiers," or in other words, "Shut up or be unpatriotic."

I also find it interesting that the right has "claimed" the legacy of soldier deaths, since historically the enlisted men of the US Army have been of all political stripes.

Anyway, I don't have any more to say on the subject, I just wanted to open it up for general discussion.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's more to it than that. In Canada, our military is trained to exemplify the concepts of honour and nobility. Now, the trainees often have to figure out what that means, and then fake it like the rest of us - but they get extra shame if they don't fake it as well as they could.

So, they're encouraged to be aggressive and to 'do the right thing'. Of course, they don't always. But sometimes they try and look like asses. But we give them latitude because they're military.

When I was a security guard at a hotel (the night shift was nothing but walking and studying - I recommend it); I would always keep track of the military guests. Because they were aggressive partiers; BUT, if I had trouble with other guests the military boys were ALWAYS willing to help me out. You give them a chance to realise how they could look good 'doing the right thing', and chances are they'll take it.

 

[blargh]

There's more to it than that. In Canada, our military is trained to exemplify the concepts of honour and nobility.

Hey... remember that Canadian Airborne Regiment video?

 

[IglooDame]

I'm of mixed feelings on it. I do happen to think that soldiers, like others in physically dangerous public service jobs, deserve a bit of respect for getting shot at (without running away) for no personal benefit. Come to think of it, really any serious sacrifice for the public good is laudable, be it the inner-city schoolteacher doing a very difficult job for peanuts, or Bill Gates/Warren Buffet donating 90% of their fortunes to helping others.

Anyway, your chain email example sucks - the SEAL had no more moral authority to knock the professor down than any other theist in the room. He could have just as easily been a born-again bodybuilder, or he could just have readily sat down with the comment "The Lord works in mysterious ways" instead of his "God is busy..." crack.

I dislike veterans claiming the moral high ground in any free-speech issue purely on the basis of their veteran status, and for my part I try and stick a pin in it where I see it - "I'm a vet and I'm in agreement with that hippy ACLU-joining professor."

 

[Nobody]

I always wondered why people say that vetreans fought for my freedom when i dont think they really did.

New Zealands army first fought the boar in south africa. How did this keep New Zealand free?

Next they fought the germans in europe and the turkish in turkey. How did invading turkey defend new zealands freedom?

After this they once again fought germany in france, but that didn't ensure new zealand freedom, it helped defend french freedom. But France bombed new zealand 40 years later.

Against Japan the soliders fought to defend new zealands freedom, but why then would be leave half our army in africa and italy fighting germans when the japanese wanted us dead.

Koreans killing Koreans? Veitnamise killing veitnamise? Arabs killing arabs? Arabs killing americans? balkans killing balkans? Getting involved in none of these fights defended New Zealands freedom.

Sure being involved in these fights ensured that the americans would come and help defend our freedom if it was threatned. But America told us in 1984 that they arn't going to save us, what was the point of going to Iraq (first gulfwar), Yugoslavia, Afgainstan?

No afgan, serb, iraqi, turk, german, boar, korean or veitnamise ever restricted a New Zealanders freedom, then how did the troops defend my freedom by killing them?

 

[gotreg]

boy oh boy
remember that kind of propaganda from bad old commie time here before 1989.
Roles are changing, but script is still the same...

That kind of "veteran spirit" is very nice described in Robert Heinlein´s "Starship trooper" book (quite fascist but nice IMHO)

 

[sysyphus]

No afgan, serb, iraqi, turk, german, boar, korean or veitnamise ever restricted a New Zealanders freedom, then how did the troops defend my freedom by killing them?

My sentiment exactly

Though the and argument re sentiment of soldiers protecting our freedoms can me made wrt the Second World War in my opinion, but that's probably more applicable to Canada than New Zealand since if Hitler had successfully conquered Europe we would ahve been next.

Another thing I hate, alnog a similar vein is when people say we do the veterans of that war a disservice by opposing current wars. I'd be willing to wager that the majoirty of verterans would agree that nobody should be sent into battle without a damn good reason (which has not been made for pretty much most of the wars Nobody refers to).

 

[FredLC]

Well, speaking in terms of logical building, the argument is a fallacy, of the cathegory of red herring, which is an attempt to distract the argumentative adversary from the merit of the question posed. Specifically, it is the "argumentum ad misericordiam", or, appeal to pity, in which one attempts to invalidate the merits of a given argument by evoking the hard-pressed conditions of the part opposing that opinion.

A perfect fit - "how dare you have/expose an opinion that will sadden our poor, suffering soldiers, who have given you so much"?

Such kind of argument, obviously, annoys any part which is found of proper debates methods and correct argumentative constructions.

In case specific, it is also a Straw Man, another "red herring", for an argument against the believe in God has no correlation with the merits or demerits of war vets, and certainly speaks nothing of how much respect the part exposing the argument has for them. Hence, what was attacked was not the argument per se, but a small (tiny) part of the consequences of it's very exibition - what makes this quite a combination of fallacies.

Hence, what I think of this argument in general is that it is rather unworthy, and specifically in this anedote, that it is dense, impertinent, meaningless and, ultimatelly, pathetic.

But if it convinces somebody as a good demonstration, well, whatever floats your boat, friends.

Regards .

 

[Paradigne]

Unless the prof was teaching philosophy, theology or something along those lines, he got what he deserved. Educators are to teach knowledge, not opinion.

 

[sysyphus]

Unless the prof was teaching philosophy, theology or something along those lines, he got what he deserved. Educators are to teach knowledge, not opinion.

Most knowledge is opinion.

 

[IglooDame]

Unless the prof was teaching philosophy, theology or something along those lines, he got what he deserved. Educators are to teach knowledge, not opinion.

I have a feeling a lot of people got a little bit educated in that fictional class that day...

 

[Eukaryote]

That's so sweet!
But really you're not supposed to test God. It's a sin.

 

[IglooDame]

That's so sweet!
But really you're not supposed to test God. It's a sin.

To say nothing of being a waste of time...

 

[Shaihulud]

A soldier narrowly specialize in a job that is not high paying and risky . Paying them with words and respect is cheap enough i think. Soldiers do die... but you can easily find people of any stripes to die for anything, money usually, a soldier dies for less.

 

[sysyphus]

But what respect does one show a soldier by blindly supporting any war without assessing its validity? If the cause is deemed unworthy, I think you show the soldier more respect by arguing to keep him/her safely off the battlefield unless absolutely necessary rather than by arbitrarily spending their life.

 

[Mr.Communist]

"God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid **** and act like an *******. So He sent me."

Anyway, why is God protecting American Soldier? Why not the enemy? Aren't we all equal? We all look alike from above... Does God actually stops in front of someone and asks himself "Is he american?" Or does he ask himself "Is he german?" Also, how can a God be "too busy"?

Why are we so special?
How come American's Soldier are more special than a other country's soldier?
Why are you so special?
Why am I so special?

 

[Godwynn]

I'd just say my tax dollars paid him, so I guess we are even.

 

[bathsheba666]

New Zealands army first fought the boar in south africa.

That boar sure was tough. And he survived to face another battle?

 

[RedWolf]

Unless the prof was teaching philosophy, theology or something along those lines, he got what he deserved. Educators are to teach knowledge, not opinion.

This is shocking!! Another right winger supporting violence to suppress freedom of speech? Who could have seen it coming?

 

[De Lorimier]

Why is it that the people who defend the troops the most and claim the highger ground regarding their sacrifice for the common good are also the same people willing to send them to war the fastest?

Most "Support our Troops" folks will send their companion to death without thinking about it twice. That's bizarre.