calling all wingnuts

[Vercades]

Looks like this guy's got alot of points and, he's not afraid to voice is opinion about something he believes in, especially if it's not nice at all. Sounds alot like someone I know around here. ;)

http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/

[Nick Grana]

Extreme left wingnuts and extreme right lugnuts. In the end....all nuts.:happy:

[black mirror]

Excuse me for being ignorant... but what on earth is a "wingnut"????

[Nick Grana]

Technically it is a http://images6.theimagehosting.com/wingnut.jpg (http://www.theimagehosting.com):cool: It threads on to a screw or bolt for ease.
But for the subject it applies to left wing or right wing of the political party.
As stated, all nuts.;)

[black mirror]

A very good explanation Nick.. thank you:rotflmao:

[dammit]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/gedchris/f89d47ef.jpg

[oracle128]

Hehe, I love arguing with nuts like this! Here is a comment I posted in response to this entry (http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/13/kilmeade-its-gonna-get-worse-for-him/#comments):Mike, I just came across your blog, and I notice you seem to mention a single point quite often; that “if you believe we should go to war, why aren’t you fighting it yourself?”. I don’t see that as a valid argument. Don’t you have any concept of the functions in a society?

Let me ask this question: Do you believe that Americans have the right to be safe in their own neighborhoods?

Now, I’m going to assume you’d answer that with “Of course, stupid.” To which I’d reply “So why aren’t YOU out on the streets fighting crime, keeping people safe?”

Of course, I’m no idiot (despite what you may think already). I know there’s a perfectly good group of people whose function in society is to enforce the law and uphold the peace (those who are paying attention would know I’m obviously talking about the police). So what has this got to do with the war on Afghanistan/Iraq/North Korea/Wherever? That’s where the defense forces come in. Most of us rational thinkers believe in the right to be safe on the streets, so we have the police force(s) to do so; if we want/need to go to war, we have the defense forces to do so.

It’s not only irrational to believe we should all do ourselves what we believe in, but in this case, it’s unfeasible too. Have you considered the time and cost it would take to train troops? Do we really need to recruit Joe American, who just happens to have a political opinion, into a job for which he isn’t prepared nor qualified for? Do the defense forces need him? Have you forgotten that defense forces have certain physical requirements, which may make it impossible to recruit all those who believe we should fight a war?

And then there’s the plausibility of applying that concept with rule utilitarianism. If you believe we have the right to clean water, should it be up to you to provide it yourself? If you want to eat, should you have to produce your own food? What are the implications of a society where everyone should act upon what they believe in themselves? Isn’t what you’re suggesting counter-productive to the whole concept of society?

Please note that I’m not interest in a debate over why we went to war, who we fought, what we did whilst there, etc (as I’m sure you aren’t), nor am I intereseted on taking any particular stance on those topics with you. That argument just struck me as particularly poorly presented is all, I hope you find it as constructive criticism.Then, when it wouldn't submit because it claimed my email address was invalid, I added this:
PS: Why does your blog not accept email address with a ‘+‘ symbol in them? You say you are somewhat geeky (http://www.callingallwingnuts.com/2006/07/14/more-hannity-blogger-demonization/), but your blog has a blatant error like that? (No, blaming it on the wordpress developers isn’t a valid excuse). You do know it’s a valid character (http://www.jacobsen.no/anders/blog/archives/2002/08/24/email_addresses_with_a_are_valid.html%E2%80%9D%20t arget=), right?

[Nick Grana]

Let the rednecks, ghetto-dwellers and idiots fight for me - I can’t be bothered.
I find it hard to believe any intelligent being would say something to this effect. Anyone can say someone said anything but doesn't make it so.:cool:

Good comeback, oracle.
Have one comment on:
"That’s where the defense forces come in. Most of us rational thinkers believe in the right to be safe on the streets, so we have the police force(s) to do so; if we want/need to go to war, we have the defense forces to do so."
These forces you speak of need to come from somewhere. We recruit from within and train our forces to do a job. Qualifications are strict in some areas and lax in others. It certainly helps to believe in what you are fighting for either locally or abroad.
But I do get your point.:happy:

[oracle128]

Oh yeah, I absolutely agree Nick, it's important that you fight for what you believe in, and if you don't like fighting for the beliefs of other, then the armed forces probably isn't the right job for you. But that's totally different to challenging anyone who has an opinion and saying they should have to fight the battle themselves, like this guy is doing. Thanks for the vote of confidence though. I did get this reply:


Oracle:

The short answer is that there is a qualitative difference between war and any of the other societal functions you mention.

War is the ugliest business mankind engages in. To advocate war is to advocate, well, it’s to advocate hell.

War is not making clean water. It is not walking a beat. It is not picking up garbage.

War is living every second on borrowed time. It is not knowing whether or not that seven year old is a decoy - a deadly tool of the insurgency. It’s watching your brethren die from a shot fired from a crowded street filled with women and children.

We’ve all seen the movies. I’m not going to be abe to adequately portray the horrors of war in this post. Instead, I’ll assume you know what they are and continue by saying that as much as you might want to, this argument cannot be seperated from th fact that this is a war of choice, founded on spurious evidence, against a country that was no threat and underpinned by bad choices made by political leaders. I truly believe that in large part the people that still support this war are really just Republican shills. They are dishonest and cannot bring themselves to admit that their leaders have the poorest judgment this nation has seen in its history - or at least since the LBJ/Nixon Vietnam years…

So yeah, you can advocate for low crime and the garbage being cleaned up. those aren’t “choices” - they are essential functions society needs. This war was, and is, in no way “essential”.

So if you want it, and you are capable, go fight it. Don’t go ask others to do it for you. That is just plain, old cowardice - there is no other way to spin it.
Me of course not taking anything lying down, I added this response: Thanks for the reply Mike, but I don't think you properly responded to the intent of my comment.

Firstly, I don't appreciate the way you sidelined the 'police' argument, as it suggests you have no respect for emergency services. And I do mean all of them, not just the police. There a bush fire near your home that needs putting out? Don't be lazy and call the fire brigade, put it out yourself if that's what you believe. It's not essential that you put it out, it'll burn itself out eventually, so it's a choice like any other. Like that guy over there who's got 2 broken arms and 2 broken legs. He'll live, even without medical treatment; so treating him is a choice, not a forced action. In that case, why don't you fix him up, if you believe he should be healed?

Secondly, you've stated that the only difference between the examples you mentioned, and going to war, was that war is not essential, but the others (more or less) are. What about the actions which are deemed non-essential? Should they only be acted by those who believe they should be done? Is this the way you would expect any kind of leader to run their country/state/town/company/group? But anyway, as demonstrated in the above paragraph, what is "essential" is a difference of opinion.

Thirdly, like I said, I'm not interested in debating over whether or not this particular war was justified, and yes, I understand that fighting in a war isn't anywhere as fun as it may sound, and maybe those who are for this particular war are the scum of the universe; but those points are irrelevent.

The simple point I am making is, is it socially, logistically, financially or logically feasible for everyone who thinks we should go to war, to do so themselves? And if you do, then really, what is the point in having armed forces at all, if what you essentially want to do is implement a conscription system that's based on people's opinions? Isn't that some kind of violation of Freedom of Speech?

Also think about what happens to the country these people are leaving behind. Want to eat at your local diner? Too bad, the chef and waitress were dragged off to the frontlines for having an opinion. You can't put gas in your car, because all the local service station attendents are now riflemen. But that's alright, because now that your company has no clients to serve, you don't have to bother going to work; and forget your paycheck, all the payroll staff are communications officers.

Oh my God, nutcases are running the country! Oh wait, not anymore, since two thirds of the government are now operating tanks and humvees. That leaves only those who are against the war to inherit the power of your government; now that's justice!

Honestly, could you not see a situation where an action like that could be easily abused, leaving only corruption to rule the US? And how do we determine who believes what about the war? Or do we only conscript the ones who have a public opinion?

Oh, and do please try to answer objectively this time with regards to that third point.

PS: Sorry about the last post, the symbol your blog isn't accepting for email addresses is the plus sign, but for some reason it was stripped out of my post (and the first link somehow got messed up too, but I think you get the idea).
Oh my, I think I've made a new enemy... the cops are going to have all sorts of leads if I should ever be the victim of a homicide :D

[Vercades]

Yeah, war is not what the movies make it out to be and it's not all suffering and destruction, these wars are nothing incomparison to the old ones I and II.

Police
Walking a beat
Fighting crime
Cleaning Garbage
Pulling someone over

War
On patrol
Engaging enemy
Relief to refugees
Battlefield tactics

Attention span waning...

[Nick Grana]

War is usually engaged by old fart$ but carried out by young whipper-snappers. To actually ask the old fart$ that started the war to step up and engage in the war is like getting your mother to fight the war. But wait,
mothers are now in combat situations, so that theory is out. The old Generals will not be at the front lines nor will any of the political party that started the war. They will sit back from a logistics point of view, safe, and tally the body count of the real soldiers that lay it all on the line for the old fart'$ choices.:cool: War is HE!!? You bet your sweet bippy it is.:hmm:
Oh, and if I do see a fire, I will call 911 before I go and try to help put the thing out. Good intentions can get one killed in a heartbeat.:cool:

[Nick Grana]

Sorry, but to add briefly, soldiers do not have to believe totally in the conflict they are asked to be part of. But almost 100% of them will do it for duty in spite of personal feelings. Honor and duty take preference over personal choices and conflicts. IMO.:cool: