"Shut up because I'm a soldier!"

[Alexnader]

Well, in Germany that argumentation doesn't work. At all.
You'd maybe get some weird looks and some giggles. But that's it

America and their men in arms. Cute ^^

Men and women in arms. Gotta keep this shit PC.

Captcha: tternno <<MOTHER,

Men/women/sharks with lasoreyes/genderfree supersoldiers and their pets and kitchen appliances .... in arms

!

SPAYHZ MARINEZ!!!!???... in each other's arms

 

[Elijah Ball]

i know they shouldnt, but i'm not gonna stop em.

 

[lacktheknack]

This is just another skewed story. It's presented from one side as that person remembers it.

I don't doubt that the person worked military experience into the situation, but I highly doubt it played out exactly like that, like some kind of trump card with no other relevance to the discussion.

Really it seems the OP and the vet where arguing about something neither of them had any right to be arguing about except from a purely philosophical viewpoint, as neither seemed to have any idea what they where actually talking about.

No, actually the OP was quite right to point out the problem with everyone being millionaires. Incredibly obvious reason why the OP is right: Who is going to be making bread for less than something like $1000 when they're a millionaire?

The goverment spending that money on people rather then corporations is not the same as giving the money away. Yes there is a problem with simply handing a million dollars to everyone, but giving it to corporations in an effort to increase lending and preventing job loss (neither of which has ever proved effective in the past) was a horrendous waste of money.

That's nice and doesn't have anything to do with me pointing out that at least in one part the OP had a point.

Being correct in one part does not make one correct in all parts, which is what you where saying. As in right up there you said the OP was correct, not in a way correct. The problem is the OP might have stumbled upon a problem, but showed a lack of knowledge of the subject by suggesting there where only two sides to the problem, and only two ways it could have worked.

That was just a sub point anyway. My main point was that you can't seriously think it's a good idea to pass judgment upon a person with only an account of the events provided by the person asking you to pass judgment.

You need to learn to read. "No, actually the OP was quite right to point out the problem with everyone being millionaires." See what reading could do for you? Tell you not to make a fool of yourself by trying to tell me I said the OP was right all the way through.

Hell it might even make you not do ridiculous things like attribute the 'Everyone becomes a millionaire' to the OP when that's what the person the OP was talking to said.

See, people who can read might see that I never said "The OP is correct". I said the OP was correct to point out one thing. One thing that was true.

So try again. After learning to read.

That you fail to properly make your point is not a failing on my part.

In other words, you have nothing to back your lie that I said the OP was correct in all parts.

I point out how what I said did not mean that and was more specific. You retort with... saying it's my fault you can't read a simple sentence?

Oh well go figure.

It's not actually my ability to read that you are calling into question, especially since it is quite obvious that I can read and write, it's my ability to comprehend that you have questions about. My statement was merely pointing out the fact that while you know what points you where trying to make you failed to make it to a level that was properly understandable by other people, namely me. You had to actually write a paragraph about your one line of text to make your point clear.

Or it should have been clear enough to anyone with half a brain. That you chose to read more into it is a failing on your part. It explicitly states that he was right about one particular thing. That you chose to think it meant more goes to show you either didn't read carefully or lack the ability to comprehend a basic sentence.

Having to resort to argumentum ad hominem to disprove me shows a serious inability to structure a proper argument.

You resorting to trying to call that shows your inability to understand what a proper argument is. Did I say that anything you said was wrong because of your purported inability to read? Did I replace my argument with that? No? Well amazingly, for those of us who aren't spewing BS we know that that isn't argumentum ad hominem.

Furthermore, all your points about the OP show the same inability to read. Did the OP say that people would be showered in riches etc? No. The only comment we saw from the OP on his stance was a response to the other guy's assertion that we'd all be millionaires.

You have no idea how much how much I want to go "FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" right now.

You understand each other now, so quit arguing the semantics. If you MUST do so, do it in a PM.

snip

That includes you.

 

[manaman]

This is just another skewed story. It's presented from one side as that person remembers it.

I don't doubt that the person worked military experience into the situation, but I highly doubt it played out exactly like that, like some kind of trump card with no other relevance to the discussion.

Really it seems the OP and the vet where arguing about something neither of them had any right to be arguing about except from a purely philosophical viewpoint, as neither seemed to have any idea what they where actually talking about.

No, actually the OP was quite right to point out the problem with everyone being millionaires. Incredibly obvious reason why the OP is right: Who is going to be making bread for less than something like $1000 when they're a millionaire?

The goverment spending that money on people rather then corporations is not the same as giving the money away. Yes there is a problem with simply handing a million dollars to everyone, but giving it to corporations in an effort to increase lending and preventing job loss (neither of which has ever proved effective in the past) was a horrendous waste of money.

That's nice and doesn't have anything to do with me pointing out that at least in one part the OP had a point.

Being correct in one part does not make one correct in all parts, which is what you where saying. As in right up there you said the OP was correct, not in a way correct. The problem is the OP might have stumbled upon a problem, but showed a lack of knowledge of the subject by suggesting there where only two sides to the problem, and only two ways it could have worked.

That was just a sub point anyway. My main point was that you can't seriously think it's a good idea to pass judgment upon a person with only an account of the events provided by the person asking you to pass judgment.

You need to learn to read. "No, actually the OP was quite right to point out the problem with everyone being millionaires." See what reading could do for you? Tell you not to make a fool of yourself by trying to tell me I said the OP was right all the way through.

Hell it might even make you not do ridiculous things like attribute the 'Everyone becomes a millionaire' to the OP when that's what the person the OP was talking to said.

See, people who can read might see that I never said "The OP is correct". I said the OP was correct to point out one thing. One thing that was true.

So try again. After learning to read.

That you fail to properly make your point is not a failing on my part.

In other words, you have nothing to back your lie that I said the OP was correct in all parts.

I point out how what I said did not mean that and was more specific. You retort with... saying it's my fault you can't read a simple sentence?

Oh well go figure.

It's not actually my ability to read that you are calling into question, especially since it is quite obvious that I can read and write, it's my ability to comprehend that you have questions about. My statement was merely pointing out the fact that while you know what points you where trying to make you failed to make it to a level that was properly understandable by other people, namely me. You had to actually write a paragraph about your one line of text to make your point clear.

Or it should have been clear enough to anyone with half a brain. That you chose to read more into it is a failing on your part. It explicitly states that he was right about one particular thing. That you chose to think it meant more goes to show you either didn't read carefully or lack the ability to comprehend a basic sentence.

Having to resort to argumentum ad hominem to disprove me shows a serious inability to structure a proper argument.

You resorting to trying to call that shows your inability to understand what a proper argument is. Did I say that anything you said was wrong because of your purported inability to read? Did I replace my argument with that? No? Well amazingly, for those of us who aren't spewing BS we know that that isn't argumentum ad hominem.

Furthermore, all your points about the OP show the same inability to read. Did the OP say that people would be showered in riches etc? No. The only comment we saw from the OP on his stance was a response to the other guy's assertion that we'd all be millionaires.

You have no idea how much how much I want to go "FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT" right now.

You understand each other now, so quit arguing the semantics. If you MUST do so, do it in a PM.

snip

That includes you.

But this is really hilarious. His logic is so full of holes I'm pretty much in tears over here from laughing so much.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

It doesn't make them right, by no means. It does however give them a perspective that enables to make more informed opinions about certain matters.

Giant disclaimer: Anyone who says they went to war and enjoyed it, are lieing.

 

[lacktheknack]

snip

That includes you.

But this is really hilarious. His logic is so full of holes I'm pretty much in tears over here from laughing so much.

But you're drowning the other posts! D:

 

[ADDLibrarian]

I agree- being a soldier doesn't make you right.
Also "fucking a soldier doesn't make you a patriot" like my friend said of an old school chum of ours. Apparently, she thinks that just cause she's banging a soldier that makes her special.

 

[manaman]

snip

That includes you.

But this is really hilarious. His logic is so full of holes I'm pretty much in tears over here from laughing so much.

But you're drowning the other posts! D:

Oh all right. I guess I can go to sleep or something.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

This must be some new phenomenon. I hang out with a shit ton of current and ex military types and none of them use their past combat experience to try and prove themselves right. They use life experience and base things on their own choices and opinion, but never bring up the fact that they were/are soldiers.

at another point, i was talking about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs with a member of my family who served in the navy most of their life. i said that i thought it was wrong that so many innocent civilians had to die, and their response was "would you rather that a bunch of military personnel like me died in stead?" I really didnt know how to respond to that. i mean seriously? do most members of the military believe that civilians deserve to die and that the people actually doing the fighting deserve to live?

I think what he was really trying to get at is the total loss of life if we had invaded would be much worse. The Japanese were told that the Americans would rape their wives and children and then make them slaves. They were taught death before dishonor. Hell, they were teaching the children how to kill American soldiers at school on the Home Islands. If we had invaded there would be a total loss of life, with most of the civilians throughout ALL of Japan and at least a million American soldiers, instead of two cities worth. Comparing those two, the nukes were necessary.

 

[joshthor]

look. i appreciate soldiers fighting for our country, and i support them when i can, but i have 6 friends in the military and 5 of them are dumb as stumps (the other one is very smart) from the ones i know and have hung out with the average intelligence is not in their favor.

...i sound like a total asshole in this post. im not trying to be mean or anything, but being a soldier does not make you intelligent. intelligence makes you intelligent.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

See, I don't care if someone's a soldier, makes no difference to me. I don't care about you at all, let alone your career choice.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

Honestly never had that come up in a conversation. But as to back to yours. He is indeed wrong, but not really for why you said. The federal bailout money totaled 11trillion according to what I could find online. And that's only in promised, not in used so far. Even if you take that MUCH higher number and divide by the number of Americans, you end up with a whole lot of people having about 30k, not millions. The actual used number is 3 trillion not 11 trillion. So closer to 10k per person. Not exactly millionaires.

http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/ website used.

 

[Arfonious]

It doesn't make them right, by no means. It does however give them a perspective that enables to make more informed opinions about certain matters.

Giant disclaimer: Anyone who says they went to war and enjoyed it, are lieing.

Either lying or psychopaths.

I wouldn´t say that it enables them to make a more informed opinion (unless you are talking about things like warfare or weapons). It does however enable them to make a different opinion, an opinion filled with dogmas and the view that "I am bigger than you or I have guns ergo I am right"

 

[StarCecil]

I've never heard that used in general conversations, only when being a soldier would be sorta relevant. Though, it often ends up as "I understand Muslims better than you, cause I killed a bunch", where it may or may not be an important part.

In any case, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy anyway...although someone with more experience should be more likely to be right.

I have to say that the only times I've heard someone use their service for credibility were instances where it certainly gave them quite a bit more over the person they were arguing with.

For the OP, I don't think he was saying "I was a soldier, shut up" I think he was saying that he had a considerable bit more real life experience than you and that therefore he knew better. Doesn't make him right, but I think you're interpreting it wrong.

 

[dagens24]

I've never understood the concept of soldier = respect. To me there is nothing inherently respect worthy of the act of being a soldier in and of itself. Yes, sometimes you may be putting your life in danger but you're also being paid in turn. I guess I know too many career soldier who couldn't care less about why they are fighting, they just do it for the paycheck. To me they don't inherently deserve respect.

 

[Pat8u]

I kid you not a Person in the airforce cadets(a glorified version of scouts) said he was a better person than me because he was in the airforce cadets,He also brings the fact that he is a cadet into arguements

 

[Felstaff]

I've never heard that brought up in an argument. Like, never.

Most of the Soldiers I've ever met tend not to even mention that they're a soldier unless asked specifically about it.

Which leads me to believe that half the people in here are full of it, because there is no way that that has happened to every single person saying it has. How often do you people argue?

"My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence, because your anecdotal evidence hasn't happened to me. So it can't be true!!"

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

But really, you can expect that out of people in any situation. I was in an discussion about gay rights with a Bible thumping conservative, and she said "Don't argue with me, I was in Debate!" Like automatically, because she was in Debate; that means that gay people shouldn't be able to get married.

I had that happen once. I followed up with, "So was I and I have a degree in theology, can you trump that one?"

Shut her up pretty fast

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I've never heard that brought up in an argument. Like, never.

Most of the Soldiers I've ever met tend not to even mention that they're a soldier unless asked specifically about it.

Which leads me to believe that half the people in here are full of it, because there is no way that that has happened to every single person saying it has. How often do you people argue?

"My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence, because your anecdotal evidence hasn't happened to me. So it can't be true!!"

Exactly. Wish more people would get that.