"Shut up because I'm a soldier!"

[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?

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I know two guys who HATE each other becuase they have both served in the military and they both want to be the 'always right becuase I was a soldier' alpha male guy in every argument. They have spoken to each other about 4 times and yet they despise one another.

It gets kind of tiring since I am good friends with both of them.

I have a lot of respect for military folks but I would call bs on someone who pulled that card in an unrelated argument.

 

[Jedoro]

"Unless it's a farm!"

One of the less relevant but completely awesome posts in this thread.

OT: I've met soldiers like the one mentioned in OP, and I know some who don't mention their service unless asked. Here's how I see it: nobody automatically deserves respect. Nobody. Respect is earned. My gratitude to soldiers is paying my taxes so they can have their equipment, salary, and benefits from the government; anything else is completely voluntary, and demanding anything else makes you a complete and utter asshole.

EDIT: Just because I don't respect many people doesn't mean I treat most like shit. I'm what I like to call a professional, which means that unless you give me a damn good reason otherwise: I will tolerate your presence, I will be polite, I will cooperate if we have a task to accomplish, I will not sabotage your efforts, I will help you if you desperately need it or ask me to, and I will assist you if unjustly threatened or attacked. But respect is a much higher level of regard that I only grant to a handful of people.

 

[spartan231490]

snip

I actually have to point out that that isn't how inflation works. Inflation currently is based on the interest rates set and on international trade. Current inflation is not based on the amount of currency in circulation. Also, if Inflation were based on currency in circulation, the inflation amount would have been the same regardless of whether the bailout money went to the people or to the banks like it did. In fact, because of the way lending and banks work, it probably would have caused less inflation had it been payed to the people. Prices would increase, but only because people would be more willing to pay higher prices, the demand curve would shift, it has nothing to do with inflation.

Sorry about that, but misunderstanding inflation really bugs me, it's a peeve. Other than that, i agree with your post. Being a soldier doesn't make you any more right than anyone else.

Does that mean.... I could be a millionaire right now...? But instead we threw a fortune at the people who created the problem in the first place?

More or less. Yeah, life's a *****. Welcome to government for big business.

I don't think that is entirely fair to blame big business for everything. Recessions are largely about consumer confidence, so whilst foolish, selfish bankers might have started the crisis, it was us members of the public who perpetuated it by stuffing the matresses, spending less, and ensuring more businesses would run out of cash. Giving money to businesses and banks and restoring confidence is (unfortunately) the only way to get things moving again.

I didn't blame big business, I blamed the government for putting big business ahead of everything else leading to 40 years of bad economic policies that had absolutely no other logical endpoint than a horrible recession like the one we've been facing for 10 years.

No, that is keynesian economics which is highly suspect and debated. Largely in part because if it worked than we wouldn't be in an recession any more.

Small recessions can be caused by consumer confidence, this one has nothing to do with consumer confidence. It is a result of much deeper problems like low manufacturing, low taxes on the highest tax brackets, too many tax loopholes, and Keynesian economics justified overspending on a completely unsustainable level for a completely unsustainable amount of time, and lastly the controlled inflation that has been perpetrated for the last few decades in order to prevent us from being crushed under that debt at the cost of destroying american savings and devaluing the dollar.

Also, to address something you said specifically, this has nothing to do with stuffing the mattress. The vast vast majority of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck because they can't afford to save money. Prices are rising, wages aren't, and unemployment is skyrocketing. If you include discouraged workers(which you should but the government doesn't in order to look good), then it's absolutely staggering. If you use the method that the government stopped using around 1980, then in June of this year the unemployment rate in the US was over 25%

My understanding was that Keynesian economics was the way out of this, but I concede that you probably know far more on the subject than I do.

Keynesian economics say that they're the way out of this, but it doesn't work. We've been trying it for over ten years and things just keep getting worse. If the Keynesian model of economics and recessions were accurate, the recession would have been over years ago. They sound good on the surface but don't really work out.

 

[Alexnader]

In New Zealand where I'm from it's sort of frowned upon to say you any better than anyone else or expect special treatment. Unless it had some relevance to the conversation I bet you'd get some weird looks saying your right because your a soldier.

Well here in Australia it's perfectly acceptable to say you're better than New Zealanders because it's true.

Anyway, the only time I really hear the "I'm a soldier" argument is when discussing games like Battlefield 3. The forums are full of people saying "served here" etc and therefore such and such should be like this. In some ways they're more qualified to speak on the issue than others but it's critical to remember that they're discussing a video game and therefore they do not instantly know what's fun, balanced and fair to everyone. Does the M416 look wrong? Fine, I'll cede to you on that issue soldier person. Should sniper rifles be one shot kills to the center of mass of the target? GTFO and learn to headshot my friend because instakills to the biggest target on the enemy make for easy sniping.

 

[aba1]

their stupidity is their own curse. its the stupid people who dont know how to adjust to the curve balls life throws at you. its the stupid people who dont know how to protect themselves from fraud.

i once had an argument with a guy while playing DDO over why I wasnt using the voice chat system. after i made my point, his response was to tell me that he served in Iraq, and therefore he was right and i was wrong.

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 kinda feel the same way I mean being in the army isn't mandatory I don't see why people should sympathize (to an extent) I mean they did CHOOSE to put themselves in that situation. I think I might be a bit bias because every person I have ever met in some form of the army has always insisted on telling me how they can kick anybody's ass because there in the army I guess it doesn't bother most people but I hate when people assume they can kick my ass like I have no fighting experience.

 

[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.

 

[Alrocsmash]

Most soldiers are unintelligent. Especially in the USA. IQ scores say hello.

He is not right.

 

[lacktheknack]

And I said "But if we were all millionaires then a load of bread would cost a thousand dollars."

"I'm a soldier and I had three tours in Vietnam and that's not how it works."

There is no spit-take big enough. None.

Had someone pulled this on me, he would have DROWNED in the resulting spit-take. And if he didn't, he'd be inundated by me saying things like "The sky is green because my house is made of bricks" and the like. I have no patience for irrelevance-related logical fallacies.

 

[r0kle0nZ]

This is so true, whenever I am debating Military Actions and economics in general, they always pop the "I Served" phrase. I just want to tell them that it doesn't matter because what you are saying gives NO credibility to their statements.

People man. I wish Common Sense was Common.

 

[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.

 

[BLAHwhatever]

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 ^^

 

[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,

 

[Craorach]

Ah, misplaced sense of authority.

Tbh, being a soldier in this day and age is just a job. A very dangerous job, with a long and tiring, and 'glorious' history. But a job none the less. Prostitution is the oldest profession in history, but the effect isn't the same.

There are lots of jobs more dangerous than being a soldier. But this whole idea that a soldier's duty is to defend you, and your country is too far entrenched. And that we are forever indebted to every soldier to ever be recruited, because all he does is selflessly defend us.

Well yes. You do defend us, but you can't expect everyone to suck up to you, and constantly praise you. It's a job, you shouldn't leech praise off of people. The military and media gives you enough already. Soldiers should take pride in their jobs, and not overstate themselves.

And don't give this 'but they died for your freedom!' shit. If for example, the French empire had never stopped expanding, and conquered the world, then I wouldn't know any different.

And what about the soldiers that lost? Are they glorious too because they put in a good effort? No, they haven't completed their job. Just because you have, doesn't mean it's grounds for you eternal glory.

This is pretty much the view on it that my father taught me.

My father was a soldier for many years in the British Army, he served in several unpleasant situations including many years in Northern Ireland.

 

[GraveeKing]

I ain't going to call you out, I don't have much respect for solders anyway.
If they rub it in their face that they've seen some combat then really I think such backwards, mindless thinking kind of proves they're wrong in the first place. I mean hell - since when has proving you can pull a trigger and watching people die prove that you're any more intellectual because while you were shooting people in -insert war here-, they were probably studying economics or said subject back home.

In truth, there is no 'quick' way to win an argument, and pulling the whole 'solder' thing is as pathetic in my eyes as saying you were once a politician, even if it IS relevant (which it rarely is) then surely you can just explain or know you're right rather than have to say it.

 

[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.

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

 

[BLAHwhatever]

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

!