Soldiers: heroes?

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by Robert_S » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:25 pm

sandinista wrote:
camoguard wrote:You'd vote for single issue (or really small issue set) third party candidates enough to make the primary parties pay attention to the issues. In some places the independents would win, but really the "loser" major party just as the legislative Democrats at the moment would consider adopting the single issue item into their arsenal and those candidates would win primaries or else the major parties would continue to lose a percentage of votes to the third party. The longest possible odds would be that the independent candidates win enough elections that one of the "major" parties is properly displaced. That's how I think the average American citizen could act in order to influence government behavior.
The main party, in the US, the republicrats, will never change policy based on anything like that. I like you optimism when it comes to party politics, but the system ("democracy") is set up to rule in favor of corporate elites, not individuals.
It is because so many people are perfectly happy to let the corporate elites rule.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by sandinista » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:44 pm

Robert_S wrote:
sandinista wrote:
camoguard wrote:You'd vote for single issue (or really small issue set) third party candidates enough to make the primary parties pay attention to the issues. In some places the independents would win, but really the "loser" major party just as the legislative Democrats at the moment would consider adopting the single issue item into their arsenal and those candidates would win primaries or else the major parties would continue to lose a percentage of votes to the third party. The longest possible odds would be that the independent candidates win enough elections that one of the "major" parties is properly displaced. That's how I think the average American citizen could act in order to influence government behavior.
The main party, in the US, the republicrats, will never change policy based on anything like that. I like you optimism when it comes to party politics, but the system ("democracy") is set up to rule in favor of corporate elites, not individuals.
It is because so many people are perfectly happy to let the corporate elites rule.
True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by Ian » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:51 pm

sandinista wrote: True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.
I'm not going to get into a debate about voting being a sham, but it seems to me that those who don't vote aren't the ones who are smart enough to think that it might be a sham. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be interested and involved in the elections process, even if you're cynical enough to call it a "sham". There's plenty of people who don't give a damn and don't bother to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that most of those non-voters are only non-voters because they're clever enough to see through the process, and so they sit it out. The opposite is closer to the truth.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by sandinista » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:57 pm

Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote: True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.
I'm not going to get into a debate about voting being a sham, but it seems to me that those who don't vote aren't the ones who are smart enough to think that it might be a sham. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be interested and involved in the elections process, even if you're cynical enough to call it a "sham". There's plenty of people who don't give a damn and don't bother to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that most of those non-voters are only non-voters because they're clever enough to see through the process, and so they sit it out. The opposite is closer to the truth.
no...any proof of that? Those who don't vote are smart enough to know that voting for one of two parties with the same policies is, not only a waste of time, but, in fact, only goes to validate a corrupt, pathetic sham of a system.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by Ian » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:02 pm

sandinista wrote:
Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote: True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.
I'm not going to get into a debate about voting being a sham, but it seems to me that those who don't vote aren't the ones who are smart enough to think that it might be a sham. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be interested and involved in the elections process, even if you're cynical enough to call it a "sham". There's plenty of people who don't give a damn and don't bother to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that most of those non-voters are only non-voters because they're clever enough to see through the process, and so they sit it out. The opposite is closer to the truth.
no...any proof of that? Those who don't vote are smart enough to know that voting for one of two parties with the same policies is, not only a waste of time, but, in fact, only goes to validate a corrupt, pathetic sham of a system.
Look up some demographics. Voter turnout increases with education and with age, plain and simple. There's a very clear correlation. For the most part, the non-voters aren't the clever ones.
Maybe it is a messed-up system, but what good does boycotting it do? Zilch. It doesn't undermine its validity one bit.

EDIT: Since you asked for proof, a few statistics on the matter:
Voter turnout in the US based on education
No High School 38 %
Some High School 43%
High School Graduate 57%
Some College 66%
College Grad 79%
Post-Graduate 84%

I'd say that's a pretty clear correlation!

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by sandinista » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:25 pm

Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote:
Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote: True, to a certain extent. There are also a LOT of people who do not, mainly those who do not vote because of the obvious sham it has become.
I'm not going to get into a debate about voting being a sham, but it seems to me that those who don't vote aren't the ones who are smart enough to think that it might be a sham. Generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be interested and involved in the elections process, even if you're cynical enough to call it a "sham". There's plenty of people who don't give a damn and don't bother to vote, but I don't for a minute believe that most of those non-voters are only non-voters because they're clever enough to see through the process, and so they sit it out. The opposite is closer to the truth.
no...any proof of that? Those who don't vote are smart enough to know that voting for one of two parties with the same policies is, not only a waste of time, but, in fact, only goes to validate a corrupt, pathetic sham of a system.
Look up some demographics. Voter turnout increases with education and with age, plain and simple. There's a very clear correlation. For the most part, the non-voters aren't the clever ones.
Maybe it is a messed-up system, but what good does boycotting it do? Zilch. It doesn't undermine its validity one bit.

EDIT: Since you asked for proof, a few statistics on the matter:
Voter turnout in the US based on education
No High School 38 %
Some High School 43%
High School Graduate 57%
Some College 66%
College Grad 79%
Post-Graduate 84%

I'd say that's a pretty clear correlation!
Of course low voter turnout undermines validity. I would say your "clear correlation" may have more to do with class than anything else. I also wouldn't say that education necessarily equates intelligence.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by Ian » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:34 pm

sandinista wrote:
Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote:no...any proof of that? Those who don't vote are smart enough to know that voting for one of two parties with the same policies is, not only a waste of time, but, in fact, only goes to validate a corrupt, pathetic sham of a system.
Look up some demographics. Voter turnout increases with education and with age, plain and simple. There's a very clear correlation. For the most part, the non-voters aren't the clever ones.
Maybe it is a messed-up system, but what good does boycotting it do? Zilch. It doesn't undermine its validity one bit.

EDIT: Since you asked for proof, a few statistics on the matter:
Voter turnout in the US based on education
No High School 38 %
Some High School 43%
High School Graduate 57%
Some College 66%
College Grad 79%
Post-Graduate 84%

I'd say that's a pretty clear correlation!
Of course low voter turnout undermines validity. I would say your "clear correlation" may have more to do with class than anything else. I also wouldn't say that education necessarily equates intelligence.
Sigh. Again, I'm going to have to print some statistics:

Voter Turnout in the US Based on Income (quintile)[/b
]Lowest 20%: 36.4
52
59
67
Highest 20%: 63.1

So it's also true that higher income levels affect voter turnout, but it's not quite as sharp or as uniform as the education factor. Also, education is also linked to income. Also, education is linked to intelligence. Of course there are outliers to any demographic group; education does not always equate to intelligence, and intelligence does not always equate to participation, etc. But numbers are numbers. Bottom line: The most important socioeconomic factor in voter turnout is education. The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote, even when controlled for other factors such as income and class. Cynics who think it's all just nothing but a sham, however, may be found within each category.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by sandinista » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:59 pm

:sighsm:

again, all you are saying is that the more "educated" a person is the more "likely" they are to vote. That goes nowhere in proving that individuals who do not vote are not doing so out of the knowledge that a vote is meaningless when the two parties are two wings of the corporate oligarchy. People, regardless of education, are not too "ignorant" to vote, as you seem to think.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by Ian » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:24 am

sandinista wrote: again, all you are saying is that the more "educated" a person is the more "likely" they are to vote. That goes nowhere in proving that individuals who do not vote are not doing so out of the knowledge that a vote is meaningless when the two parties are two wings of the corporate oligarchy. People, regardless of education, are not too "ignorant" to vote, as you seem to think.
Ignorance does not always equate to political apathy, but there's a correlary trend there as well. Just because you're both relatively educated and interested in/cynical of modern democracy doesn't mean that's the norm. The numbers show that you're an outlier statistic, which is fine.

Unless you're going with the "word of the prophets are written on the subway walls" logic. In which case, screw the statistics - I ain't gonna argue with Simon & Garfunkel. :ask:

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by sandinista » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:28 am

Ian wrote:
sandinista wrote: again, all you are saying is that the more "educated" a person is the more "likely" they are to vote. That goes nowhere in proving that individuals who do not vote are not doing so out of the knowledge that a vote is meaningless when the two parties are two wings of the corporate oligarchy. People, regardless of education, are not too "ignorant" to vote, as you seem to think.
Ignorance does not always equate to political apathy, but there's a correlary trend there as well. Just because you're both relatively educated and interested in/cynical of modern democracy doesn't mean that's the norm. The numbers show that you're an outlier statistic, which is fine.

Unless you're going with the "word of the prophets are written on the subway walls" logic. In which case, screw the statistics - I ain't gonna argue with Simon & Garfunkel. :ask:
...but what brought about the "apathy"? if that's even what you think the reason for choosing not to cast a ballot.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

User avatar
Robert_S
Cookie Monster
Posts: 13416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:47 am
About me: Too young to die of boredom, too old to grow up.
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by Robert_S » Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:04 am

I don't get not turning out to vote. There have got to be hundreds of qualified candidates out there who could either win elections or be productive gadflies raising issues that the mainstream candidates won't address. In the US if you get a mere 5% of the vote, you're on the ballot next time around. Look at what Jello Biafra did in SF back in the day.

Also; regardless of whether or not Ian is right, most voters assume apathy on the non participators. If all else fails, why not just run as the guy you would turn out to vote for.
What I've found with a few discussions I've had lately is this self-satisfaction that people express with their proffessed open mindedness. In realty it ammounts to wilful ignorance and intellectual cowardice as they are choosing to not form any sort of opinion on a particular topic. Basically "I don't know and I'm not going to look at any evidence because I'm quite happy on this fence."
-Mr P

The Net is best considered analogous to communication with disincarnate intelligences. As any neophyte would tell you. Do not invoke that which you have no facility to banish.
Audley Strange

User avatar
Deep Sea Isopod
Bathynomus giganteus
Posts: 7806
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Gods blind spot.
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by Deep Sea Isopod » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:41 am

Devogay wrote: Those in the armed forces agree to a contract, they train and then they're stationed; losing their lives happens to be a possibility, and when they do, I don't see how they're anymore than a hero than a building contractor who falls from a ladder.
Or a fireman who dies in a burning building, or a cop who is shot dead when trying to catch a mad gunman.
This is, of course, dependent on context; but we're not fighting for liberty, we're not in the East to secure our existence. Soldiers are there because of British policy, and those who die are a consequence of it. This being the case, why do so many portray soldiers as heroes and not victims?
It's not about making heroes out of the dead, but paying respect.
Soldiers don't join up for the context of war. They join up for various other reasons. To get away from home! To learn a trade! To go places! etc.
Now, we all know we should never have gone into Iraq, but how many people joined up just to go kill Iraqi's?
Most will join up having a sense of fighting for defense of his/her country. Like many did during WWI and II. What the government choose to do with them is out of their control.

Every year on November 11 we remember those who died in WWI & II, and in other wars since. Are you saying the remembrance day event shouldn't happen because we are martyring the fallen soldiers?

And your dad in going to Afghastlystan to train the police there. What's wrong with that? He's trying (in vain) to make that shit hole a better place. I say respects to him, and hope he comes back safely.
I run with scissors. It makes me feel dangerous Image

Image

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by Feck » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:29 pm

Robert_S wrote:I don't get not turning out to vote. There have got to be hundreds of qualified candidates out there who could either win elections or be productive gadflies raising issues that the mainstream candidates won't address. In the US if you get a mere 5% of the vote, you're on the ballot next time around. Look at what Jello Biafra did in SF back in the day.

Also; regardless of whether or not Ian is right, most voters assume apathy on the non participators. If all else fails, why not just run as the guy you would turn out to vote for.
I voted last time and sadly ,even though I knew my vote would make no actual difference , I voted for the party that that formed a coalition with the most hated party ,sold out all it's principles lied to us ,and generally should be deported to Elephant island .

I am so proud and happy that I legitimised their rise to power ,It helps me so much to think that I wasn't apathetic and I can almost hold back the tears as they ass-rape me everyday .
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
camoguard
The ferret with a microphone
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:59 pm
About me: I'm very social and philosophically ambitious. Also, I'm chatty and enjoy getting to meet new people on or offline. I think I'm talented in writing and rapping. We'll see.
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by camoguard » Fri Jan 07, 2011 2:47 pm

sandinista wrote:
camoguard wrote:Regardless, it's still a popularity contest and what is popular can be influenced.
It's much more complex than that. What is "popular" is most often influenced by those with the power to influence, i.e. multinationals/those with money.
The cards are stacked against new parties/platforms/focus groups. I very much agree. But the game theory of it suggests that to make the change we have to get involved and sustain an effort or else it is just as good as standing aside in many ways. So, how to do it is agreed upon, right? And I also agree it's not likely to succeed. But it's still what a concerned citizen should do.

We benefit from several lines in the sand that previous citizens banded together for. It's not unheard of.

User avatar
sandinista
Posts: 2546
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm
About me: It’s a plot, but busta can you tell me who’s greedier?
Big corporations, the pigs or the media?
Contact:

Re: Soldiers: heroes?

Post by sandinista » Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:59 pm

Robert_S wrote:I don't get not turning out to vote. There have got to be hundreds of qualified candidates out there who could either win elections or be productive gadflies raising issues that the mainstream candidates won't address. In the US if you get a mere 5% of the vote, you're on the ballot next time around. Look at what Jello Biafra did in SF back in the day.

Also; regardless of whether or not Ian is right, most voters assume apathy on the non participators. If all else fails, why not just run as the guy you would turn out to vote for.
Because you assume most voter assume apathy in non voters also doesn't make it true. The whole, "people who don't vote are lazy/stupid/apathetic etc" is simply the "party line" of those who wish that "elections" weren't the sham they really are.
Feck wrote:
Robert_S wrote:I don't get not turning out to vote. There have got to be hundreds of qualified candidates out there who could either win elections or be productive gadflies raising issues that the mainstream candidates won't address. In the US if you get a mere 5% of the vote, you're on the ballot next time around. Look at what Jello Biafra did in SF back in the day.

Also; regardless of whether or not Ian is right, most voters assume apathy on the non participators. If all else fails, why not just run as the guy you would turn out to vote for.
I voted last time and sadly ,even though I knew my vote would make no actual difference , I voted for the party that that formed a coalition with the most hated party ,sold out all it's principles lied to us ,and generally should be deported to Elephant island .
Same thing happened to me last time I voted, the "left leaning :roll: " NDP party got elected and...oohh big surprise turned out to have the same policies as the "center" party and the "right" party...shocker there.
camoguard wrote:
sandinista wrote:
camoguard wrote:Regardless, it's still a popularity contest and what is popular can be influenced.
It's much more complex than that. What is "popular" is most often influenced by those with the power to influence, i.e. multinationals/those with money.
The cards are stacked against new parties/platforms/focus groups. I very much agree. But the game theory of it suggests that to make the change we have to get involved and sustain an effort or else it is just as good as standing aside in many ways. So, how to do it is agreed upon, right? And I also agree it's not likely to succeed. But it's still what a concerned citizen should do.

We benefit from several lines in the sand that previous citizens banded together for. It's not unheard of.
There are many many things to do to get involved in politics other than casting a useless ballot once every few years.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests