Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's more that I've laid out logic in certain posts and expected you to try and refute it, but you kind of just dismiss it without addressing what I actually said...usually in a flippant and sarcastic way. Maybe it's not the case for you, but that almost always means that the person can't actually refute the logic, so they dismiss it or avoid it. I see it all the time and have done it myself in the past.
You did that here as well by ignoring the question. I asked what the difference is between the two and I'm led to believe you don't have an answer. It's like if you said 1 + 1 = 2, and I said "No it doesn't". You ask me to explain how it doesn't equal 2 and I say "If you think 1 + 1 = 2, I don't know what to even say to you". You'd just assume I'm avoiding the question because I don't want to be wrong. If you have an answer and don't want to say it, that's your choice obviously, but I don't really understand it.
We don't agree about much, including your review of our exchange. I attempted to address your philosophy in the early going with some fundamental issues, but it seemed you could not see the incongruity between what I view as simple pragmatic reality and what you view as how things should be. After I began to realize we couldn't even establish simple agreement about those basics, spending any more time struck me as a waste of time.
If for example, you say that 2 + 2 CAN equal 5 if you just allow yourself to agree, and even if you provide all sorts of reasons you think so, including your three years of studying this equation, I'm inclined to leave you be with that funny math without further challenge from me (even though I think you are wrong).
On the other hand, maybe you are some sort of genius, and I simply don't get your logic. That could be too (but me and a few lessor minds don't think so) as already expressed...
The wealthier the average household is in your neighborhood, the more likely you are to have joined the U.S. military in 2006 and 2007. Considering the sample size, this is likely to be true today, too.
There is a widespread perception in the U.S. that enlisted soldiers are poor, uneducated and underprivileged, that they choose to enlist and to serve because they have few other options, and that they risk their lives because they have very little to lose. In reality, however, data shows that American soldiers are relatively wealthy, well-educated, and do not choose to serve as any kind of a last resort.
When my brother joined the Marine corps, I can't recall how many showed sudden concern. "but he is such a smart boy, why did he join.." Translation: There must be something wrong with him. My brother was smart, straight A student, he came from an upper middle class family. How about just accept the fact that different people have different goals in life? Why making things so complicated?
Your desire to argue what I view as the obvious, especially with something from the Heritage Foundation, strikes me as more than just a little biased opinion here. I have no bias regarding people who decide to voluntarily enlist (or not). Everyone does as their hearts and minds will lead them, but I don't think it takes much doing to pull up the accurate demographics in these regards, as just touched upon.
Go to just about any upper-class neighborhood, and generally speaking the path after high school is college, not the military. In part this is why such a large proportion of enlisted military service men and women don't have college degrees. Add the fact that blacks are over represented in the military as compared to their percent of Americans, and I don't think you need to be any political or statistics expert to see that economic circumstances play a role when it comes to who enlists and why.
This is not to say that economics is the primary factor for most of those who enlist, but the demographics do show that economic circumstances are a significant factor for many, in particular for those from lower-economic backgrounds -- hence my concern.
We don't agree about much, including your review of our exchange. I attempted to address your philosophy in the early going with some fundamental issues, but it seemed you could not see the incongruity between what I view as simple pragmatic reality and what you view as how things should be. After I began to realize we couldn't even establish simple agreement about those basics, spending any more time struck me as a waste of time.
If for example, you say that 2 + 2 CAN equal 5 if you just allow yourself to agree, and even if you provide all sorts of reasons you think so, including your three years of studying this equation, I'm inclined to leave you be with that funny math without further challenge from me (even though I think you are wrong).
On the other hand, maybe you are some sort of genius, and I simply don't get your logic. That could be too (but me and a few lessor minds don't think so) as already expressed...
I doubt I'm a genius, and luckily I don't think what I'm saying is too complicated. We shouldn't give anyone an exemption from morality, so we should find alternatives to taxation and law as they exist today. You may not like the ideas I threw out, and that's fine, but all I wanted was for you to agree that the state's authority isn't legitimate, just as the mafia's authority over you isn't legitimate. It's just people threatening you.
I don't want to go too far off topic here, but that's what I'm referring to. I laid out how it isn't legitimate and you never really refuted that. My only real goal is to get rid of the idea that it's justified to use the state to force your will on others and take their stuff.
Your desire to argue what I view as the obvious, especially with something from the Heritage Foundation, strikes me as more than just a little biased opinion here. I have no bias regarding people who decide to voluntarily enlist (or not).
First of all, when people say they have no bias, I would just choose to take their words for it in order to avoid an useless argument. I have ZERO desire to argue especially with somebody like to say the last words.
But, to say an opinion or a link has no credibility SIMPLY because it is from a certain website, is logical fallacy. I only provided a link in order to offer a different opinion or debunk a myth that "military service is the last option for Underprivileged youth." You need to know that every single time, you present an argument, there will be a counter argument.
Plus, if heritage foundation is too bias for you,
how about this
Education Level. The majority (86.0%) of Selected Reserve officers have a Bachelor’s degree
or higher. Most enlisted members (84.0%) have a high school diploma and/or some college
experience, and 9.5 percent of enlisted members have a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
The volunteer military is actually better educated and less poor than the draft military, because it is smaller and more selective than the draft military. One third of American youth, heavily minority, do not complete high school, and thus make themselves largely ineligible for the military even if they wish to serve.
In fact, more than 1% of Americans are involved in America’s defense. In addition to the two plus million service personnel—the 1.4 million active duty and 800,000 plus in the reserve components—there are 800,000 plus civil service employees of the Department of Defense—people who work in military depots, defense laboratories, shipyards, and contract management offices—and five to six million (the exact number is not known) contract employees—people who build weapon systems, provide support services, and conduct defense related research.
the American military needs fewer than 200,000 of them to volunteer for active duty or the reserves to maintain its numbers. With that pool, the military can insist on a high school education for enlisted personnel, and a college degree for officers. Avoided are the medically unfit, those with serious criminal records, and those who would chafe under the discipline required.
First of all, when people say they have no bias, I would just choose to take their words for it in order to avoid an useless argument. I have ZERO desire to argue especially with somebody like to say the last words.
But, to say an opinion or a link has no credibility SIMPLY because it is from a certain website, is logical fallacy. I only provided a link in order to offer a different opinion or debunk a myth that "military service is the last option for Underprivileged youth." You need to know that every single time, you present an argument, there will be a counter argument.
Plus, if heritage foundation is too bias for you,
how about this
Education Level. The majority (86.0%) of Selected Reserve officers have a Bachelor’s degree
or higher. Most enlisted members (84.0%) have a high school diploma and/or some college
experience, and 9.5 percent of enlisted members have a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
To each his own, but I do my best not to site sources with obvious bias. Why, because they are obviously biased! If you want truth, objective truth, you are best just sticking to the facts without pulling from "talking heads" and questionable sources that have agendas beyond just truth-seeking.
As for all the rest, you would do us both a favor if you simply pointed out nice and simple like, what it is I have commented that has you taking exception. That there are more OFFICERS in the military with college degrees does not contradict my comments or concerns in any way. The great majority of enlisted service men and women do not. Blacks are over represented in the military why? Do you think they are more patriotic than white folks? I don't either...
Either you don't understand my comments and/or I don't understand your point of disagreement.
What is it? Plain and simple, in your own words, preferably 150 or less...
Blacks are over represented in the military why? Do you think they are more patriotic than white folks? I don't either.....
I was only debunking the myth Military is the last option for Underprivileged or uneducated youth. No more no less.
I have no desire (absolutely zero) to turn this thread into something it is not. Nor do I have any desires to bring "race" into the discussion. Because like you said, I don't know.
You did not read my links obviously, I specifically mentioned enlisted, Most of them have high school diploma and are more educated compare to their civilian counterparts.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 02-28-2016 at 10:18 AM..
I doubt I'm a genius, and luckily I don't think what I'm saying is too complicated. We shouldn't give anyone an exemption from morality, so we should find alternatives to taxation and law as they exist today. You may not like the ideas I threw out, and that's fine, but all I wanted was for you to agree that the state's authority isn't legitimate, just as the mafia's authority over you isn't legitimate. It's just people threatening you.
I don't want to go too far off topic here, but that's what I'm referring to. I laid out how it isn't legitimate and you never really refuted that. My only real goal is to get rid of the idea that it's justified to use the state to force your will on others and take their stuff.
I doubt there are any who qualify as genius commenting here, not in this thread any way, certainly not me, but as you well point out, we need not be too smart to address what is not that complicated here...
You keep commenting what you would like me to do, but I am afraid you will have to be satisfied with my comments such as they are. It isn't that I "don't like" your ideas. I do from an entertainment standpoint. I just don't recognize your ideas as practical or realistic or logical when all is considered from the standpoint of how societies function, how individuals are expected to act in accordance with what society dictates. That's all...
You want me to "agree that the state's authority isn't legitimate," but how do I agree with that if I don't?
What defines legitimacy according to my way of thinking is what we as a people establish as the rule of law through a democratic process. I already explained what I think about what is appropriate and/or to be expected when laws are deemed unjust or when people don't agree with the rule of law.
I don't view the mafia the same way I view Congress, not as you do. I don't view the draft the same way I view slavery, not as you do.
I admit, however, I am not inclined toward wasting more time explaining why our views must differ in these regards. There are far too many more interesting and consequential opinions (IMHO) contrary to mine as expressed in these threads that I can't possibly get to, so I am just not as inclined to spend time engaging in this debate over what I view as a bit "out there" from a practical and relevant standpoint.
Besides, I have a Sunday to enjoy with some family and friends, so this is the best I can do for today I think...
To each his own, but I do my best not to site sources with obvious bias.s...
bolded =
logical fallacy by the way.
He is stupid, so he cannot say anything smart. It is a logical fallacy by the way.
Unlike you, I do my best NOT to decide which source is biased, which is not. I try to read as many articles as possible and form my own opinion (and sometimes, my opinions can be biased.) It doesn't hurt to learn from all different sources or different people. Even my four year old nephew can teach me something I don't know. But again, that is just me.
I doubt there are any who qualify as genius commenting here, not in this thread any way, certainly not me, but as you well point out, we need not be too smart to address what is not that complicated here...
You keep commenting what you would like me to do, but I am afraid you will have to be satisfied with my comments such as they are. It isn't that I "don't like" your ideas. I do from an entertainment standpoint. I just don't recognize your ideas as practical or realistic or logical when all is considered from the standpoint of how societies function, how individuals are expected to act in accordance with what society dictates. That's all...
You want me to "agree that the state's authority isn't legitimate," but how do I agree with that if I don't?
What defines legitimacy according to my way of thinking is what we as a people establish as the rule of law through a democratic process. I already explained what I think about what is appropriate and/or to be expected when laws are deemed unjust or when people don't agree with the rule of law.
I don't view the mafia the same way I view Congress, not as you do. I don't view the draft the same way I view slavery, not as you do.
I admit, however, I am not inclined toward wasting more time explaining why our views must differ in these regards. There are far too many more interesting and consequential opinions (IMHO) contrary to mine as expressed in these threads that I can't possibly get to, so I am just not as inclined to spend time engaging in this debate over what I view as a bit "out there" from a practical and relevant standpoint.
Besides, I have a Sunday to enjoy with some family and friends, so this is the best I can do for today I think...
That's fine and I understand. I just have to address one thing, but you can take it or leave it. You said you don't agree that state authority is illegitimate, and your reasoning is that "we the people" establish the rule of law through the democratic process. I previously pointed out that that cannot possibly be legitimate, because you can't delegate rights you don't have to begin with. If I want to take your wallet, I can't just round up a majority of people who also want to take your wallet and assume that makes it legitimate.
You can't make a wrong action right by having the majority decide it's right. That goes for anything...rape, murder, theft, fraud, or whatever.
He is stupid, so he cannot say anything smart. It is a logical fallacy by the way.
Unlike you, I do my best NOT to decide which source is biased, which is not. I try to read as many articles as possible and form my own opinion (and sometimes, my opinions can be biased.) It doesn't hurt to learn from all different sources or different people. Even my four year old nephew can teach me something I don't know. But again, that is just me.
I don't know what you mean by "logical fallacy," but rather than attempt to label my point of view, why not just take it verbatim? I don't believe there is any "fallacy" when suggesting it is best to draw conclusions based on the facts as fairly presented in an unbiased manner rather than listen to those who have agendas beyond what is the simple objective truth of these matters. Hard to do, since we all know that trying to avoid the influence of biased opinion is next to impossible, but there is a VERY BIG difference between listening to Rush Limbaugh, for example, as compared to the PBS Newshour. If you don't recognize this difference, that would be a problem.
More to the words you choose to use, I am not referring to the choice between "stupid" or not stupid, but to use your analogy (if that is what it is), are you better off learning from "stupid" sources or intelligent informed sources? If yet again you don't know or prefer not to choose simply because there might be a nugget of truth no matter who you listen to, no matter what you read, well then we disagree once again.
This is not an all-or-nothing choice. Of course we all can hardly help hearing many "voices" that we can deem more or less worthy of consideration, but what we do toward the best learning possible, the best chance at getting to the truth, let alone understanding it, has very much to do with how we "feed our head."
If that is any sort of "fallacy" to you, then I suppose back to the Heritage Foundation you will go...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your confirmation bias is showing...
My brother was smart, straight A student, he came from an upper middle class family. How about just accept the fact that different people have different goals in life? Why making things so complicated? 
