New Theories Urgently Needed

[Fuzzness 2]

"a lot" of people are in the military because they believe in definding this country and its peoples. while i certainly do not agree with the war in iraq, i definately respect why people join the military. it has absolutely nothing to do with intellect or violent tendencies.

[yabasta 0]

yabasta,

you have used "a lot" many times in this thread, and it has been pointed out to you many times as well, that "a lot" does in fact mean quite a bit, not a small amount. You yourself even said by "a lot" you mean a large number. Referring to a large number of people in the military as you have, is still generalizing a whole lot, especially when you don't have proof to back it up. "A large number" could very well mean a majority too.

I'm pretty sure in the military they could easily distinguish what "a lot" means, yet you are trying to say it doesn't mean a majority, but a large number. Hmm...???? Either admit you don't have proof to support your statistics, or that you are not sure how many fit your generalization, or admit that you are just saying it because you are anti-war and anti-military and just want to insult them...but please stop saying "a lot."

Well again people are banging on about my wording despite the fact i have clarified my point numerous times. When i said a lot i did not mean a majority. A lot is a vague term i agree but one of it`s meanings is a large number. By a large number i mean a considerable ammount worth counting. Now does anybody have anymore definitions for "a lot" they wish to share?

I find this to be very boring. We are getting off the point further and further. This thread is not about my views on the military.

if you are determined to make a thread on a different topic to september 11th then by all means do. I will probably respond to it i just don`t see the need or point in posting it in this thread.

thanks

"a lot" of people are in the military because they believe in definding this country and its peoples. while i certainly do not agree with the war in iraq, i definately respect why people join the military. it has absolutely nothing to do with intellect or violent tendencies.

Well in many cases you are right i am sure although if i were an ####### i would ask you for proof.

[gimygirl 0]

[Fandango 1,440]

Oh how I despise semantics!

Smithy was right!!!!

[gimygirl 0]

Well again people are banging on about my wording despite the fact i have clarified my point numerous times.

...

We are getting off the point further and further.

welcome to forum rules 101 ... stop addressing those posts that continue to detract from the actual debate ... you've clarified yourself once already! it's all semantics now!!

[yabasta 0]

more than once but i don`t want to get semantic.

[Ban Hammer 13,481]

I didn`t mean that i did not buy that people join to go to college. I meant i didn`t feel it was a necesary reason to join up. I feel there are other ways if college is what you are after. Having said that i also said (i think) that i do not hae the views i expressed towards all soldiers. I understand the military is a broad group of people but i also see that a lot(to clarify i mean a large number not a majority or all) are indeed of below average intellect and often seem to be of a violent disposition and like i said that comes with the job and the training for the job.

I am a graduate of the US Naval Nuclear Power program. A Navy trained nuclear operator. I seriosly doubt that you could complete the program. Do a google search.

i heard that course is harder than woodpecker lips. congratulations on passing

[gimygirl 0]

i heard that course is harder than woodpecker lips.

and you know how hard those are by ........

[tmma 467]

I didn`t mean that i did not buy that people join to go to college. I meant i didn`t feel it was a necesary reason to join up. I feel there are other ways if college is what you are after. Having said that i also said (i think) that i do not hae the views i expressed towards all soldiers. I understand the military is a broad group of people but i also see that a lot(to clarify i mean a large number not a majority or all) are indeed of below average intellect and often seem to be of a violent disposition and like i said that comes with the job and the training for the job.

I am a graduate of the US Naval Nuclear Power program. A Navy trained nuclear operator. I seriosly doubt that you could complete the program. Do a google search.

i heard that course is harder than woodpecker lips. congratulations on passing

and yes-congrats on passing

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

They have no merit due to no solid evidence? Well there is no solid evidence maybe but there is still evidence pointing in that direction and plenty of it. So i would suggest that maybe there is merit to such ideas. Or at least more merit to them than is given.

To dismiss any theory when no theory has "solid evidence" is rather selective and probably not a good way to approach things.

and when i say no solid evidence i mean most evidence can work for a number of theories.

We can argue about whether the holocaust happened if you like, or that the death toll wasn't as bad as history has made out. This is little different IMO. Its simply a waste of time arguing a case that has no solid basis in fact whatsoever, when there are far more pressing issues going on that are worthier of debate.

There is NO evidence pointing to direct government involvement to destroy a key piece of the country's economic infrastructure and the murder of 3000 people. None whatsoever.

There is evidence however, of mistakes, bureaucratic incompetance on the part of many agencies and government bodies.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yabasta,

you have used "a lot" many times in this thread, and it has been pointed out to you many times as well, that "a lot" does in fact mean quite a bit, not a small amount. You yourself even said by "a lot" you mean a large number. Referring to a large number of people in the military as you have, is still generalizing a whole lot, especially when you don't have proof to back it up. "A large number" could very well mean a majority too.

I'm pretty sure in the military they could easily distinguish what "a lot" means, yet you are trying to say it doesn't mean a majority, but a large number. Hmm...???? Either admit you don't have proof to support your statistics, or that you are not sure how many fit your generalization, or admit that you are just saying it because you are anti-war and anti-military and just want to insult them...but please stop saying "a lot."

I think that's a good point. Strictly speaking however there is a nugget of truth to every stereotype. I don't have figures to back it up but I do believe there is distinct tendency for military recruits to be drawn from generally poor backgrounds. While there is some correlation between socio-economic background and the proportion of people who go on to higher education, its certainly not reasonable to classify all military recruits by the lowest common denominator - as being uneducated, unintelligent or having violent tendencies.

Part of the problem here is that the military is more often judged by its mistakes, and indeed by its worst elements. You only have to look at the troops who were discharged for their part in prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib - they fit the stereotype to a tee IMO.

Edited May 18, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,481]

You only have to look at the troops who were discharged for their part in prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib - they fit the stereotype to a tee IMO.

um not exactly discharged. many are about 10 miles from where i'm typing where they are enjoying the nice building known as the usdb (united states disciplinary barracks). which is a rather nice way to say - prison from hell. when one is sentenced to 10 years confinment and a bad conduct discharge...the confinement comes first, then the discharge. they are still in the military until then.

Edited May 19, 2006 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thanks for the correction. But would you agree perhaps - that people like that cast the entire armed services into disrepute?

Of course it doesn't help that the war was very unpopular to begin with.

[dalegg 143]

Thanks for the correction. But would you agree perhaps - that people like that cast the entire armed services into disrepute?

Of course it doesn't help that the war was very unpopular to begin with.

That is actually not true, at least according to this polling report summary. In the beginning support for the war was very high- about 75%. Support for Iraq policies by year.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Thanks for the correction. But would you agree perhaps - that people like that cast the entire armed services into disrepute?

Of course it doesn't help that the war was very unpopular to begin with.

That is actually not true, at least according to this polling report summary. In the beginning support for the war was very high- about 75%. Support for Iraq policies by year.

I guess that depends whether you believe the polls or the many thousands of people protesting in the streets. Usually the 'truth' is somewhere in-between.