That's what happened on other message boards. Once they stop engaging me, time passes, then the cycle repeats, either on this board, or another one. When I argue "indefinitely," it's not just with the current debate, but continued on the following debate. I'd be a hypocrite if I advocate that America continue fighting until we accomplish our objectives, then turn around and fail to do precisely that on a specific debate on a message board.
Originally Posted by herfacechair
That would be one view on what's happened. Another view....
People argue with you until they realize it's a waste of time. Argument stops. Somebody forgets - or someone new comes along who doesn't know better - and reengages you. Cycle repeats...
Originally Posted by Sisyphus
If you go back and read what I wrote, you'd notice that we're not talking about two different views. If people wisely decide that a debate with me is pointless, they stop. If they stop, then we have the scenario that I talked about in case people do stop. All you did was expand on one aspect on how the cycle repeats itself. Go ahead, look our exchange over. You didn't contradict me, you built on my statement instead.
Thanks for being one of the rare posters that acknowledges that fact. I'm usually the only poster, in a forum debate, openly admitting that both sides would stick to their positions, while the opposition denies it.
Originally Posted by herfacechair
I do my level best to think something through before I open my mouth. Consequently, when I do so I tend to think I'm right. Arguing with me is the about the only way to get me to change my mind. I know I'm not perfect - far from it. I've learned to appreciate give-and-take in all of it's various forms. It's how we all learn & improve.
Originally Posted by Sisyphus
Both during and outside of my debates, I constantly research various topics. It's that research that causes me to change my mind. This has happened on minor information here and there. By the time I come to a debate with someone on this topic, the opposition advances an argument, or statement, that I had already rejected... either through a previous debate, or through analyzing information that I got from my research. My changing position never happens as a result of what someone, that I'm debating with, has said.
Sisyphus: But, you've got to come correct or you're going to get tuned out.
I come to these debates correct. Again, the major prerequisite for me to debate someone is for me to know more about a topic than that person. Those that think they've "turned me out" make the same mistakes previous posters have made, doing the same thing, in the past years that I've ben debating online.
Sisyphus: Know the community, know the audience.
Again, I do know the community, and the audience. This isn't the first message board that I've debated on over these years. Human nature doesn't change from one message board to another. I don't see any major differences between the people that I've seen post on this board, and those that post on the previous ones that I've posted on.
Sisyphus: You may have some valid points to make on this topic & many others...
I have valid points, very valid points. The reason most people here don't see them as valid is that they seem to lack key experiences related to what I'm arguing here. A major reason they don't see the validity of my points is that I'm arguing against their position.
Sisyphus: but I get so turned off by the self-righteous demeanor that I quickly lose interest in anything you may have to say.
Pardon me if my pointing to my research, and experiences... as opposed to the opposition's lack of it, as my being "self-righteous." But get off your high horse and be honest for a change. The real reason you don't have any interest in anything I'm saying is that you disagree with my side of the argument.
Sisyphus: I won't presume to speak for anyone but me but my guess is I'm not on an island in that regard.
I've debated with enough people on your side of the argument to know that you're not on an island in that regard. You're not the first, among those that I've debated, that complained about that. At the same time, I notice the irony in the fact that the vast majority that threw that accusation against me displayed many of the same traits they accused me of having.
Sisyphus: So, at ease, Chief!
Wrong NCO Corps.
Sisyphus: Chances are...the men you serve with are tuning you out as well. That ain't good!
Not true. The vast majority of my argument here is consistent with the arguments the majority of the people I served with make. They don't tune me out when I make these similar arguments.
Sisyphus: There it is...in a nutshell.
Actually, you missed the mark.
Sisyphus: You may win battles & wars in your own mind;
Wrong. This isn't something that's "just happening in my own mind." Point blank, I win my engagements in these debates. Any critical thinker reading the threads I've debated on would see that.
Sisyphus: but, you've already lost the hearts & minds fight here. I'm guessing it's the same story pretty much everywhere you go.
Again, what I previously said:
"I've been debating online about various war related topics since I came back from the initial Operation Iraqi Freedom. In each of the debates I've been involved with, I've always came out of the debate with the same argument I had going into the debate. I don't debate to change other people's minds, and I definitely have never changed my mind based on what one of my debate opponents have said." - herfacechair
Winning the hearts and minds of the people that I'm debating with has hardly been a goal. And, as I've indicated here, with the above cycle, pretty much the same story has happened.
God help me...I did. You are one odd dude.... But, you keep at it, Sgt. York! The life of a prophet can be a lonely one...
Perhaps you've just been barking up the wrong tree. "Another Realm" is one floor down.
Originally Posted by Sisyphus
I've ben doing this for years, so I shouldn't have a problem "keeping at it." And no, my life isn't lonely. Heck, I have a blast with these debates. I'd still get a chuckle at some of the things the opposition as said, or claimed, in the past.
WTF: By your own admission you are sucking at the government tit.
WRONG. Go back and read the statement that you quoted, as well as previous statements that I've made here. I argue for the reason that I've stated on both, this message board, and other message boards. I have a break in service. Even during the time I wasn't in the service, I argued what I argued here. I didn't benefit at all from the government while making these same, or similar, arguments.
WTF: For that milk to continue to flow, I'm sure you are aware that the gain from military victory needs to at the very least equal the cost.
Wrong. The milk will continue to flow, regardless of whether the military wins or not. If it doesn't win in the short run, the milk will continue to flow until the enemies that we're fighting accomplish their ultimate objective. Then it wouldn't matter if the milk continues to flow or not.
WTF: If you look at our national debt you will see that is not happening.
Wrong again. We're going to need a military, regardless of what our situation is. Just look at our situation during the great depression... look at the situation we had during World War II... heck, look at the situation we had during the Revolutionary War. We piled on debt, but as long as we had the will to fight, we kept on fighting. The milk continued to flow.
WTF: What this means is that at some point your milk will dry up
Let's put it this way. If the milk "dries up," our existence as a country is numbered.
WTF: as will, I suspect your cockiness.
Pardon me if my steadfast devotion to my debating hobby constitutes my being "cocky." But, if you fantasy were to pan out, I'd still be on here arguing the position that I argue.
WTF: Thus I stick by my statement that you are winning the battle but losing the funding war.
The only part of the statement that's correct is the part about my winning the battle. As with some of the other wars we fought, we ran our debt up, but that debt eventually went down. Your "funding" argument is a non issue.
WTF: It may not affect you.
It won't affect me. Regardless of whether your fantasy plays out or not, I'll continue doing what I do here.
WTF: Now I realize that you may think this debate is all about you but from my POV it is not, it is about long term trends and economic health. Just because you are not able to see past the decade does not mean that I can't.
Again, before you pull an assumption like that out of your ass, it helps to do your research. I've made enough statements here for anybody, having more than a 5th grade education, to understand why I'm doing this. For instance, what I said on this thread:
"Given the asymmetrical warfare that we're involved in, we have to be doing what we're doing right now to defeat the threat that intends to illuminate us as a culture, as a non Muslim people. Our failure to do what we're doing right now invites the enemy to succeed with their goal... establishing global Islamic law." -herfacechair
Anybody with any reading comprehension ability would conclude, from reading that statement, that for me, this is about long term trends given the asymmetrical threat that we're facing. Anybody with at least "half a brain" would also conclude that what I'm talking about here requires seeing decades, even centuries, past our current decade.
Again, considering that everything is at state, our economic health isn't going to matter if we're forced to bow down to Mecca 5 times a day, and forced to abide by a radical version of what the Taliban subjected Afghanistan to.
WTF: No you leave out a very important factor....funds to fight.
If funds were an issue, we should've lost the Revolutionary War and World War II. So no, I didn't leave that important factor out.
WTF: The Indians had the will to fight and win.
And thanks to our will to fight, and win, we conquered the rest their lands and caused them to live in reservations, assimilate, or both.
WTF: Good Lord, you sound like some Defense contractor feeding at the trough trying to feed me a line about why I need to feed you.
If that's how my statement came across to you, then you need to go back to the school system that pushed you through, and sue them for dereliction of duty. They did you a disservice in the reading comprehension department.
What I say still stands.
We still have a will to fight, and congress is still providing funding for us to continue to do our operations. Despite the fact that you're blind to the asymmetrical threats this country faces, congress sees the importance of our accomplishing our objectives downrange.
You see, my life, as a service member, would be a lot easier, and comfortable, if I weren't to deploy downrange. I could start on my doctorate degree. I could turn one of my hobbies into an income stream. I could build on another one. I could do all sorts of things to make things more convenient for me.
So, it wouldn't make sense for me to do things for the reasons you say I'm doing things.
Go back to quote that I made, THAT'S the reason I'm arguing the things that I'm arguing here.
WTF: No , I was comparing you to the Jack Nicholison charchter. Col. Jessup, I believe his name was.
That's PRECISELY the character that I was talking about. As a "Col," his character would've been someone that had graduated from the Naval Academy, or from a university via an ROTC program. His character would've at least have a Bachelor's degree.
The Nicolson (sp) character did a good job acting like someone with extensive military experience. In fact, his demeanor would be considered "lenient" by how many in the military actually act.
WTF: Look I appreciate your POV. To have the job you have, it is exactly what you need to have. I understand why they instill it in you. But it is a short term view, one that saves your life but does not take into consideration the long term health of this country.
Your opinion is erroneous on several levels, and relies on inductive fallacy.
What I've presented here is an assessment based on my experiences, as well as on my research. Nobody instilled these assessments into me. I came up with them independently of others coming to the same, or similar, conclusions. Nobody issued me the arguments that I'm making here, and nobody is forcing me to say what I'm saying here. Nobody is paying me to say what I'm saying here.
I'm saying this on my own free will.
What you dismiss with the "short term view, one that saves your life," is something that you don't want to entertain.
For us, FACTS play an important role in our decisions and analysis. We gather facts, and make projections based on the facts. This is helpful downrange, this is helpful during an online debate, this is helpful in many places.
Again, if we don't accomplish our strategic objectives, our financial/economic health won't matter. We'd have other things to worry about, like a radical version of Islamic Law that makes the Taliban's leadership look like a real democratic government being forced down our throats.
WTF: That is why I think this discussion , at least that you and I are having is about two different subject matters.
I'm arguing about the negative impact the Useful Idiot, and his website, are having on our efforts against our enemies. You're making it about something else.
WTF: Good luck to you and from the bottom of my heart I hope like hell none of the leaks put you or any of our soldiers life in danger
That's an unfortunate reality that the service members have to face now that they've released information that should've remained secret.
