Philosophical Vegan Forum

EquALLity wrote:A lot more honorable and brave then you sitting at your computer spreading ignorant bullshit about them.

Random question: Is your house made of glass?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Can you explain what good you think came from this? Did it help anybody or lessen suffering in the world in any way?

Just putting yourself through torture for no good reason kind of seems dumb. Bad ass, sure. But not that smart. A deontological framework would call him a hero for following his rules and keeping his vows no matter what, but that's because they don't care about consequences. I can't see any consequential reason to call him a hero, just a bad ass.
YES it does speak well of his character that he did that. It tells me that if he makes a promise, he'll be loyal and that I can trust him to endure torture to keep it. But... how has he used this sense of trust and credibility to make the world a better place? What has he done as a politician to make the world better? Has that experience of torture propelled him into the presidency where he used the position to establish world peace? Or... has he just been a pretty typical Republican for the most part (albeit admirably more center than far right)?

What is a hero, exactly?
Are the Al-Qaeda members who endured torture at Guantanamo heroes because they didn't just spill the beans on the terror plans?
Does it just apply to anybody who followed their arbitrary principles, regardless of consequence (good or bad)?

He's a hero because going back to America and praising the camp would diminish it's relevance in the mind of the world, which could make it less likely for something to be done about what's going on there.

brimstoneSalad wrote:The criticism may come off douchey and insensitive, because McCain was a "victim", but that's SJW mentality. It doesn't make it incorrect.
It makes Trump a political moron for saying it, because it's hurt him a lot with the right, the military, and particularly veterans.
This is something a smart politician doesn't say. But does it make him wrong?

Why do you put victim in parenthesis? He's LITERALLY a victim of torture.
I think you've been so turned off by 'SJWs' that you've gone too far to the opposite side.

It is douchey and insensitive to call someone with PTSD weaker and to insult John McCain's war record.
Have you ever fought in a war and witnessed absolute atrocities? If not, then it's really not your place to judge.

And it's truly stupid coming from Donald Trump, who's a five-time draft dodger and who's 'own personal Vietnam' was 'avoiding STDs' because during the war he was partying and having tons of sex.
He ran from the war to party and have sex, and he has the nerve to insult John McCain's record AND veterans with PTSD? Really?

brimstoneSalad wrote:People who served honorably can talk about what happened, which helps cope with PTSD.
People who, say, raped and massacred an innocent village of civilians, or slaughtered a bunch of children, may have PTSD from that but can't really talk about it because of their shame. Soldiers do a lot of terrible shit in wartime. Not all of them, but it's not uncommon.

It would be very interesting to study the efficacy of interventions against PTSD in honorable vs dishonorable cases, since the most effective treatment is talking about it and building up a tolerance to the memories by gradual exposure. I would put money on soldiers with more dishonorable behavior suffering disproportionately from PTSD. That doesn't mean there aren't honorable soldiers who have, particularly if they saw a lot of their friends killed in front of them.

To my knowledge, however, there's no study on this.
We know some people are more vulnerable to PTSD than others, though. It could be that "brave" people are more immune in the first place. And "dishonorable" people are less able to be treated. But then psychopaths would have no problems with that, and maybe they commit the majority of the atrocities? We just don't know the details.
Arguing about empirical claims without data is just the blind fighting the blind.

And we at least know that not ALL veterans with PTSD had honorable and brave services -- we just don't have a good idea of what the ratios are there.
I don't know McCain's situation, but just because somebody was a soldier or had PTSD doesn't mean that person was brave or a hero. Additional evidence and argument is needed.

You're making unfair assumptions. Maybe brave veterans are MORE likely to have PTSD, because they're more willing to put themselves into dangerous situations.

Having PTSD doesn't make you weaker, it's just a feeling. It's actions that matter.

EquALLity wrote:He's a hero because going back to America and praising the camp would diminish it's relevance in the mind of the world, which could make it less likely for something to be done about what's going on there.

Personally, I'd like to see your evidence for this claim.

EquALLity wrote: Why do you put victim in parenthesis? He's LITERALLY a victim of torture.
I think you've been so turned off by 'SJWs' that you've gone too far to the opposite side.

I think brim put "victim" in parenthesis because John McCain could have easily just went home and nothing would be different. McCain chose to be a victim in this scenario.

EquALLity wrote: It is douchey and insensitive to call someone with PTSD weaker and to insult John McCain's war record.
Have you ever fought in a war and witnessed absolute atrocities? If not, then it's really not your place to judge.

I don't think Jebus was making fun of people with PTSD..
And again, you're making the same BS argument that we can't judge since we never experienced it.
And you don't have to be in a war to get PTSD. Maybe someone you loved died, or maybe you experienced an earthquake that hit 9.3 on the Richter scale and left your home town in shambles.

Pretty sure that last one hasn't happened to most of us but it's very ignorant of you to say that we have never been in traumatizing scenarios.

http://www.psychguides.com/guides/post- ... d-effects/

About how Trump partied during Vietnam and avoided the draft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLydb7K6zmY

Cenk Uygur wrote:He prefers people who weren't captured. One way not to get captured is not to go at all.

EquALLity wrote: He's a hero because going back to America and praising the camp would diminish it's relevance in the mind of the world, which could make it less likely for something to be done about what's going on there.

He didn't have to praise it, he just had a ticket home. He was protesting out of order release. Once released, he could talk about the conditions in the camp honestly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Was the U.S. of A. the good guy in that war?
Are you familiar with the politics and history of the conflict, and the actions of Americans in the war?

The P.O.W. camps were not the issue there. It wasn't an "Oh no! We have to stop these evil North Vietnamese from imprisoning our poor soldiers!"
This was war, and that didn't justify it or start it. This wasn't like Nazi persecution of Jews and other groups. The POW camps were the least of the atrocities.
It was an unpopular war, one of the most unjust in history, deaths on both sides were a tragedy.
More civilians in 'enemy' territory were killed than U.S. soldiers during the war, and since the end of the war more civilians have even been killed by unexploded ordinance than all U.S. military casualties during the war.
This was imperial power destroying a primitive country and tearing it apart as a pawn in a proxy war over political ideology. It ranks up among the most atrocious war crimes the U.S. has ever participated in.

Want to know who the heroes of the war were? Conscientious objectors who refused to go to war and impose this conflict on a foreign country. People who rejected red scare paranoia, who rejected violence and sought diplomacy and respect for sovereignty. Many of whom even went to prison for it. Those are heroes.

EquALLity wrote: Why do you put victim in parenthesis? He's LITERALLY a victim of torture.

Sure, but so did he victimize many others with death before that. I put "victim" in quotes because it's a matter of status for SJWs. If you're a "victim" you're beyond criticism, and you're entitled to be celebrated as a hero regardless of actual fact or circumstance.

EquALLity wrote: I think you've been so turned off by 'SJWs' that you've gone too far to the opposite side.

I don't retrospectively support the Vietnam war.

EquALLity wrote: Have you ever fought in a war and witnessed absolute atrocities? If not, then it's really not your place to judge.

This, again, is SJW logic. This is irrelevant to the criticisms being posed. You don't have to have fought in a war to criticize it.

Have you ever been a senator? A politician of any kind? No? Then I'm sure you will take back all of your political claims, right?

Oh, wait, no, people are allowed to have opinions on that, because they aren't "victims". Only victims get to benefit from this double standard and immunity from argument or evidence and criticism.

EquALLity wrote: And it's truly stupid coming from Donald Trump, who's a five-time draft dodger and who's 'own personal Vietnam' was 'avoiding STDs' because during the war he was partying and having tons of sex.

Trump is closer to being a war hero than McCain is, because he avoided going to a foreign country and killing people in a pointless proxy battle for political ideology,

He probably didn't actually avoid it for conscientious reasons, though, which is the only reason he doesn't earn a gold star for that.

Trump is a shithead, but for totally different reasons. Please don't demean the real victims of the tragedy and injustice of the Vietnam war to try to make Trump look worse for not participating in it.
In retrospect, the consensus is pretty clear that the Vietnam war was a clusterfuck of ideological political malice.

EquALLity wrote: You're making unfair assumptions. Maybe brave veterans are MORE likely to have PTSD, because they're more willing to put themselves into dangerous situations.

No, I'm openly speculating because we don't have evidence, and I'm saying you don't have any. Yes, maybe brave veterans are more likely to get PTSD because they put themselves out there. Do you have a study on this? If not, again, it's speculation like anything else. You don't know. You can't say that everybody with PTSD is brave. And even if they were "brave" that doesn't make them good. Jihaddists are brave. Any American who was "brave" as a soldier in Vietnam only did more harm but supporting the war there. The sooner it ended, the better. It should have never begun.

EquALLity wrote: Having PTSD doesn't make you weaker, it's just a feeling. It's actions that matter.

No, it's consequences that matter. Trump's actions during the war had less harmful consequences than McCain's, and all he had to do is nothing. The better and braver a soldier he was, the worse a person he was because he was fighting on the wrong side. There was no right side, any participation only escalated the conflict.

EquALLity wrote:About how Trump partied during Vietnam and avoided the draft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLydb7K6zmY

Cenk Uygur wrote:He prefers people who weren't captured. One way not to get captured is not to go at all.

I'm getting the feeling you may have mistaken the purpose of this thread as supporting Trump... I don't think anybody here does.

I saw it more of a "a stopped clock is right twice a day" thing. Like "Trump is crazy, but it would be interesting to look at the random things he's said that you actually agree with" kind of thing.

Trump doesn't have to be wrong on everything, that would be phenomenal. Hitler wasn't even wrong on everything (though he was wrong on almost everything, it's interesting to look into sensible quotes from otherwise terrible people even if just to remember that nobody is all bad or all good).
Opposing something just because Trump said it doesn't make sense.

While the rhetoric against Trump may be effective... some of it isn't fair. There's nothing wrong with being intellectually honest and admitting that. That's OK if it works -- he certainly doesn't play by the rules -- but from a position of intellectual honesty, we should understand that it isn't all right.

In order for there to be "good soldiers" who were heroes in a particular war, that war itself must be good, justified, or worthwhile somehow. The only way to really attack Trump on this point is to engage in logical fallacies, or outright defend the Vietnam war -- that's a corner you don't want to be in. Better to focus on other criticisms.

Jebus wrote:I have to think really hard about this one but here are a couple.

1. John McCain was not a war hero because he got caught.
2. People with PTSD are weaker.

Clearly doesn't really know a lot about mental illnesses....
No offense

Well, he said Hillary lied, and she did, but that's not really controversial among politicians. But I didn't hate the wall idea. Not that I think it would be effective for the reasons he hopes, at all , but since the government pisses away so much of the tax dollars we pay anyway, might as well use some to employ some people who want to work building a pointless wall. Oh wait, but Mexico's supposed to pay for that.....

PsYcHo wrote:might as well use some to employ some people who want to work building a pointless wall.

It's interesting to think that it would be a monument, like the great pyramids, or North America's version of the Great wall.
But it would probably just be a tall ugly chain fence or something. Most of the money going into the metal, not the labor, and to companies with mostly automated manufacture.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Most of the money going into the metal, not the labor, and to companies with mostly automated manufacture.

Assuming the project actually went forward, and Trump used American metal and manufacturers, that would still employ a large number of people; at least for a while. I think it would be comparable to the Hoover dam.

I am particularly conflicted on our current immigration issue. While I can hold no grudge against anyone trying to provide a better life for themselves and their family, It seems the Democrat's solution is to reward those who skip the line, while maintaining the "approved" system which makes it so hard for those who play by the rules to achieve the same result. But the Republican solution of a blanket ban is terrible as well, more so I think, especially since most of those who do break the law are only trying to better their lot in life.

Nationalism vs. Globalism is a tricky wicket indeed.