We specifically said:
There can be no higher honor for someone who has sacrificed in the military than to remove the concern of providing for themselves and their family. Some of us support cutting federal spending. This would undoubtedly hurt those who have been damaged or the families of those who have been killed.

Thanks for singling me out, Mr. shut the fuck up.

:rolleyes:

Uhuh...your deep understanding and experience gets lost in your posting style, then, cause I really don't think anyone would call you deep. Unless its being deeply delusional. You are as deeply entrenched in the right-wing propaganda as you accuse us of being stuck in the liberal bias.

They died in the service of their employer. But here's the difference: wrt the military, you and I are the employer. Many have died serving somebody. Folks in the military died serving YOU.

The Constitution opens with "We the people"; We includes you and me; and it is the document that establishes the military.

They chose to work in an occupation that is deadly, but necessary, for the success and survival of our country. That's default honorable.

I meanwhile did not. I sat on my fat ass and did nothing for it but vote and bitch and moan. I expect you did similar.

I did that because I disagree with your opinion on the subject. Please do the same for me.

OK, so let's break this down.

This sort of respect is earned after the following requirements are met, right?
- service is for you and me
- 2 year or more time commitment
- risking life is not required, but helps (road side cleaner was included in examples of honorable jobs)
- death on job is not required

Did I miss anything?

So does public school teacher fit? How about police or firefighters? How about Big Brother/Big Sister volunteer? Foster parents?

FA Administrator? :lol:

Some, yes, yes, yes, some.

Death on job not required, but possibility of personal endangerment is a major plus.

eta, sacrifice.

DING DING DING!

Death threats mounting. Oh, and a lot of dirty looks. ;)

OK, This is interesting. You're saying some teachers and some foster parents deserve this respect, and some don't. It that based on how good they are, or how much they have to sacrifice/risk?

I know this is getting off into a gray area, but I kind of feel like by defining the gray areas we can make the other areas clearer.

The entire thing is a gray area. Obviously there is a difference between someone who wants to serve their country and will sacrifice their life to do it and an opportunist who will try to get whatever they want at the expense of others, but going into detail about what jobs are honorable or not will only result in biased, hypocritical, and blatantly naive remarks since we don't have a clue how each job actually affects society, what goes into it (this includes sacrifice), and the type of people that perform those jobs.

To me, it's not what job you do, it is how you approach the job. If you work as a janitor and approach the job in a honorable way, I will respect that to the fullest. If you are in the Marines and are a complete entitled asshole who shows no respect for anyone besides oneself, I will have absolutely no respect for you or what you do.

Personal sacrifice is pretty big. The inner-city teachers are heroes.

Most teachers are commendable. We thank them for what they do.

Soldiers sacrifice their entire lives for years, basically; it is not a "job". You don't get to go home to your loved ones at the end of the day. You make no decisions for yourself. You are told how to dress, what to eat, where to shit, where to sleep. Under a rigorous and probably unfair command structure that needs to own your ass entirely, and ship your ass to destinations unknown tomorrow, whether it be frigid Iceland or the middle of the Sahara desert.

this one comes first because it says it best. As for generalizations (discussed below), I find them useful in direct proportion to their specificity. They can be a useful starting point, but an intelligent approach retains an openness to new information and a willingness to change one's conclusion to conform to new facts.

Today there was a story about a Navy medic who Military, but bomb threats? respect or no? See? you generalization has real limits. just one current events example.

What about all the other public *servants*? and sacrifice? sacrifice of what? It is right to consider all public employees the same (at least for a starting point). Politicians are public servants too, right? respected? No, not really. I think the marketing of a given sector makes a huge difference in the how the members of that sector are percieved. But we need all types of people, types of workers to function as a society, despite the clear fact that not all of them are equally well represented or respected.

I think teachers, for example, have a much more direct impact on the quality of my life than the military. As such, they're more important, but they're not paid as much nor are they respected by most of the public as much. That is unfair (boo hoo), but more importantly, it exacerbates the vicious cycle of poor performance, poor morale, poor reputation, etc etc. This does not help make things better.

Being stuck with labels and stereotypes, stopping there and being unwilling or unable to think further severely limits one's ability to function in the world. It's like only having a club to solve any problem that might arise. SMASH! Fucking neaderthals.

Not really fixed, but improved, clarified.

You absolutely leave out the whole getting paid part. Economics is a major factor for everyone who signs up. "you make no decisions for yourself"? wtf? Who is making the decisions then? Our military isn't only like Full Metal Jacket. Lots, probably most (careful, just estimating that statistic, might be covered with my own poo) service men and women get to see their loved ones at the end of the day.

you describe a segment of military life, not for all members, not for all time. Decisions about how to respect, pay, hire, etc our military should not be based on such a narrow slice of their work.

Have you... known a lot of military, Biggie? You a big fan, you follow this stuff a lot?

Does it matter? Please stay on topic.

I was trying to figure out a pleasant way to say how his argument came from ignorance, other than just saying

It wasn't a sacrifice because they didn't do it for free? Really? You wanted them to do it for free? You don't value a standing military when the nation was attacked on its own soil only 10 years ago? This stems from either simple ignorance of the world, or a hatred of the nation that probably comes out of a bad relationship with a parent. In either case, the military person's sacrifice is only that much larger for having dickweeds like BigV going around spouting off that sort of shit. Do it for free, he said. What an asshole.