This is meant to address a prominent fallacy in the reasoning of many of today's politicians, media anchors, and general population. This is regarding the argument that speaking out against US soldiers is disrespectful because they indirectly protect your freedom to do so. "They protect your free speech so you shouldn't use it against them." The false assumption being made is that all soldiers are fighting with protecting freedom in mind. This is obviously false, as many soldiers join the army right out of high school for the benefits it can provide. To say that all soldiers are in the military to protect freedom is like saying all bus drivers do their job because they love kids. Yeah, some of them may love kids, but many of them just need a job and the benefits that come along with it. So is it disrespectful to speak out against people who fight wars you don't agree with simply because they wanted benefits? No. It's simple honesty. If we love free speech so much, why would we bash it when it comes to a subject we disagree on. Censorship is not a valid form of argument, and it never will be. Here's a current example: Joe thinks the Iraq war is unconstitutional. Sandra joins the military to further her education. She may have some form of love for her country, but her primary reason for joining the military is to better her future when she gets out. Joe dislikes the policy makers (like the president) who started the Iraq war. He also dislikes people who support a war that is unconstitutional. Sandra is not supporting the war from home with her speech. She's supporting the war on the ground in Iraq, physical continuing it. Why shouldn't Joe dislike Sandra for supporting an unconstitutional war? Because the military theoretically protects us from tyranny, he should support it in wars that are both constitutional and unconstitutional? Shouldn't soldiers take responsibility for their actions because they voluntarily signed up to do things that weren't in their control? When someone is drinking and driving, if they kill someone they are held responsible even though it wasn't voluntary. This means that you are responsible for your actions if you choose to give up your free will and judgment. Isn't being disrespectful to the idea of free speech (much more valuable than the entirety of the lives of military personnel) by not using it worse than offending a group of people who believe that people's feeling should come before the constitutionally guaranteed rights of others?
I see your point, but to be fair you should have expanded your topic to not only include free speech used against soldiers (the military), but the use of free speech WITHIN the military; amongst the soldiers themselves. After all, as you said the soldiers themselves while they are part of the military forces don't necessarily have to agree with the military/ state's intents or actions, and also are not alienated from the right of free speech. However, I believe there is also a fault with this concept. Soldiers in the military are required to follow orders and place duty above all else. To put it in an example: Soldier A is a military pilot part of a detachment in Afghanistan. Sergeant B orders A to bomb a school, because it is an alleged terrorist hideout. However, A doesn't think it is right to bomb said school, because he knows there are innocent children in it. Does he use his constitutional right to free speech to speak out against it to Sergeant B, at the risk of his profession? Or does he follow orders, as he had voluntarily agreed to do so when he enters the military? Furthermore, does he have the right to dislike Sergeant B because he tells him to do so? Yes, he has. BUT, what if Sergeant B didn't make the decision; what if Major C did? Then, Sergeant B was just following orders. Is he at fault, then? I want to stress the point that we have to acknowledge their right to free speech, but that dislike/ criticism that you have said would be better placed at the people who make these decisions, who start these wars (government, people in power) , not at the soldiers who may or may not agree with what they're being told to do, but is their supposed "duty" to do so.
They don't really have a right to dislike anything. Of course they can think what they want, but if they do not obey their superiors it's not simply their job that is in question, they can be thrown in jail as well.
the drunk driving thing is a situation where you are in control, you know the rules and regulations of the law and the end results for the involved party [you, the hit person, police, etc....]. but in the perspective you placed, it would be unfair. for instance, if the romulation servers suddenly killed itself, which according to what you have written is out of his control, would seph be responsible for it. so the servers die and seph kicks himself in the butt. no of course not because it wasn't in his control. so who's fault would it be then?? if you are to bomb a place and you definitely know that there are innocent civilians and not terrorists, then you can freely express yourself on that matter to your officer. but what ends up happening is that you get disregarded because your superiors [the one who told you to bomb and such] have others up their asses and they just don't want to deal with it. remember when you were young, young like 6-10 years old and did something bad and had to tell your mommy and/or daddy. weren't you scared of what they would do. that is how the supior officer would feel. it's more then just free speech it's what motivates us. if the people who were in the military never had any financial troubles, then most likely they would not have joined the military. obama says change, but the contradiction is that his vice president is a man. if he truly wanted change [maybe i'm too much of an idealist and an extremist] he would have chosen hillary as his vice president since she is a woman, this would have been a truly radical change.
How is that even related? If Seph tried to MOD the server knowing full well that he might fuck it up, then yes it's his fault. If a drunk driver drinks and willingly knows they are giving up their judgment, then they are at fault for w/e damage they cause. If a soldier join the military knowing full well they are not allowed judgment, then w/e they do is there fault. Your analogy isn't even similar. If the server went down do to something out of his control, then it's not his fault. If a drunk driver kills hits a child because his breaks go out, it's not his fault. If a soldier kills somebody because a stray bullet bounces off their rifle and hits someone, it's not their fault. But we're not talking about rare chance events like these. We're talking about situations where people CHOOSE to give up their judgment.
Well, a person wouldn't join a militry academy without fully understanding the effects it will bring upon you right? That's why there are things you ahve to sign. People who enroll just for education will get more than they bargained for. You have to abide by the rules and regulations, you can't pass it, you signed a contract -.-. And what idiot would sign a contract WITHOUT reading it?
Do you read and understand every single line of every TOS/ License agreement you've ever encountered (i.e. when installing a program/registering for site)? Don't think so. You are an idiot, by your logic. So, just to clarify things here: we are talking about soldiers who, by signing a contract, choose to give up their judgment, and as a consequence also partly compromises their right to free speech. And the topic is that anyone should be allowed to use their free speech to criticize/ to use against said soldiers. Am I getting this right?
even if you didn't read the prints and such on the contract, you should have an idea of what to expect. if the devil appears and asks you what you wish for, you should more then know that there will be consequences to your wishings. in todays world [where certain things aren't suppressed], talk about these things. for instance, in high school, especially in literature and history classes and sometimes philosophy classes, we have discussions on such issues and everyone is aware of it.
That's the basic topic, but it sort of branched into why soldiers are at fault for their actions because they willingly allow them to happen. And uh...a TOS agreement isn't really a contract regarding your life @_@ When you join the military, you're actually signing away your life. When you use (or pirate lol) a piece of software, there's little chance anyone even knows you're using that software (unless you loves 2 register).
I know it's off topic but I do hate people who go "OMG READ THE CONTRACT, IDIOT" when they have probably overlooked a lot of contracts etc. in their life. It seems safe to assume that everyone who signs up for the military know what they're getting into, but it's not.
