I was reading posts on Johnny Bea's Facebook wall. In the process of destroying John Elmo Sheppard Jr.'s arguments, I came across a link to this anti-military Facebook group. This group goes by the name, "The Troops are Welfare Whores."
A misguided, under researched, and anti-military person, going by the nickname "Mac" runs this group. Mac posted a photo. The accompanying caption talked about a mall cop describing civilians as being "softheaded."
A Facebook poster responded. He stated he didn't need the mall cops for his protection. For that matter, he didn't need the troops either. All that was needed was for him to be armed. He extended that by talking about armed civilians.
His reasoning?
Who'd mess with the United States if millions of Americans were armed? What foreign nation would mess with that?
His statement evolved into a debate on that thread. To bolster his argument, those that agreed with him pointed to Vietnam. The assumption they made was that a Vietnamese civilian militia "defeated" the United States military.
I jumped in and countered these specific points. Included in my argument was the fact that the United States military defeated the Vietnamese militarily. The Vietnamese had both, a standing army, and a militia. The United States military defeated both in the battlefield. The U.S. Military defeated the Vietnamese military and the Vietnamese militia throughout the war.
The exchange started off in a civil manner. Mac, "The Troops are Welfare Whores" administrator, looked like he was going to tolerate disagreement.
After we traded a few "blows" on that thread, he backed down and tried to "disown" his stance. He supported the above "just need civilian militia" argument. After I had provided him with the facts of why that argument was wrong, Mac insisted that this topic was a "strawman argument."
I countered his backpedaling by quoting his statements supporting the very thing that he insinuated was a "strawman". In the course of his back peddling, he dropped hints that he wanted the argument to end.
His hopes; however, required me to "move on" and to let him have the final say. That goes against my modus operandi. He didn't realize that if he mentions something in an argument, I counter it.
I kept destroying his argument.
Finally, he asked me to shorten my posts by being more "concise." The losing side uses this tactic when they don't have an argument.
I reminded him that one of two things could happen.
I could present a logical, factual, and reasoned argument. This option generally resulted in longer posts. I mentioned that the other option was to use shorter posts while lacerating him, and his supporters, with flames.
I also called him out for even talking about how "I wouldn't know" how the government would react to an invasion... Mac argued that we would immediately resort to nuclear warfare. I countered that by mentioning my first hand military experiences... we trained to use conventional warfare first.
Normally, battle problems start with a conventional scenario. If NBC, or "CBRN" is part of the problem, it usually happens later in the exercise... not as a first resort. Battle problems started with a conventional scenario before they turned into a nuclear scenario.
This means that we'd resort to conventional means to repel an invasion first. Tactical nuclear missiles come into the picture when the conventional means fail... or if there's no time to resort to conventional means to repel the invasion... and that's the only way to prevent the enemy from accessing critical territory or holdings.
Given the state of the other world's militaries compared to ours, the former is more realistic than the later. This policy on the use of nuclear weapons, by the United States military, is researchable.
Mac, administrator for "The Troops are Welfare Whores," had the audacity to insinuate that I wouldn't know the government's actual nuclear use policy.
I reminded him that I had working knowledge of how the military would do things. I also reminded him that he shouldn't tell me what I know or don't know about a profession I've been in for the majority of my adult life.
I capped the argument by reminding him, using a simple strawman formula, how he utilized a strawman argument.
Mac ran out of argument. He also ran out of steam.
I destroyed his arguments so bad that he angrily, and arrogantly, accused me of "lying." Nowhere in the argument, or in his response, did he prove his assumptions of my "lying," or using "strawmen" arguments, "true." Our exchange is included in the posts that follow this one.
I hammered him so hard that he responded by banning me.
That's an impact indicator telling me that he knows that I destroyed him in debate. I know that his blood was boiling when he moved to block my profile from posting on his page. He couldn't stand up to me in debate.
So, he moved to protect himself, and his fragile ego, by preventing me from continuing to prove him wrong.
These next series of posts will show the argument that Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores," didn't want the world to see. His own statements, in the following posts, counter what he later told his community.
More on this in my next batch of replies related to Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores.
A misguided, under researched, and anti-military person, going by the nickname "Mac" runs this group. Mac posted a photo. The accompanying caption talked about a mall cop describing civilians as being "softheaded."
A Facebook poster responded. He stated he didn't need the mall cops for his protection. For that matter, he didn't need the troops either. All that was needed was for him to be armed. He extended that by talking about armed civilians.
His reasoning?
Who'd mess with the United States if millions of Americans were armed? What foreign nation would mess with that?
His statement evolved into a debate on that thread. To bolster his argument, those that agreed with him pointed to Vietnam. The assumption they made was that a Vietnamese civilian militia "defeated" the United States military.
I jumped in and countered these specific points. Included in my argument was the fact that the United States military defeated the Vietnamese militarily. The Vietnamese had both, a standing army, and a militia. The United States military defeated both in the battlefield. The U.S. Military defeated the Vietnamese military and the Vietnamese militia throughout the war.
The exchange started off in a civil manner. Mac, "The Troops are Welfare Whores" administrator, looked like he was going to tolerate disagreement.
After we traded a few "blows" on that thread, he backed down and tried to "disown" his stance. He supported the above "just need civilian militia" argument. After I had provided him with the facts of why that argument was wrong, Mac insisted that this topic was a "strawman argument."
I countered his backpedaling by quoting his statements supporting the very thing that he insinuated was a "strawman". In the course of his back peddling, he dropped hints that he wanted the argument to end.
His hopes; however, required me to "move on" and to let him have the final say. That goes against my modus operandi. He didn't realize that if he mentions something in an argument, I counter it.
I kept destroying his argument.
Finally, he asked me to shorten my posts by being more "concise." The losing side uses this tactic when they don't have an argument.
I reminded him that one of two things could happen.
I could present a logical, factual, and reasoned argument. This option generally resulted in longer posts. I mentioned that the other option was to use shorter posts while lacerating him, and his supporters, with flames.
I also called him out for even talking about how "I wouldn't know" how the government would react to an invasion... Mac argued that we would immediately resort to nuclear warfare. I countered that by mentioning my first hand military experiences... we trained to use conventional warfare first.
Normally, battle problems start with a conventional scenario. If NBC, or "CBRN" is part of the problem, it usually happens later in the exercise... not as a first resort. Battle problems started with a conventional scenario before they turned into a nuclear scenario.
This means that we'd resort to conventional means to repel an invasion first. Tactical nuclear missiles come into the picture when the conventional means fail... or if there's no time to resort to conventional means to repel the invasion... and that's the only way to prevent the enemy from accessing critical territory or holdings.
Given the state of the other world's militaries compared to ours, the former is more realistic than the later. This policy on the use of nuclear weapons, by the United States military, is researchable.
Mac, administrator for "The Troops are Welfare Whores," had the audacity to insinuate that I wouldn't know the government's actual nuclear use policy.
I reminded him that I had working knowledge of how the military would do things. I also reminded him that he shouldn't tell me what I know or don't know about a profession I've been in for the majority of my adult life.
I capped the argument by reminding him, using a simple strawman formula, how he utilized a strawman argument.
Mac ran out of argument. He also ran out of steam.
I destroyed his arguments so bad that he angrily, and arrogantly, accused me of "lying." Nowhere in the argument, or in his response, did he prove his assumptions of my "lying," or using "strawmen" arguments, "true." Our exchange is included in the posts that follow this one.
I hammered him so hard that he responded by banning me.
That's an impact indicator telling me that he knows that I destroyed him in debate. I know that his blood was boiling when he moved to block my profile from posting on his page. He couldn't stand up to me in debate.
So, he moved to protect himself, and his fragile ego, by preventing me from continuing to prove him wrong.
These next series of posts will show the argument that Mac, "Troops are Welfare Whores," didn't want the world to see. His own statements, in the following posts, counter what he later told his community.
More on this in my next batch of replies related to Mac, The troops are Welfare Whores.
No comments:
Post a Comment