Would doing it for their own general well being, i.e, the financial gains, enrichment of a sub- pedestrian existence be less altruistic, since they are out for themselves and not others since that just goes with the territory? If not, then I think I haven't grasped the proper meaning of the word and I'm not lame enough to google it and pretend like I know the proper definition.
Oh no, you grasped the meaning of the word just fine, it was definitely an understatement on my part.
As far as them being worthy of respect, I answered it contrary of their outside lives, I'm respecting them for service to the country.
I think LadyHotrod has it about right. You can easily take a separate view on each part.
Like I said, I don't hold personal hatred, I don't get off to alot of people either, but I'll still respect someone for doing something as risky as that.
See, I am of two minds on that. The norm is to call them brave but personally I can't help but feel that it takes a particular brand of stupid to agree to put yourself in the line of fire. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are there to stand in the way of those bullets so people like myself don't have to, but I'm not sure I am under a grand enough illusion to actually call them brave, or even respect their stupidity. But at the same time I see the other side so I dunno. Still gotta think about that one a bit.
Same for firemen, except I haven't met a firefighter I hated.
Yeah, I can't think of any unfortuante run ins with firefighters.
As far as nuts go, I don't know. I mean you don't find out they are psychos until after they've committed an act, so I guess it would be a retroactive decline of respect.
But they served their country. Take Tim McVeigh for example. Do you separate his military service in Iraq from the OKC bombings? Or do you just wind up lumping it all together?
Sigh....you ARE ashamed of us.
We've been through this. My family can never know I am part of an interracial couple.
Well being hypothetical, if there was a person I didn't like, but enlisted, would that change my mind on them??? Yep.
Fair enough, I can respect your candor. I think it's foolish logic but at least you answered honestly.
Also, a person who goes into the service most of the time is not the same person who comes back from Basic. I've seen this with numerous friends of mine who most would consider stoners or potheads, only to enlist, come back from basic and be changed men.
I already touched on most of what you have to say at the beginning of this post but another sub-question comes up after reading this.
You really approve of the brainwashing that the US military uses to turn people into killing machines? Because that's what it is. You or they can call it whatever fancy name you feel the need to but it doesn't change the fact that it is brainwashing plain and simple.
It's a sacrifice that most of us are not willing to make, nor could most of us even handle.
Actually, to tie in with my last statement, you absolutely could. Most of the people who join the army couldn't handle the consequences of killing a man, period. Only with the Army's brainwashing techniques is one able to overcome the massive weight of the guilt and emotion that comes along with killing another human being. The only ones who don't need to be brainwashed are the sociopaths who are already cocked, locked and ready to kill anything that moves.
While I go to work, get to go to baseball games, wrestling events, etc, there are people serving in Basic, getting broken down and built back up, people standing guard in a warzone, or people in firefights ensuring that Im able to do those above stated things.
Except the last time this was necessary was between 1939 and 1945. Since then no military conflict that the US has participated in has been required to protect your liberties.
