|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 1:46:27 GMT
You have used the word mostly and some. That would not be 51-49 split. To prove your assertions you would have to prove substantial more support for Republicans among military than among general population. And why are you using the word 'militant' mindset. I already showed you militants exists on both sides. So it is another case where you set faulty premise and try to debate on that.
This is quoted in the start of the article: So then, if there are a large percentage of those that are grunts in the defense force have no political persuasion, but those that are the leaders are 'mostly\predominantly' conservative, don't you feel a militant nature is also relevant to the point as to why those with a dualistic nature join the defense force, regardless of political ideals or status within the ranks? Military and militant are NOT mutually exclusive of each other. They go hand in hand. Is violent behavior on an autonomous and individual nature—which I have already addressed—relative to militant behaviour?
'militant'
Define
adj. Fighting or warring.
adj. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
The militant people are anti-governmental and non-authorized. They make random attacks on law and order. The Military people cannot start attacks without government approval. Military takeover doesn't happen in west (the place where you want to confine the discussion to) and thus military people do not carry out things according to their "militant nature". The other fellow already told you that you are making an etymological fallacy by persisting in intermixing both terms. The military obeys the order of government whereas militants do the opposite . There is as much militant in military people as in you and me. What's also more important is that militants are not right wing people by definition. There are left and right militants. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 2:17:27 GMT
This is quoted in the start of the article: So then, if there are a large percentage of those that are grunts in the defense force have no political persuasion, but those that are the leaders are 'mostly\predominantly' conservative, don't you feel a militant nature is also relevant to the point as to why those with a dualistic nature join the defense force, regardless of political ideals or status within the ranks? Military and militant are NOT mutually exclusive of each other. They go hand in hand. Is violent behavior on an autonomous and individual nature—which I have already addressed—relative to militant behaviour?
'militant'
Define
adj. Fighting or warring.
adj. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.
n. A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
The militant people are anti-governmental and non-authorized. They make random attacks on law and order. The Military people cannot start attacks without government approval. Military takeover doesn't happen in west (the place where you want to confine the discussion to) and thus military people do not carry out things according to their "militant nature". The other fellow already told you that you are making an etymological fallacy by persisting in intermixing both terms. The military obeys the order of government whereas militants do the opposite . There is as much militant in military people as in you and me. What's also more important is that militants are not right wing people by definition. There are left and right militants. It appears you are making selective reasoning and choices based on your own take of militancy to make a point from your own ideals. In the service of a cause, also pertains to the military, which is about defense from some other aggressor should the need arise. Look at the word military, the first 6 letters are derived from the term militant. It is all cut from the same cloth in nature. It doesn't matter if they are on different sides, it is the nature of the intention that comes first and foremost. I am focusing on the militant nature of people in the defense force, not those that are partisans or activists of various ideals and other political sways.
Even if those that are in the defense force and do not identify as any political persuasion, or do identify as right or left, the attitude is still born out of a rigid, conservative and dualistic mind-set. These are predominantly consevative\right wing values\ethics\morals\beliefs, whatever you want to call them. This is indisputable. How can it not be?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 2:21:57 GMT
The militant people are anti-governmental and non-authorized. They make random attacks on law and order. The Military people cannot start attacks without government approval. Military takeover doesn't happen in west (the place where you want to confine the discussion to) and thus military people do not carry out things according to their "militant nature". The other fellow already told you that you are making an etymological fallacy by persisting in intermixing both terms. The military obeys the order of government whereas militants do the opposite . There is as much militant in military people as in you and me. What's also more important is that militants are not right wing people by definition. There are left and right militants. It appears you are making selective reasoning and choices based on your own take of militancy to make a point from your own ideals. In the service of a cause, also pertains to the military, which is about defense from some other aggressor should the need arise. Look at the word military, the first 6 letters are derived from the term militant. It is all cut from the same cloth in nature. It doesn't matter if they are on different sides, it is the nature of the intention that comes first and foremost. I am focusing on the militant nature of people in the defense force, not those that are partisans or activists of various ideals and other political sways.
Even if those that are in the defense force and do not identify as any political persuasion, or do identify as right or left, the attitude is still born out of a rigid, conservative and dualistic mind-set. These are predominantly consevative\right wing values\ethics\morals\beliefs, whatever you want to call them. This is indisputable. How can it not be?
Yeah, so some letters of both words are same then we need to forget their roles and functions. And for the nth time militant nature is not "right wing". |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 2:25:31 GMT
It appears you are making selective reasoning and choices based on your own take of militancy to make a point from your own ideals. In the service of a cause, also pertains to the military, which is about defense from some other aggressor should the need arise. Look at the word military, the first 6 letters are derived from the term militant. It is all cut from the same cloth in nature. It doesn't matter if they are on different sides, it is the nature of the intention that comes first and foremost. I am focusing on the militant nature of people in the defense force, not those that are partisans or activists of various ideals and other political sways.
Even if those that are in the defense force and do not identify as any political persuasion, or do identify as right or left, the attitude is still born out of a rigid, conservative and dualistic mind-set. These are predominantly consevative\right wing values\ethics\morals\beliefs, whatever you want to call them. This is indisputable. How can it not be?
Yeah, so some letters of both words are same then we need to forget their roles and functions. And for the nth time militant nature is not "right wing". Not right wing within the ideal of a defense force? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 2:29:57 GMT
I'm really at a loss to understand your question. Is it rhetorical, or did my statement lead you to ask a question about the validity of the first link? It was just a link to an article about a study, as was the second one. So within those studies— in which the validity and accuracy of them can also be questioned, just like any stats. They are not an absolute—what is the exact and lucid point you are attempting to express about the conservative mindset being militant, and those with militant ideals that join the defense force, regardless of their political persuasion? Doesn't it all come down to the notion of belief and why one feels they need to defend others and for what ultimate cause? You can treat this as rhetorical question, or you can give feed me something new that I can work with to understand your stance on what you think militant is. Not sure what any of that has to do with questioning the value of the first study. Did it discuss militants? I'll try and answer these questions anyway. The point I am making about a conservative mindset being militant is that I see no connection one way or another and that the points being made to try and connect them contain fallacy and bias that I have tried to show you. I do not see that people who join a defense force do it out of some militant mindset either, of course, maybe some people who do it do so out of a desire to solve issues with violence. I don't know any, do you? I already told you about why the people I know joined, they do to better themselves as they graduate high school into adulthood. Who do you know that has joined the military because they like to solve issues with violence? A militant takes up arms for some cause that they believe their established government has failed them, grouping together to fight that cause, be it their own government, another one, or even another militant group. I guess I would classify my own country's founders as militants against the British. Militants rebel against their perceived injustice to their cause with violence Antifa would also meet that definition. You have made it clear you have a different definition, I understand. But this does digress from the point I have been trying to make about confirmation bias and the fallacies that lead to some conclusion that somehow Republicans possess a greater tendency for violence. And that's all I really want to point out to you. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 2:31:27 GMT
Yeah, so some letters of both words are same then we need to forget their roles and functions. And for the nth time militant nature is not "right wing". Not right wing within the ideal of a defense force? The political spectrum of militancy is very wide and military has been used by both the right and left wing. The socialist, Marxist and communist states have employed military just as have capitalists. What's interesting is that capitalists (right wingers) mainly employ military in matters of international activities whereas the left wing uses military even to quash domestic citizens. Militancy as opposed to military is also common to both the right and the left. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 2:54:56 GMT
So within those studies— in which the validity and accuracy of them can also be questioned, just like any stats. They are not an absolute—what is the exact and lucid point you are attempting to express about the conservative mindset being militant, and those with militant ideals that join the defense force, regardless of their political persuasion? Doesn't it all come down to the notion of belief and why one feels they need to defend others and for what ultimate cause? You can treat this as rhetorical question, or you can give feed me something new that I can work with to understand your stance on what you think militant is. Not sure what any of that has to do with questioning the value of the first study. Did it discuss militants? I'll try and answer these questions anyway. The point I am making about a conservative mindset being militant is that I see no connection one way or another and that the points being made to try and connect them contain fallacy and bias that I have tried to show you. I do not see that people who join a defense force do it out of some militant mindset either, of course, maybe some people who do it do so out of a desire to solve issues with violence. I don't know any, do you? I already told you about why the people I know joined, they do to better themselves as they graduate high school into adulthood. Who do you know that has joined the military because they like to solve issues with violence? A militant takes up arms for some cause that they believe their established government has failed them, grouping together to fight that cause, be it their own government, another one, or even another militant group. I guess I would classify my own country's founders as militants against the British. Militants rebel against their perceived injustice to their cause with violence Antifa would also meet that definition. You have made it clear you have a different definition, I understand. But this does digress from the point I have been trying to make about confirmation bias and the fallacies that lead to some conclusion that somehow Republicans possess a greater tendency for violence. And that's all I really want to point out to you. More expressive post. Yes, my take on militant is one of aggression and violence. It is about the 'nature' of it that I associate with the term military, which also expresses this combative nature within its ranks. That is why it exists and where it derives its label from. Does it exist to combat the militancy in others? Is this not cut from the same cloth as I have already expressed? What is the difference? I really don't feel that most people—including yourself—care or want to acknowledge that.
For whatever reason anyone chooses to join the defense force, they are still buying into a militant nature of aggression and combative violence. This is all part of the training. That is its purpose and reason for existence should the need arise to be defended against. To my mind, these are largely conservative right wing values and the gist of this thread was to ask if Republicans tend to possess a greater tendency towards violence, or the need to control what others do through violence within the national institution of self-defense. Anyone who joins the defense force are buying into this conservative and dangerous mindset. They are still militant in nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 3:04:28 GMT
Not right wing within the ideal of a defense force? The political spectrum of militancy is very wide and military has been used by both the right and left wing. The socialist, Marxist and communist states have employed military just as have capitalists. What's interesting is that capitalists (right wingers) mainly employ military in matters of international activities whereas the left wing uses military even to quash domestic citizens. Militancy as opposed to military is also common to both the right and the left. Do you mean in the west?
Like I have already mentioned, it is about a dualistic nature within the self that contains the propensity for violence. I feel what has gone before is no longer relevant to how the morals and mores of our society are today. As time progresses, with how we view right wing\left wing, I feel that right wing values will rule the day over military dominance. Within the leadership ranks they appear to already do. There appears to be extremist attitudes on both sides and I can't even put my head around those in the military that would follow orders of ruling military extremists to quash domestic citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 3:12:50 GMT
The political spectrum of militancy is very wide and military has been used by both the right and left wing. The socialist, Marxist and communist states have employed military just as have capitalists. What's interesting is that capitalists (right wingers) mainly employ military in matters of international activities whereas the left wing uses military even to quash domestic citizens. Militancy as opposed to military is also common to both the right and the left. Do you mean in the west?
Like I have already mentioned, it is about a dualistic nature within the self that contains the propensity for violence. I feel what has gone before is no longer relevant to how the morals and mores of our society are today. As time progresses, with how we view right wing\left wing, I feel that right wing values will rule the day over military dominance. Within the leadership ranks they appear to already do. There appears to be extremist attitudes on both sides and I can't even put my head around those in the military that would follow orders of ruling military extremists to quash domestic citizens. Most of the left wing countries have ceased the exist because the left wing governments were too forceful on its citizens.
The right wing promotes the ideology of free market theory which says that government should not intervene in matters of economy and keep its hands off the affair of people. The militants that have existed in west have been known to carry associations with both the right and the left. They are not in anyway unique to either the left or the right. Militancy's political spectrum is very wide. Also, the people who enter into military do so for variety of different reasons. If anyone claims to speak for each of them and their mentality then that person is talking out of his head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 3:14:40 GMT
Not sure what any of that has to do with questioning the value of the first study. Did it discuss militants? I'll try and answer these questions anyway. The point I am making about a conservative mindset being militant is that I see no connection one way or another and that the points being made to try and connect them contain fallacy and bias that I have tried to show you. I do not see that people who join a defense force do it out of some militant mindset either, of course, maybe some people who do it do so out of a desire to solve issues with violence. I don't know any, do you? I already told you about why the people I know joined, they do to better themselves as they graduate high school into adulthood. Who do you know that has joined the military because they like to solve issues with violence? A militant takes up arms for some cause that they believe their established government has failed them, grouping together to fight that cause, be it their own government, another one, or even another militant group. I guess I would classify my own country's founders as militants against the British. Militants rebel against their perceived injustice to their cause with violence Antifa would also meet that definition. You have made it clear you have a different definition, I understand. But this does digress from the point I have been trying to make about confirmation bias and the fallacies that lead to some conclusion that somehow Republicans possess a greater tendency for violence. And that's all I really want to point out to you. More expressive post. Yes, my take on militant is one of aggression and violence. It is about the 'nature' of it that I associate with the term military, which also expresses this combative nature within its ranks. That is why it exists and where it derives its label from. Does it exist to combat the militancy in others? Is this not cut from the same cloth as I have already expressed? What is the difference? I really don't feel that most people—including yourself—care or want to acknowledge that?
For whatever reason anyone chooses to join the defense force, they are still buying into a militant nature of aggression and combative violence. This is all part of the training. That is its purpose and reason for existence should the need arise to be defended against. To my mind, these are largely conservative right wing values and the gist of this thread was to ask if Republicans tend to possess a greater tendency towards violence, or the need to control what others do through violence within the national institution of self-defense. Anyone who joins the defense force are buying into this conservative and dangerous mindset. They are still militant in nature.
Ok, I believe you are making a logical leap when you say that the need to defend is a conservative right wing value. I see no data to stand on. You find data that says there are more Republicans in the military so therefore Republicans see some need to control others through violence. You just said that, and I don't see it. I'm trying so hard to show you that is a logical flaw, and either I am not seeing the good logic or you are not seeing the bad. Maybe tomorrow Nora can point me to the good or bad logic in your contention that links all this. That is what I am really striving to obtain. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 3:25:01 GMT
Do you mean in the west?
Like I have already mentioned, it is about a dualistic nature within the self that contains the propensity for violence. I feel what has gone before is no longer relevant to how the morals and mores of our society are today. As time progresses, with how we view right wing\left wing, I feel that right wing values will rule the day over military dominance. Within the leadership ranks they appear to already do. There appears to be extremist attitudes on both sides and I can't even put my head around those in the military that would follow orders of ruling military extremists to quash domestic citizens. Most of the left wing countries have ceased the exist because the left wing governments were too forceful on its citizens.
The right wing promotes the ideology of free market theory which says that government should not intervene in matters of economy and keep its hands off the affair of people. The militants that have existed in west have been known to carry associations with both the right and the left. They are not in anyway unique to either the left or the right. Militancy's political spectrum is very wide. Also, the people who enter into military do so for variety of different reasons. If anyone claims to speak for each of them and their mentality then that person is talking out of his head.
I don't quite get this point, because is this what actually happens? Right wing government should keep its hands of the affair of the people. What are these affairs? This is just rhetoric. Telling them they can't have abortions, or access to subsidized affordable health care, like in the US. Or what I have read about anyway.
I am not sure what you mean by left wings governments being too forceful on its citizens. Could you please give an example?
For whatever reason anyone chooses to join the military is their prerogative, it doesn't mean I can't, or won't question the mentality behind the existence of the military and those that do choose to join it. I am aware it is a haven and sanctuary for many and especially within the skills sector, but there are more layers behind it than just that. Governments tend to pander to military spending more than any other institution and hold it in high esteem. Why is this you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 3:34:03 GMT
Most of the left wing countries have ceased the exist because the left wing governments were too forceful on its citizens.
The right wing promotes the ideology of free market theory which says that government should not intervene in matters of economy and keep its hands off the affair of people. The militants that have existed in west have been known to carry associations with both the right and the left. They are not in anyway unique to either the left or the right. Militancy's political spectrum is very wide. Also, the people who enter into military do so for variety of different reasons. If anyone claims to speak for each of them and their mentality then that person is talking out of his head.
I don't quite get this point, because is this what actually happens? Right wing government should keep its hands of the affair of the people. What are these affairs? This is just rhetoric. Telling them they can't have abortions, or access to subsidized affordable health care, like in the US. Or what I have read about anyway.
I am not sure what you mean by left wings governments being too forceful on its citizens. Could you please give an example?
For whatever reason anyone chooses to join the military is their prerogative, it doesn't mean I can't, or won't question the mentality behind the existence of the military and those that do choose to join it. I am aware it is a haven and sanctuary for many and especially within the skills sector, but there are more layers behind it than just that. Governments tend to pander to military spending more than any other institution and hold it in high esteem. Why is this you think? The economic affairs. The right wing proponents want to let free market decide its fate on its own.
China is one country that has often times suppressed its own citizens. USSR limited the rights of its citizens. A few in South America and east Europe as well. All of these are examples of left wing.
And the mentality that you are talking about has nothing to do with right wing. Countless examples of militants on the left validate that. As for governments pandering to military. China is one great example. LEFT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 3:36:39 GMT
More expressive post. Yes, my take on militant is one of aggression and violence. It is about the 'nature' of it that I associate with the term military, which also expresses this combative nature within its ranks. That is why it exists and where it derives its label from. Does it exist to combat the militancy in others? Is this not cut from the same cloth as I have already expressed? What is the difference? I really don't feel that most people—including yourself—care or want to acknowledge that?
For whatever reason anyone chooses to join the defense force, they are still buying into a militant nature of aggression and combative violence. This is all part of the training. That is its purpose and reason for existence should the need arise to be defended against. To my mind, these are largely conservative right wing values and the gist of this thread was to ask if Republicans tend to possess a greater tendency towards violence, or the need to control what others do through violence within the national institution of self-defense. Anyone who joins the defense force are buying into this conservative and dangerous mindset. They are still militant in nature.
Ok, I believe you are making a logical leap when you say that the need to defend is a conservative right wing value. I see no data to stand on. You find data that says there are more Republicans in the military so therefore Republicans see some need to control others through violence. You just said that, and I don't see it. I'm trying so hard to show you that is a logical flaw, and either I am not seeing the good logic or you are not seeing the bad. Maybe tomorrow Nora can point me to the good or bad logic in your contention that links all this. That is what I am really striving to obtain. I guess we need to look at where the need for violence and more importantly control and dominance stems from. The military is rife with these qualities, if that is what one wants to call them. I have already suggested the dualistic nature in people. If this operates on both political sides of the spectrum, it doesn't change the data that the head honchos in the military are still predominantly Republican. If they are the ones calling the shots within the ranks, then it is their own right wing\conservative ideals filtering down. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 3:43:29 GMT
I don't quite get this point, because is this what actually happens? Right wing government should keep its hands of the affair of the people. What are these affairs? This is just rhetoric. Telling them they can't have abortions, or access to subsidized affordable health care, like in the US. Or what I have read about anyway.
I am not sure what you mean by left wings governments being too forceful on its citizens. Could you please give an example?
For whatever reason anyone chooses to join the military is their prerogative, it doesn't mean I can't, or won't question the mentality behind the existence of the military and those that do choose to join it. I am aware it is a haven and sanctuary for many and especially within the skills sector, but there are more layers behind it than just that. Governments tend to pander to military spending more than any other institution and hold it in high esteem. Why is this you think? The economic affairs. The right wing proponents want to let free market decide its fate on its own.
China is one country that has often times suppressed its own citizens. USSR limited the rights of its citizens. A few in South America and east Europe as well. All of these are examples of left wing.
And the mentality that you are talking about has nothing to do with right wing. Countless examples of militants on the left validate that. As for governments pandering to military. China is one great example. LEFT.
These are not the West. I am more interested in the US and perhaps to a lessor extent countries like the UK and Australia. There is a blur in the line crossed with these other countries mentioned, due to other issues within their ranks of culture, political turmoil, communism, dictatorships, religious piousness etc.
Yes, the left can be extreme as well and crackers— too much emotion—but so can the right. They just come across as more devious, sneaky and even soulless. Perhaps too little emotion. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 3:49:23 GMT
The economic affairs. The right wing proponents want to let free market decide its fate on its own.
China is one country that has often times suppressed its own citizens. USSR limited the rights of its citizens. A few in South America and east Europe as well. All of these are examples of left wing.
And the mentality that you are talking about has nothing to do with right wing. Countless examples of militants on the left validate that. As for governments pandering to military. China is one great example. LEFT.
These are not the West. I am more interested in the US and perhaps to a lessor extent countries like the UK and Australia. There is a blur in the line crossed with these other countries mentioned, due to other issues within their ranks of culture, political turmoil, communism, dictatorships, religious piousness etc.
Yes, the left can be extreme as well and crackers— too much emotion—but so can the right. They just come across as more devious, sneaky and even soulless. Perhaps too little emotion.
A proper left has not existed in the west for there to be a direct comparison. There is no reason to give free pass to left just because leftist regime has not ever existed in the west. Where it has existed (even in the world of less religious) it hasn't been known to be all for peace. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2018 3:55:27 GMT
Ok, I believe you are making a logical leap when you say that the need to defend is a conservative right wing value. I see no data to stand on. You find data that says there are more Republicans in the military so therefore Republicans see some need to control others through violence. You just said that, and I don't see it. I'm trying so hard to show you that is a logical flaw, and either I am not seeing the good logic or you are not seeing the bad. Maybe tomorrow Nora can point me to the good or bad logic in your contention that links all this. That is what I am really striving to obtain. I guess we need to look at where the need for violence and more importantly control and dominance stems from. The military is rife with these qualities, if that is what one wants to call them. I have already suggested the dualistic nature in people. If this operates on both political sides of the spectrum, it doesn't change the data that the head honchos in the military are still predominantly Republican. If they are the ones calling the shots within the ranks, then it is their own right wing\conservative ideals filtering down. I just want to understand the logical link there. I would tend to look for studies as to which party funds the military better, supports bigger pay raises for the military, etc, I desired to find an empirical link between the military and who they tend to politically affiliate with vs some innate need to control through violence. But who knows, we will see. I'm not the one trying to draw some causal relationship here. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 28, 2018 4:05:04 GMT
I guess we need to look at where the need for violence and more importantly control and dominance stems from. The military is rife with these qualities, if that is what one wants to call them. I have already suggested the dualistic nature in people. If this operates on both political sides of the spectrum, it doesn't change the data that the head honchos in the military are still predominantly Republican. If they are the ones calling the shots within the ranks, then it is their own right wing\conservative ideals filtering down. I just want to understand the logical link there. I would tend to look for studies as to which party funds the military better, supports bigger pay raises for the military, etc, I desired to find an empirical link between the military and who they tend to politically affiliate with vs some innate need to control through violence. But who knows, we will see. I'm not the one trying to draw some causal relationship here. Lol....The original topic was this "Are military\militant people mostly republican.". It has been shown that no military or militant people are not "mostly" republican. The amount of goal post shifting and logical leap by the OP to just continue with this blind and close minded belief in spite of being proven incorrect is astonishing. I wonder if it is militant attitude. LOl. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 7:24:58 GMT
I just want to understand the logical link there. I would tend to look for studies as to which party funds the military better, supports bigger pay raises for the military, etc, I desired to find an empirical link between the military and who they tend to politically affiliate with vs some innate need to control through violence. But who knows, we will see. I'm not the one trying to draw some causal relationship here. Lol....The original topic was this "Are military\militant people mostly republican.". It has been shown that no military or militant people are not "mostly" republican. The amount of goal post shifting and logical leap by the OP to just continue with this blind and close minded belief in spite of being proven incorrect is astonishing. I wonder if it is militant attitude. LOl. 
It "hasn't" been shown that no military\militant people in the armed forces are NOT 'mostly' republican\right wing\conservative values. Aj, may I please ask if you are pro military\defence force and if you care to answer, could I please also ask why you are either pro or anti?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 7:29:14 GMT
I guess we need to look at where the need for violence and more importantly control and dominance stems from. The military is rife with these qualities, if that is what one wants to call them. I have already suggested the dualistic nature in people. If this operates on both political sides of the spectrum, it doesn't change the data that the head honchos in the military are still predominantly Republican. If they are the ones calling the shots within the ranks, then it is their own right wing\conservative ideals filtering down. I just want to understand the logical link there. I would tend to look for studies as to which party funds the military better, supports bigger pay raises for the military, etc, I desired to find an empirical link between the military and who they tend to politically affiliate with vs some innate need to control through violence. But who knows, we will see. I'm not the one trying to draw some causal relationship here. I am attempting to draw a connection between political ideals and beliefs and how the military feeds of these, and from what mindset which can manifest in certain behaviours. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 28, 2018 7:32:24 GMT
These are not the West. I am more interested in the US and perhaps to a lessor extent countries like the UK and Australia. There is a blur in the line crossed with these other countries mentioned, due to other issues within their ranks of culture, political turmoil, communism, dictatorships, religious piousness etc.
Yes, the left can be extreme as well and crackers— too much emotion—but so can the right. They just come across as more devious, sneaky and even soulless. Perhaps too little emotion.
A proper left has not existed in the west for there to be a direct comparison. There is no reason to give free pass to left just because leftist regime has not ever existed in the west. Where it has existed (even in the world of less religious) it hasn't been known to be all for peace. That is why proper left comparisons you have made are not relevant to the West or this discussion. That is just diversion. In the US, it is just known as liberal minded. It is not extreme left and those that do go extreme, are just the ones with crackpot entitlements, not so much socialist\communist values. |
|
