Quote:
Originally Posted by cashc
But if it really all boils down to contempt for the soldier and his/her life[,] doesn't the absence of some form of emotion undermine the advocacy of those life's?
|
Are you totally emotionless about other drivers around you? Yes. You don't know any of them. But you don't have contempt for them. Why? They are members of your team.
Some never get it. Adjacent drivers - complete strangers - are members of your team; working together to make the road work; traffic to flow. If you run a light or cut someone else off, that is contempt for him. You did not do it intentionally or based in an emotional tirade. That contempt is not based in emotion. But lack of respect - a failure to take necessary precautions - is contempt for other members of your team.
Yes, driving is a team sport. It's not usually described that way. But with any team, it does not matter whether emotional love exists between team members. Necessary precautions taken for complete strangers - your team members - are both reasonable and required action.
Some will have a problem with this concept. Some never grasp this concept of team play. They may even consider themselves road warriors - out to beat the other guy - weaving between lanes to get there sooner. Periodically a team gets non-team players as demonstrated by high insurance rates, numerous crashes, suspended license, etc. To understand why those failures occur repeatedly, simply note their contempt for other members of the team. They don't know anyone round them. They have no emotional attachment (love or hate) of other drivers. And yet still, one can have or not have contempt for strangers - other drivers. No emotional attachment need exist for one to have or have not contempt.
One can have complete absence of emotion and still have great respect for another's life. It is, after all, essential for a productive and prosperous society; essential to have what we call civilization; defined by what we call civil people - civilians.
All this for complete strangers for which we have neither emotional love nor hate. We do all this for reasons logical. We may use emotion to do it even better. But then emotion is subservient to logic. When emotion is not, well, that is not a civilized person.
None of this can be explained in sound bytes – to attach to what Happy Monkey has posted. Some who never grasp these conceptsm are easily educated (manipulated) by Rush Limbaugh propaganda. Same person would never grasp a difference between strategic and tactical objectives.
Those same people assume since we won virtually every battle in Nam, then we should have won the war. They will then go looking to blame ‘liberals’ for the loss. Vietnam War was being lost in 1965 long before most of the battles were won. That defeat finally became obvious to strategic thinkers (ie the Wise Men) in 1968. How does one win every battle (tactical victories) and yet lose the war (a strategic defeat)? Does winning every bar room fight win anything? And yet some never understand how battles fought without a strategic objective win nothing. That 'bar room' mentality is so characteristic of 'big dic' thinking.
As said before, it is contempt to not understand simplest of military doctrine and then send soldiers into that unwinnable situation. “Mission Accomplished” today was once described as ‘rope-a-dope’ by a very smart man. 40+ years later and still some Americans never learned simplest military doctrine even demonstrated by 'rope-a-dope'. Again classic contempt for American soldier just like that 'non-team play' driver.
No emotion is required to be smart, to be a team player, to be civilized, and a patriotic American. Understanding ‘rope-a-dope’ as it applied to Nam and applies to “Mission Accomplished” is too hard for some who instead wave flags and call themselves patriotic. That ignorance is contempt.