Challenge to Milley and Esper--Do Your Duty

[Dill]

(08-18-2020, 11:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll ignore the condescension and simply respond.

The second Iraq war aside, what exactly are you referencing here?

How exactly are they supposed to prove this to you?  Since you seem wholly ignorant of how the military works I'll clue you in to a little secret.  In the military you never, ever, criticize your superiors in public.  The captain of the USS Roosevelt was not relieved because of his complaints, he was relieved because he made his complaints public.

Routinely announcing you are going to ignore my supposed condescension is not ignoring my supposed condescension. And wholly moot anyway, from someone about to teach me "how the military works." 

"Newsmax" references a source used in post #26. 

The Joint Chiefs are supposed to "prove" something to me? Or I was inviting them to publicly criticize Trump?  No idea why you are assuming/addressing any of this. That's why we need to source and quote statements and points we are addressing, to help avoid introducing unstated/unacknowledged premises.

(08-18-2020, 11:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why not do both?  You started this thread and demand we all interpret it as you dictate.  Why, then, would we not consider whether your opinion on the subject of the JCoS is grounded in any firm knowledge or logic?  Don't set yourself up as the authority on a subject and then kvetch when you're questioned.

Why would you think I didn't read it?

I think you've adequately demonstrated your purpose for starting this thread and it wasn't toe evaluate "existing sources and evidence".  

Well I "demand" that people focus on issues and arguments, and "dictate" that they not center criticism on other posters' persons. That's why, in post # 14, I asked you not to "patter around my posts with little quips and unsupported accusations/objections." I have no authority or power to enforce such requests, but may "kvetch" or ignore when people deviate.  I certainly haven't demanded that people interpret the proffered Letter as I do, nor the issue of Trump's threats regarding the coming election. My disagreeing with others' arguments is "demanding we all intrepret as I dictate" only for people who don't understand how civil debates work.

The way to consider whether my "opinion" is grounded in "firm knowledge or logic" is first to identify whatever conclusions I may be offering, then to consider what evidence is offered in support of them and whether it actually supports them.   As I have been telling you for years. Asserting that I don't "have my finger on the JCs" pulse" doesn't really reach that bar.

People don't set themselves up as authorities on a message board by simply starting a thread and inviting people to discuss it. In all my years on the Bengals Message Board I have never announced I was an expert on something, and asserted others had "zero knowledge. ZERO."  There are many people on this board who do have expert/insider knowledge of things ranging from the military to the COVID virus to computers to law to insurance to US history to public schools to government. But this is usually DEMONSTRATED in their posts, not merely asserted. "Expertise" is no requisite for participation, no argument in itself.  

I don't think you read the "Letter" above for two reasons. 1) you never actually refer to its argument/points to explain and critique them; only launched a red herring/straw man about the authors' "expertise," then mine. And 2) you have yourself explained why you don't have to read the "Letter"--for the same reason you don't engage with Alex Jones or an Antivaxer (badly chosen examples to support non-engagement with opposing views).  Thus avoiding the tedious work of knowing what you are talking about.

So here, as in so many previous threads, it's just you complaining when I challenge your god-given right to deploy unsupported assertions about other posters' integrity--instead of addressing actual arguments and issues put up for discussion. That's the "dictatorship" you are complaining about. You want that freedom to reference some unspecified "posting history" or "solipsism," or toss off non-sequiturs about my comfort with abuse of power, without question or accountability. The freedom to substitute quips for arguments, without someone constantly calling attention to the difference.

As I have noted before, it is entirely possible that you don't know what an argument is, other than arguments from authority. That's why you are always diverting to these credibility issues. It's personal authority which you do or do not see, not that structure of identifiable premises/evidence linked via inference to a conclusion to which I directed you in posts # 14-15. That would explain your claim the "Letter" is supposed to rest on expertise and that I have "set myself up as an authority." For you that's where the "argument" is, not in the actual argument. Or you could very well know where the actual argument is, but want to stay away from it. Either way, the avoidance continues.