This is disgusting.

[rossmum]

From Facepunch:

http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/showthread.php?t=451191



A group of Littleton parents is opposing the design and location of a memorial to a fallen local Navy SEAL, Danny Dietz, who died in combat in Afghanistan two years ago. They say the statue, depicting Dietz clutching an automatic rifle, glorifies violence. In Berry Park, it would be within blocks of three schools and two playgrounds.

"I don't think young children should be exposed to that in that way - unsupervised by their parents or any adults," said Emily Cassidy, one of the mothers.

The parents have circulated fliers opposing the design and location of the statue at the southeast corner of South Lowell Boulevard and West Berry Avenue, in a triangle formed by Goddard Middle School, Community School
Statue standoff for the Gifted and Centennial Elementary School. They sent a letter to school board members, nearby residents, members of parent-teacher organizations and others to protest "the statue's particular location."

Stupid fucking whores. Soldiers deserve some fucking respect.

[Bodzilla]

Stupid fucking whores. Soldiers deserve some fucking respect.
^
thread win?

This is the flaw in evolution. Theres not enough smart people eating the stupid people.

[Kybo_Ren]

From Facepunch:

http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/showthread.php?t=451191



Stupid fucking whores. Soldiers deserve some fucking respect.
Yeah, too bad the parents have valid concerns, huh?

[Bodzilla]

Kybo, clearly this is Over-Analysis of a statue.

this isnt a valid concern.
Unless humanity has got to the state where seeing a stature makes you want to go out and starting shooting people.

all in all, it's still just a fucking statue.

[Agamemnon]

Stupid fucking whores. Soldiers deserve some fucking respect.
What horrible parents. Not wanting to have a statue commemorating the true depiction of Americans protecting us from the evils of the world? Can't wait to see all the kids' reactions to the statue; "Golly gee gosh, when I grow up, I wanna shoot terrorists in the face too!"

Oh wait, I'm a horrible person now; I'm not blindly wanting someone's local government to spend money on a statue with the situational aspect of it being placed near children. Let's just put up the Lenin statue anyways!


all in all, it's still just a fucking statue.
Read up on symbolism.

[rossmum]

I lived in Europe. I was exposed to the lasting effects of two world wars between the ages of 4 and 8. You know what? I'm not a violent person at all.

This bullshit has got to stop. People are using this sort of thing as an excuse for their own terrible parenting or their children's psychological issues. Unless you're messed up to begin with, there is no way you can be influenced to kill by something as simple as a statue of a war hero with a rifle, nor a game, nor anything else of the sort. My parents had no problems with me taking an interest in WW2 because they made sure I knew the full story. I saw the cemetaries. I stood amongst hundreds of thousands of little white crosses spaced 3 feet apart, as far as the eye could see, in every direction, knowing that beneath each cross was a kid who'd gone to war for whatever reason and had given their lives for their brothers in arms. It's the parents who expose their kids to nothing but violent cartoons, violent kids, and then leave them to their own devices who cause violent tendencies.

Parents need to start taking some responsibility for their own damn children and stop trying to palm the blame off onto something else.

[Kornman00]

Hey, I wonder if the monitor their child's video games and their ratings too...

[rossmum]

I strongly doubt it :rolleyes:

Those are probably the same kids who laugh at everyone else because their parents don't care if they watch restricted movies.

[n00b1n8R]

Yeah, too bad the parents have valid concerns, huh?

It is, but a guy simply holding a rifle is not in any way glorifying violence >__>

[SnaFuBAR]

Parents need to start taking some responsibility for their own damn children and stop trying to palm the blame off onto something else.
They are, by voicing their opinions about what is and what is not acceptable for their small children to see. I didn't see them blaming anyone for anything, ross. The reason that there are ratings on things is so that the parents can monitor what their children see. Besides, there's quite a few other ways to memorialize the soldier than "clutching an automatic rifle".

Likewise, there are more tactful ways of counter-argument than calling the parents "stupid fucking whores" (who are likely more educated than you, no less). Oh, wait, that's NOT a counter argument, it's just ad hominem attack.

Good work shooting holes in your own argument. Besides, it doesn't say they're against a statue all together, just it's design and location. How is that disrespecting a fallen soldier? I suppose you didn't read the article, or you missed the quote, "We have absolutely no issue with the family, and we have only good feelings for the soldier and what he did for this country".

[Agamemnon]

They are, by voicing their opinions about what is and what is not acceptable for their small children to see. I didn't see them blaming anyone for anything, ross. The reason that there are ratings on things is so that the parents can monitor what their children see. Besides, there's quite a few other ways to memorialize the soldier than "clutching an automatic rifle".

Likewise, there are more tactful ways of counter-argument than calling the parents "stupid fucking whores" (who are likely more educated than you, no less). Oh, wait, that's NOT a counter argument, it's just ad hominem attack.

Good work shooting holes in your own argument.
/thread

[rossmum]

They're trying to worm their way out of actually sitting their damn kids down and talking the issue over by instead bitching and whinging about this. From what I see every day, it's obvious that parents are becoming increasingly less responsible for their children and often barely even talk to them. These are the kids who sit around watching movies with more goddamn violence in them than an actual battlefield engagement could ever hope to have, listening to music promoting the outright murder of other human beings over such petty shit as cars or arguments, and who never learn any damn respect for anybody else because they never get any from their own parents. A statue of a soldier with a rifle that symbolises a man who fought and died for his country is just that, and the only time kids will think "HURR I WANNA BE COOL AND SHOOT TERRORISTS TOO" is if their parents sit there and let them stew without a single word about it. Any normal child with a decent upbringing wouldn't think that, I can assure you.

Oh, and by the way - if that's the case and their parents aren't to blame, how fucking come I've heard frequently about kids bursting out laughing when someone dies in war documentaries?

[Kornman00]

/thread
/thread

[SnaFuBAR]

They're trying to worm their way out of actually sitting their damn kids down and talking the issue over by instead bitching and whinging about this. From what I see every day, it's obvious that parents are becoming increasingly less responsible for their children and often barely even talk to them. These are the kids who sit around watching movies with more goddamn violence in them than an actual battlefield engagement could ever hope to have, listening to music promoting the outright murder of other human beings over such petty shit as cars or arguments, and who never learn any damn respect for anybody else because they never get any from their own parents. A statue of a soldier with a rifle that symbolises a man who fought and died for his country is just that, and the only time kids will think "HURR I WANNA BE COOL AND SHOOT TERRORISTS TOO" is if their parents sit there and let them stew without a single word about it. Any normal child with a decent upbringing wouldn't think that, I can assure you.

Since you love the way CN responds to serious posts, i'll just do this for you.

:tinfoil:

By the way, the only thing disgusting is your total lack of tact.

[Agamemnon]

/thread
chitterchitter?

[Kornman00]

ross-ums you silly rantin' goose from the land in my underpants, chill. Some parents don't think their children need to be exposed to the man made ideas of War, and I would agree with them. THOUSANDS of people have died in this war. THOUSANDS of people died before it started. There are more ways to symbolize this hero's loyalty than to poster boy him as a gun-toting footman.

To me, having a statue with a soldier clutching his rifle only begs for more war. I would rather have something that would bring more peace for the future and a fucking weapon doesn't bring peace. It silences.

e: y aggy, chitchitchitchit!

[rossmum]

You're not even doing it right, Snaf :downs:

It's true though. These days people are so caught up in their careers and so on and so forth that they're (in general, mind) spending less and less time with their kids, which is no good for them at all (especially at a young age).

Hell, maybe if the local schools took the time to educate them about war so the parents didn't have to, there wouldn't be a problem.

The statue isn't the problem here. It's peoples' desire to shirk all responsibility for educating children about violence that is, and will continue to be, the problem as long as people continue to blame statues, games, movies and music for turning children into killers.

[SnaFuBAR]

ross-ums you silly rantin' goose from the land in my underpants, chill. Some parents don't think their children need to be exposed to the man made ideas of War, and I would agree with them. THOUSANDS of people have died in this war. THOUSANDS of people died before it started. There are more ways to symbolize this hero's loyalty than to poster boy him as a gun-toting footman.

To me, having a statue with a soldier clutching his rifle only begs for more war. I would rather have something that would bring more peace for the future and a fucking weapon doesn't bring peace. It silences.

e: y aggy, chitchitchitchit!
/thread #2

[Agamemnon]

/thread #2
I was going to say that, faggo. <:mad:>

[Kornman00]

Ross, the entire fucking population doesn't ignore their kids. It just so happens that the media can't concentrate on real news so they dig tunnels to china from florida on stories like "my 14yrold baby is preggers!" or "my 16yr old son is a Godfather!"

also, I meant to post this earlier:

This is disgusting?

No

This is
yddMQ6eXqEk&autoplay=1

[SnaFuBAR]

You're not even doing it right, Snaf :downs:

It's true though. These days people are so caught up in their careers and so on and so forth that they're (in general, mind) spending less and less time with their kids, which is no good for them at all (especially at a young age).

Hell, maybe if the local schools took the time to educate them about war so the parents didn't have to, there wouldn't be a problem.

The statue isn't the problem here. It's peoples' desire to shirk all responsibility for educating children about violence that is, and will continue to be, the problem as long as people continue to blame statues, games, movies and music for turning children into killers.

No, sorry, you're not structuring your argument correctly. How about addressing what I posted? Specifically location and design, and other memorial designs?

[Tweek]

drama over statue.

i lold.

remembers me of the gnome with a giant buttplug in his hand statue issue we had a while ago here.
then, nobody cared anymore.
you american sissywhiners.

http://www.kabouterbuttplug.nl/img/kbp_009-k.jpg

manneken pis:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/2005_manneke_pis05.jpg/449px-2005_manneke_pis05.jpg

famous statue in brussels.

if this were in america it'd be:
OH JESUS CHRIST NO HES PISSING NUDITY CHILD PORN OMG!!!

grow the fuck up america.
i piss on america

this isnt about respect, thuis is just some stupid women WHINING!

[rossmum]

Ross, the entire fucking population doesn't ignore their kids. It just so happens that the media can't concentrate on real news so they dig tunnels to china from florida on stories like "my 14yrold baby is preggers!" or "my 16yr old son is a Godfather!"
Obviously, but even amongst my friends at school over here (that's right, I'm ragging on the whole world here, not just the US), a lot of their parents just gave up on looking after them altogether sometime in the last 5 years or so. The entire population may not be doing it, but as far as I've seen, it's a growing trend. Prices of living are going up, everyone who isn't white, straight and male is enjoying the rights they've obtained within the last few decades by working their asses off in jobs they wouldn't have had this time 50 years ago, and kids are having to become more self-sufficient because in a lot of families, either the single parent is working (out of my entire group of 20-odd, I think only 2-4 of us have both our biological parents caring for us and still together) or both are to bring in more income, and the result is this. Most kids I know, myself included, could not give a shit about ratings and for some of us, nor could our parents. The difference is that when you leave your kid to their own devices for most of the time in favour of a job or other commitments, there's a good chance that they're going to wind up being easily led and turn out to be either a disrespectful jerkoff who'll do anything to look cool, or they'll turn into a "HEY LET'S GO KILL ARABS IN TEH NAME OF FREEDOM LOL" sort of person. When a well-looked-after kid looks up at a statue of a soldier clutching his rifle, they typically see a very brave person, but they also understand that it's not as simple as that. If you just leave your kid subject to all the hype and the trash that's on TV and in magazines these days, then you should be worried.

The fact of the matter is that a statue of a soldier with his rifle is hardly glorifying violence. It's glorifying a man who made his stand to protect what he believed in, even if it resulted in his own death. Unfortunately, at least some parents these days will cry blue fucking murder if you so much as mention wars in school (there's always one who finds something to complain about, and many of our teachers have had to tell us we couldn't extend beyond the syllabus even if we were ahead of the other classes because of that), so nobody bothers to teach kids what wars are really like. All it takes is a little discussion about the matter, maybe a visit from a returned soldier, to persuade the kids that killing another human being just isn't that simple, and it's not something that should be glorified.

Part of the issue, I believe, is that this is in America (hear me out). America, while involved in some pretty shitty conflicts, is essentially still inexperienced as far as the civilian population and war goes. All over Europe, various wars are covered comprehensively in their education and the reminders are everywhere you go. Statues of soldiers with their rifles clutched in their hands, their bayonets fixed and their rifles drawn back ready for the charge, and horrifically wounded men being carried away by their brothers are all over the place (they are down here, as well). These aren't just soldiers holding rifles, these are soldiers actually in combat, preparing to kill other men. I have never, ever heard of any such complaint about any of these. When it comes down to it, I think the people of Europe (and us, since we're still part of the Commonwealth) are so much more used to the idea of armed conflict (hell, it forms almost the entirety of their history since ancient times) that it just doesn't carry the same stigma it does in the US. People understand that sometimes, war happens, and their children learn not only about the heroes that fought in them but also the horrible things that happened and the scars that the soldiers were forced to live with for the rest of their lives. The US, on the other hand, is relatively peaceful given its age, and as a result people are a lot less receptive to the idea of statues depicting soldiers as what they are: men who kill to protect what they believe in.

We've gone from glorifying war to making our soldiers outcasts all because nobody wants to man up and accept that sometimes, the world isn't pretty. If you ask me, that is truly disgusting. It should be neither. It should be shown as how it really is: horrible, but sometimes necessary, and sometimes beneficial in strange and special ways (refer to my rant on Dunkirk and the Blitz in Korner's thread).

[Patrickssj6]

Reminds me of Serj Tankian - Empty Walls (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSKvSz1roQ)
Don't ask me why.

My opinion on this? The gun isn't really necessary. Why? Sorry, but I can't express myself in English for this.

Only thing I have to say is that a memorial is a sign of respect from both sides. As a soldier I would be willing to "sacrifice" my gun next to me at my memorial (I sacrificed more in the first place) for the sake of the children.

[rossmum]

Then you'd be just another man in uniform.

A soldier is armed. That defines what he does; he fights in wars, with a gun. This guy died fighting, firing right to the very end. I don't see why that shouldn't be reflected in his memorial statue, and I also don't see why the parents and/or schools can't take responsibility for educating their children properly about wars and violence in general. The way they describe it as being unsuitable or a danger just proves further that they expect their children to be influenced that easily... why? Because they seem to just expect their children to magically work the whole sorry mess out for themselves? There are some things that a parent, guardian, teacher, or other authority figure that the child respects and understands absolutely must discuss with a child, and violence and war are two of those things. Without that, of course the kids will think it's cool to go and shoot other people - just like they think anything else out of the ordinary for them must be really cool. Education, not censorship, is what the world needs.

[Kornman00]

The pen is mightier than the sword rossababy. A soldier is armed yes, but you don't have to play him off to be the stereotypical one with the gun :|

[rossmum]

I know, but he was the sort with a gun.

We all love you and your mighty paychecks, Korner. Don't feel left out <3

[Agamemnon]

Obviously, but even amongst my friends at school over here (that's right, I'm ragging on the whole world here, not just the US), a lot of their parents just gave up on looking after them altogether sometime in the last 5 years or so. The entire population may not be doing it, but as far as I've seen, it's a growing trend.
You mean in Americanized countries, such as Britain, Australia, etc. I'd love for you to go to Africa or to South America and show me how the family structure is dying in places where it's the clear foundation of their civilization.


Prices of living are going up, everyone who isn't white, straight and male is enjoying the rights they've obtained within the last few decades by working their asses off in jobs they wouldn't have had this time 50 years ago,
What a faceless assumption. Anyone with half a brain knows that white males are today's minorities. Don't try and bullshit me on that. There are about 50 scholarships for not being white; another 50 for not being a man. For every fucking scholarship I signed up for, I also applied for Hispanic ones, because I am, technically, Hispanic, and you want to know what happened when I went to interviews on those scholarships? "Oh, we're sorry, when we meant Hispanic, we meant someone whose skin tone was brown, not just the fact that you are Hispanic by birth." What an absolute racist fucking cop out, especially when it says on all applications they do not discriminate by race.

So let me open your eyes on this one, possmum. If your parents aren't rolling in the dough and you're a white male, then you're fucked. You better get the best kind of grades you possibly can, because when it comes to scholarship time, the only ones you are going to get are the ones based on your grades, and even then they are going to discriminate against you because you're a white male. They'd much rather have a black woman accepting the Rhodes Scholar and having a nice little photo op with a board of directors that are all white, thus making it seem like they're giving the "minorities" a chance.

So don't play stupid with me on that one.


and kids are having to become more self-sufficient because in a lot of families, either the single parent is working (out of my entire group of 20-odd, I think only 2-4 of us have both our biological parents caring for us and still together) or both are to bring in more income, and the result is this. Most kids I know, myself included, could not give a shit about ratings and for some of us, nor could our parents. The difference is that when you leave your kid to their own devices for most of the time in favour of a job or other commitments, there's a good chance that they're going to wind up being easily led and turn out to be either a disrespectful jerkoff who'll do anything to look cool, or they'll turn into a "HEY LET'S GO KILL ARABS IN TEH NAME OF FREEDOM LOL" sort of person. When a well-looked-after kid looks up at a statue of a soldier clutching his rifle, they typically see a very brave person, but they also understand that it's not as simple as that. If you just leave your kid subject to all the hype and the trash that's on TV and in magazines these days, then you should be worried.
How exactly does a well-looked-after kid translate bravery from a soldier clutching a rifle? "By God, he gave his life in a conflict we may never know the real truth behind about, but at least some of the reasons that the media has fed us are honorable enough." So if they're just trying to put in a memento in their town so they can be recognized and have more of a tourist attraction because they're going to be the first town to erect a memorial of a soldier who died in the ongoing conflict of the War on Terror, then why would it have to be a propagandistic image? Yeah, sure, the famous Marine Corps War Memorial depicts the famous flag raising on Iwo Jima, but you surely know all the propagandistic opportunities that came out of that. The only real aesthetical value I can find in memorials is the art value of it, not the propagandistic meaning behind it. If people really wanted to build a memorial that wanted to teach people, then they would do something like that to the extent of the Vietnam Memorial. There's a much much bigger impact when you list all the names of those who are confirmed KIA or MIA, because that's the biggest teaching tool of all; letting you know the impact of a war. A statue of one man and a rifle suggests he was a one-man army, and thus also impedes the "well-looked-after kid" to intelligently tell his parents that he would like to join the armed forces to defend his country, while his parents nod their heads in blind pride. Same shit, different scenario.


The fact of the matter is that a statue of a soldier with his rifle is hardly glorifying violence. It's glorifying a man who made his stand to protect what he believed in, even if it resulted in his own death. Unfortunately, at least some parents these days will cry blue fucking murder if you so much as mention wars in school (there's always one who finds something to complain about, and many of our teachers have had to tell us we couldn't extend beyond the syllabus even if we were ahead of the other classes because of that), so nobody bothers to teach kids what wars are really like. All it takes is a little discussion about the matter, maybe a visit from a returned soldier, to persuade the kids that killing another human being just isn't that simple, and it's not something that should be glorified.
And it's also something that shouldn't be pursued, period. What you're also losing on the perception of the argument here is that the parents are arguing with the fact that the statue is going to be dedicated to one man and, what's more, is that he's going to be clutching a rifle. There are better ways to handle a memorial then to glorify his actions. Besides that, how ever, all of our governments justify death, especially when it comes to a matter of "protecting your own country." If you've learned anything about war, Ross, then you'll definitely know how many of them could have very well been avoided. WWI would have never happened if nearly each and every single country had an alliance pact with each other. WWII would have never happened if we didn't place all the blame on Germany at the end of WWI. People talk about they had to do what was necessary then, and you know what, that's completely understandable. They were then in a situation that could not be reversed, but don't think for a second that I will be blind to say that it couldn't have been avoided earlier. All these world leaders, even today, talk about peace, and yet none of them even trust one another, and what's worse is that they're selfish in the sense that they would first see to their people's needs then to a friend's needs. And even then wars aren't even started because of accidents; they are sometimes quite deliberate, and then it is, again, no one's fault but then the very people under the rule of that government.


Part of the issue, I believe, is that this is in America (hear me out). America, while involved in some pretty shitty conflicts, is essentially still inexperienced as far as the civilian population and war goes. All over Europe, various wars are covered comprehensively in their education and the reminders are everywhere you go. Statues of soldiers with their rifles clutched in their hands, their bayonets fixed and their rifles drawn back ready for the charge, and horrifically wounded men being carried away by their brothers are all over the place (they are down here, as well). These aren't just soldiers holding rifles, these are soldiers actually in combat, preparing to kill other men. I have never, ever heard of any such complaint about any of these. When it comes down to it, I think the people of Europe (and us, since we're still part of the Commonwealth) are so much more used to the idea of armed conflict (hell, it forms almost the entirety of their history since ancient times) that it just doesn't carry the same stigma it does in the US. People understand that sometimes, war happens, and their children learn not only about the heroes that fought in them but also the horrible things that happened and the scars that the soldiers were forced to live with for the rest of their lives. The US, on the other hand, is relatively peaceful given its age, and as a result people are a lot less receptive to the idea of statues depicting soldiers as what they are: men who kill to protect what they believe in.
If this isn't a conditioned response, then I don't know what is. I guess it's starting to really make sense now. This isn't a matter of logistics or anything of that matter; this is completely personal on your part, down to what you rudely said about the parents that want to halt the construction of the statue. You've been fed all of that heroic melodramatic bullshit in the hopeful attempt that when your country avoids or deliberately goes to war, they'll be hoping you'll be stupid enough to give up your life for them. I think Patton said it the best as well:

"Now I want to you remember that no bastard won a war for dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Maybe you prefer this one as well:

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God for those that lived."

Really couldn't have said it better myself. Memorials depicting battle and death clearly glorify war in the sense that it was justified, and to further educate the children through propagandistic means, so when they enlist to fight and die, they may fool themselves to believe they're doing something heroic. Congrats Ross, you've fallen directly into what your government wants you to think.


We've gone from glorifying war to making our soldiers outcasts all because nobody wants to man up and accept that sometimes, the world isn't pretty. If you ask me, that is truly disgusting. It should be neither. It should be shown as how it really is: horrible, but sometimes necessary, and sometimes beneficial in strange and special ways (refer to my rant on Dunkirk and the Blitz in Korner's thread).
I've already refuted this. The last thing I can possibly say is that these parents aren't going out and saying, "Thank God for the dead soldiers," like that one crazy family is doing. If anything, I'm sure they're like many other of those who haven't taken a side in the two-side-biased conflict of it all, which is that they weep for those that die, knowing that the potential they could ever have in their lives was robbed out of blindness on their part and on their assumed enemy's. The world isn't pretty because we make it so.

[Skiiran]

No soldier should be glorified for doing what is asked of him.

[rossmum]

You mean in Americanized countries, such as Britain, Australia, etc. I'd love for you to go to Africa or to South America and show me how the family structure is dying in places where it's the clear foundation of their civilization.
Considering Africa has jack all to do with this, I didn't see any reason to specify. Pointless statement.


What a faceless assumption. Anyone with half a brain knows that white males are today's minorities. Don't try and bullshit me on that. There are about 50 scholarships for not being white; another 50 for not being a man. For every fucking scholarship I signed up for, I also applied for Hispanic ones, because I am, technically, Hispanic, and you want to know what happened when I went to interviews on those scholarships? "Oh, we're sorry, when we meant Hispanic, we meant someone whose skin tone was brown, not just the fact that you are Hispanic by birth." What an absolute racist fucking cop out, especially when it says on all applications they do not discriminate by race.

So let me open your eyes on this one, possmum. If your parents aren't rolling in the dough and you're a white male, then you're fucked. You better get the best kind of grades you possibly can, because when it comes to scholarship time, the only ones you are going to get are the ones based on your grades, and even then they are going to discriminate against you because you're a white male. They'd much rather have a black woman accepting the Rhodes Scholar and having a nice little photo op with a board of directors that are all white, thus making it seem like they're giving the "minorities" a chance.

So don't play stupid with me on that one.
Uh, ok?

I've been saying the exact same shit for a hell of a long-ass time, where have you been in the last year or two? Did you completely and totally miss the intended meaning there or something?


How exactly does a well-looked-after kid translate bravery from a soldier clutching a rifle?
I don't know about you, but when I see a statue of a single soldier standing his ground, rifle in hand, it tells me that this man did something extremely brave or important to be commemorated in such a way...


"By God, he gave his life in a conflict we may never know the real truth behind about, but at least some of the reasons that the media has fed us are honorable enough." So if they're just trying to put in a memento in their town so they can be recognized and have more of a tourist attraction because they're going to be the first town to erect a memorial of a soldier who died in the ongoing conflict of the War on Terror, then why would it have to be a propagandistic image? Yeah, sure, the famous Marine Corps War Memorial depicts the famous flag raising on Iwo Jima, but you surely know all the propagandistic opportunities that came out of that. The only real aesthetical value I can find in memorials is the art value of it, not the propagandistic meaning behind it. If people really wanted to build a memorial that wanted to teach people, then they would do something like that to the extent of the Vietnam Memorial. There's a much much bigger impact when you list all the names of those who are confirmed KIA or MIA, because that's the biggest teaching tool of all; letting you know the impact of a war.
Obviously. But sometimes, people do extraordinary things which are seen as so amazing, they're remembered with a statue in their image. There's a statue of Hugh Dowding in London, why? Because it was his genius that held the Luftwaffe at bay in 1940. The Iwo Jima statue - what does that represent? Not a single man's bravery, but the bravery of the soldiers who fought their way to the peak of Mt. Suribachi and planted the flag there, signifying victory against an incredibly tenacious, fanatical and merciless enemy. Yeah, they have propaganda value in them, but they also help people remember some of the individual soldiers who fought and died - a lot harder on a wall where there are possibly tens or hundreds of thousands of other names.


A statue of one man and a rifle suggests he was a one-man army, and thus also impedes [protip: impede isn't the word you're looking for there] the "well-looked-after kid" to intelligently tell his parents that he would like to join the armed forces to defend his country, while his parents nod their heads in blind pride. Same shit, different scenario.
Maybe to you it does. To me, it signifies the difference one ordinary man can make, and the incredible courage it takes to do so. I've always looked up to those statues, whether of a single, named man, a group of soldiers, or an unknown soldier representing them all, as figures to be proud of and to look up to for their bravery and selfless sacrifice. They don't make me want to join the army. In fact, the reason I'm considering joining up at all is nothing to do with heroism, statues, or memorials. It's the great friendships and team spirit that are possessed exclusively by soldiers.


And it's also something that shouldn't be pursued, period. What you're also losing on the perception of the argument here is that the parents are arguing with the fact that the statue is going to be dedicated to one man and, what's more, is that he's going to be clutching a rifle. There are better ways to handle a memorial then to glorify his actions.
No, no, you're the the one losing perception here. Glorifying violence is the touchy subject. Glorifying his ferocious defence of his friends and his values is definitely not bad, so long as it's known that there are other ways to do so - which wouldn't be a problem if - wait for it - people bothered to educate the children about the matter.


Besides that, how ever, all of our governments justify death, especially when it comes to a matter of "protecting your own country." If you've learned anything about war, Ross, then you'll definitely know how many of them could have very well been avoided. WWI would have never happened if nearly each and every single country had an alliance pact with each other. WWII would have never happened if we didn't place all the blame on Germany at the end of WWI. People talk about they had to do what was necessary then, and you know what, that's completely understandable. They were then in a situation that could not be reversed, but don't think for a second that I will be blind to say that it couldn't have been avoided earlier. All these world leaders, even today, talk about peace, and yet none of them even trust one another, and what's worse is that they're selfish in the sense that they would first see to their people's needs then to a friend's needs. And even then wars aren't even started because of accidents; they are sometimes quite deliberate, and then it is, again, no one's fault but then the very people under the rule of that government.
I'm not arguing with you there. War is a fucking waste and it's only very rarely that it produces something which benefits humankind as a whole (WWI made things worse for most people, WWII actually did result in some good things like the unity brought about within communities and the accelerated development of the computer). But as wasteful as wars are, sometimes they happen. They shouldn't happen, and they can be avoided... but hindsight is always perfect.



If this isn't a conditioned response, then I don't know what is. I guess it's starting to really make sense now. This isn't a matter of logistics or anything of that matter; this is completely personal on your part, down to what you rudely said about the parents that want to halt the construction of the statue. You've been fed all of that heroic melodramatic bullshit in the hopeful attempt that when your country avoids or deliberately goes to war, they'll be hoping you'll be stupid enough to give up your life for them. I think Patton said it the best as well:

"Now I want to you remember that no bastard won a war for dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

Maybe you prefer this one as well:

"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God for those that lived."

Really couldn't have said it better myself. Memorials depicting battle and death clearly glorify war in the sense that it was justified, and to further educate the children through propagandistic means, so when they enlist to fight and die, they may fool themselves to believe they're doing something heroic. Congrats Ross, you've fallen directly into what your government wants you to think.
Actually, no. You've got me completely wrong yet again, congratulations.

I never took any of that 'war is glorious' bullshit, I still don't, and I never will. I think you must've missed a good part of my post about seeing the cemetaries in Europe; believe me, I'm under no illusions as to how shitty wars are. But I hold an immense amount of respect for the men who fight in them, and I always have. At the same time, I have absolutely no respect for parents who try and shirk their own responsibilities by complaining about things that shouldn't be issues. If they're so fucking scared it'll make their kids violent, then why the fuck don't they talk to their kids while they're still young rather than sit around and just expect them not to be?


I've already refuted this. The last thing I can possibly say is that these parents aren't going out and saying, "Thank God for the dead soldiers," like that one crazy family is doing. If anything, I'm sure they're like many other of those who haven't taken a side in the two-side-biased conflict of it all, which is that they weep for those that die, knowing that the potential they could ever have in their lives was robbed out of blindness on their part and on their assumed enemy's. The world isn't pretty because we make it so.
Actually, I didn't catch the bit about them not disagreeing with the statue earlier as it wasn't in the Facepunch post, but I still consider their complaints to be stupid in the extreme.

Have you ever been to Paschendale?

[Tweek]

tl;dr.

more giant post quotewars of overanalyzing.

[Pooky]

I can't be bothered to read this drama bomb horse shit.

SPARTA!!!

I don't see any problem with the statue, personally.

[Aerowyn]

If they wanted to honor him, doing a statue of him in his uniform saluting, or doing something else would be perfectly acceptable.

However, I think having him "clutching an automatic rifle" is an insult to his memory. I dunno. The people that loved this guy the most probably would NOT say that he was a gun-slinging killing machine. No, they'd know him as a kind, generous person that gave his life for his country.

To me the issue isn't about glorifying violence for kids, it's just the issue of how the soldier should be portrayed in front of his family and loved ones.

[Emmzee]

Stupid fucking whores. Soldiers deserve some fucking respect.
.

This is almost as bad as when our boys came home from Vietnam, having been through hell, only to be spat on by goddamn hippies.

People like this make me sick.

E: I just read the whole thread.

Kybo, you make me sick.

It's a fucking gun. You act like kids don't see this shit all the time anyway on TV and movies and games, except in these forms of media, the guns are actually being used. I was exposed to a lot more than just statues of people with guns when I was in elementary school. But I guess you just lived under a rock for your childhood.

[Skiiran]

Of course we are ignoring that they are putting up this statue as a sort of looking-up-to figure. You really grant kids more than they're worth.

[Agamemnon]

Considering Africa has jack all to do with this, I didn't see any reason to specify. Pointless statement.
Wrong, you said an increasing number of people are losing the family structure. You think that because you're living in an Americanized country, ergo you have bias to a problem that is minor.


Uh, ok?

I've been saying the exact same shit for a hell of a long-ass time, where have you been in the last year or two? Did you completely and totally miss the intended meaning there or something?
What the hell are you on about. You just said it was a free fucking ride for being a white male. I countered, and now you're agreeing me? Is this your second personality or something? Have a sense of deja vu all of the sudden?



I don't know about you, but when I see a statue of a single soldier standing his ground, rifle in hand, it tells me that this man did something extremely brave or important to be commemorated in such a way...
Of course it does, you've been blindly led to believe that, just like the numerous statues of commemorating Lenin in Russia, or the statues Hitler erected in his image. People were just as blind to cry and believe things were justified and those going off to die were brave. It's called propaganda; you're believing it.



Obviously. But sometimes, people do extraordinary things which are seen as so amazing, they're remembered with a statue in their image. There's a statue of Hugh Dowding in London, why? Because it was his genius that held the Luftwaffe at bay in 1940. The Iwo Jima statue - what does that represent? Not a single man's bravery, but the bravery of the soldiers who fought their way to the peak of Mt. Suribachi and planted the flag there, signifying victory against an incredibly tenacious, fanatical and merciless enemy. Yeah, they have propaganda value in them, but they also help people remember some of the individual soldiers who fought and died - a lot harder on a wall where there are possibly tens or hundreds of thousands of other names.
Still not getting it it seems. A wall with thousands of names on it is an impact; you just don't recognize it because there isn't a soldier with his jacket ripped off, a la face pose of American male bravado, firing an automatic weapon, because that's what you relate to blind heroism and propaganda. The Vietnam Memorial makes the correct impact, reminding people of what war solves.


Maybe to you it does. To me, it signifies the difference one ordinary man can make, and the incredible courage it takes to do so. I've always looked up to those statues, whether of a single, named man, a group of soldiers, or an unknown soldier representing them all, as figures to be proud of and to look up to for their bravery and selfless sacrifice. They don't make me want to join the army. In fact, the reason I'm considering joining up at all is nothing to do with heroism, statues, or memorials. It's the great friendships and team spirit that are possessed exclusively by soldiers.
Same shit, different story. Just more propaganda in another situation. What you can attain by yourself you'd rather sell yourself and give up. Not my problem you want to give up and blindly believe you're going to do good that way. Also not my problem you fail to see the real reason of propagandistic statues, more so because you are drawn into it as the erectors of the statue wished you to be.


No, no, you're the the one losing perception here. Glorifying violence is the touchy subject. Glorifying his ferocious defence of his friends and his values is definitely not bad, so long as it's known that there are other ways to do so - which wouldn't be a problem if - wait for it - people bothered to educate the children about the matter.
What utter bullshit and you know it. Don't throw your faceless and weak propaganda at me; I'm not buying it. If we truly wanted to educate the children about the matter, we'd take them over to Holocaust camps, or we'd let them watch battle footage of some of the wars that were captured. There's your fucking truth, not some American hero pose wielding a weapon living on in propagandistic memory. You're clearly biased on the subject, and you've proved countless times when you are biased on the subject, you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong. One day it's going to bite you in the ass.


I'm not arguing with you there. War is a fucking waste and it's only very rarely that it produces something which benefits humankind as a whole (WWI made things worse for most people, WWII actually did result in some good things like the unity brought about within communities and the accelerated development of the computer). But as wasteful as wars are, sometimes they happen. They shouldn't happen, and they can be avoided... but hindsight is always perfect.
It's an extremely weak excuse to even justify WWII by what happened after it. We shouldn't need a war where millions die in order to bring each other together, and it's even more facetious to believe it's lived on. 9/11 had the same effect for a few months, and then people just went back to going at each other's throats, and automatically assuming anyone who is a Muslim is a terrorist. Instead, it has caused fear, it has sowed seeds of distrust, and has sent things in a completely different direction.


Actually, no. You've got me completely wrong yet again, congratulations.

I never took any of that 'war is glorious' bullshit, I still don't, and I never will. I think you must've missed a good part of my post about seeing the cemetaries in Europe; believe me, I'm under no illusions as to how shitty wars are. But I hold an immense amount of respect for the men who fight in them, and I always have. At the same time, I have absolutely no respect for parents who try and shirk their own responsibilities by complaining about things that shouldn't be issues. If they're so fucking scared it'll make their kids violent, then why the fuck don't they talk to their kids while they're still young rather than sit around and just expect them not to be?
Stop making yourself believe in your false belief of what you think is the reason why they're trying to stop the construction of this statue. You've done nothing but avoid Korn's, Snaf's, and now my reasons as to why, and you're still doing it. When ever you feel mature enough to accept the fact that your bias has clearly blinded you on the issue, then you can come back and speak in this thread and be taken seriously.


Have you ever been to Paschendale?
No, but I have been to Dresden.

[Emmzee]

No, but I have been to Dresden.
Because Dresden totally had something to do with the Navy and soldiers.

Heaven forbid that it was started by the British, or that it was just a severe muck-up by the Joint Intelligence Committee, nor that it was to destroy a railway vital to getting German troops to the Eastern front.

What's more disgusting than people refusing to honor dead soldiers is people who argue over trivial things in huge quotewars that make reading a thread a living hell.

[ICEE]

how retarded can people be? but, i suppose it wouldn't be any less meaningful to have him without the rifle. he ought to be in some other pose that reflects his spirit and actions

[jngrow]

Well, they only want to change the location of the statue. They are bitchy little parents who are going to keep bitching until they get their way. Just take the gun away, or build it someone else. Not that hard.

[Apoc4lypse]

Yeah, too bad the parents have valid concerns, huh?

I completely agree with them and there concerns, its just like, why all the concern now though?

You see worse violence on regular morning news which I bet every parent watches and almost every kid in any family will at least get a glimpse of.

My opinion is, at least first go sue fox 5 or something before jumping all over people building memorials of which at least have a righteous cause of existence.

EDIT: Theres actually a memorial statue for a guy (I don't really know I haven't gotten around to reading it yet) that I see almost every mourning when I drive to school and hes holding some sort of automatic weapon.

[Agamemnon]

Because Dresden totally had something to do with the Navy and soldiers.
What the hell are you on about. Is it possible for you to post something that contributes to the thread for once? The Battle of Passchendaele had to do with trench warfare and the complete lack of logic, with soldiers blindly following orders to go to their death. I would imagine he asked me if I've been to Passchendaele because it was the site of the attrocity of trench warefare in WWI; I countered with the bombing of Dresden in WWII with the attempted genocide; I would've said something about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I haven't been to either places.


Heaven forbid that it was started by the British, or that it was just a severe muck-up by the Joint Intelligence Committee, nor that it was to destroy a railway vital to getting German troops to the Eastern front.The bombing of of Dresden was a clear act of damaging civilian morale by carpet-bombing a civilian town with actual zero military reasons, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done in order to force the Japanese to surrender, not hinder their military (though if you look at genocide in the way of hindering future ranks, then I guess that's a "justified" outlook).

So why don't you actually try and say something relating to the topic instead of going on about different crap.


What's more disgusting than people refusing to honor dead soldiers is people who argue over trivial things in huge quotewars that make reading a thread a living hell.What are you, Teekup? Maybe Tweek? Got your panties in a twist because people take the initiative to actually bring up these topics and speak upon them intelligently? But no, I suppose you're right; we should be the generation of forgetfulness and just ignore the problem. We should force and impede our opinions on one issue and make the other issue seem like as if it's going to rip your head off if you get near it, thus rendering our bias to make us believe one issue is right while the other is "socially incorrect because we now know better than that hurf durf."

So I guess what I'm trying to say is if you don't like conflict, then stay the fuck away, maybe try to even learn something when you wish to stick your head out and try to instead of making yourself look like a fool.


I completely agree with them and there concerns, its just like, why all the concern now though?
Probably because they see through the ruse of an attempt to start up early propaganda. Logic usually dictates we erect memorials after the conflict is over; the conflict is on-going, and the erection of a statue giving the impression of battle prowess and death some how equates bravery and justifies war, especially when it's so well-placed near children to get their thought processes to get going and make them believe this conflict is justified.

[Emmzee]

The bombing of of Dresden was a clear act of damaging civilian morale by carpet-bombing a civilian town with actual zero military reasons, just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done in order to force the Japanese to surrender, not hinder their military (though if you look at genocide in the way of hindering future ranks, then I guess that's a "justified" outlook).
I guess you've never heard of total war then.

Win, by any means necessary. It must be too complicated for you to understand.

What I don't get is why you find it imperative to go out of your way to prove people wrong on every point they try to make, when really you're just rehashing your personal ideas and beliefs and ramming them down everyone else's throat. Not to say that I don't do it, because I do, you just do it on a larger and more infuriating scale.

[Emmzee]

So why don't you actually try and say something relating to the topic instead of going on about different crap.
Good job being a hypocrite. You reply to me, thereby validating and justifying my post, and before my post, here's what you said that didn't relate to the topic:

You mean in Americanized countries, such as Britain, Australia, etc. I'd love for you to go to Africa or to South America and show me how the family structure is dying in places where it's the clear foundation of their civilization.
I fail to see how family structure in third world countries relates to the topic.


What a faceless assumption. Anyone with half a brain knows that white males are today's minorities. Don't try and bullshit me on that. There are about 50 scholarships for not being white; another 50 for not being a man. For every fucking scholarship I signed up for, I also applied for Hispanic ones, because I am, technically, Hispanic, and you want to know what happened when I went to interviews on those scholarships? "Oh, we're sorry, when we meant Hispanic, we meant someone whose skin tone was brown, not just the fact that you are Hispanic by birth." What an absolute racist fucking cop out, especially when it says on all applications they do not discriminate by race.
I thought this thread was about soldiers, not minorities. Guess I was wrong, because all-knowing Aggy showed me the way.

I could go on, but I'm tired of arguing for the sake of arguing and I'm out of this thread before it gets even more ugly.

[Leiukemia]

Well, I can say I agree completely with aggy, so I won't go and repeat what he said. But Ive got a few things to point out as well.

Ross, you don't know anything about these people. You just assume that because they are doing something that censors something you beleive in, that they must be terrible parents who are only looking for something to nag about. You don't take into consideration that this may be only one of many ways that they actually do try to take care of their children. You have absolutly no idea whether or not these people also do not allow their children to watch violent tv shows, play violent games, etc. Also, you don't take consideration into their possible religious views. I would not be surprised if there were some jehovahs witnesses in the mix. That particular group is very against war of any sort, and it's not any of your business whether they have respect for something they think is completly wrong or not. I know from my 12 years of experiance as one, that jehovah's witnesses are very strict about violence in tv, video games etc for their children. You also have yet to respond to the idea of simply putting the statue in another area.

Since you're statements are ridden with your personal opinion, I think I might as well put in mine too. I disagree with you about that children should be taught from the get-go about war and reality and all that shiza. In my opinion, I think they deserve the 12-14 years of bliss, before they really need to see the reality of life. I'm not saying let's treat them like babies, I'm saying let them enjoy being a kid while they can. I know for myself that when reality hit, life became one ball of shit after the other. I don't see any reason why boys should be men, especially in America or other americanised countries where you really can get by without learning all that shit so early. I consider myself as coming to reality only this year, what with working, girls, my grandmother passing away, my cousin getting cancer and other things of life. Yet I still have a great respect for human kind, a good amount of maturity, and a sense of what's right and wrong. I was raised without violent games/tv shows up until the last couple years of my life. I never payed attention much in history class, nor was I tought anything about it from my parents, yet I still formed my own respect in that area. And for christs sakes don't take this as saying children don't need discipline or anything. I'm just talking about things like swearing, sex, violence etc being thoroughly explained at such a young age. I say move the statue away from the school, and let the kids appreciate it when they're really old enough to form an opinion that isn't so easily moulded by the government, parents and peers.

[Terin]

Ah, politics. Where people in the same country (somewhat for H2V) come to hate each other.

I'm not well informed enough to actually get in an argument with this kind of stuff, as I'd probably get my ass handed to me virtually with something I didn't even know, but I will say that if a child sees a gun, it will not do anything to him or her. They do not see a motionless gun and develop violent tendencies from it.

[Skiiran]

I am still confused as to why we have a statue in the first place. If there is some sort of propagandic value, then yes, including an automatic weapon is entirely the wrong way to go about it; American children are incredibly stupid, and if something is idolized they will follow it. If it is to honor him...

Dude, why isn't there a statue for every soldier? Oh, right, because they are doing their jobs. Of course I have great respect for them, but they know what they are getting into, and to have a statue commemorating a single soldier that did their job well seems hypocritical. If this is the case, why not something for every soldier, or even every scientist, or farm worker?

[Agamemnon]

I guess you've never heard of total war then.

Win, by any means necessary. It must be too complicated for you to understand.

What I don't get is why you find it imperative to go out of your way to prove people wrong on every point they try to make, when really you're just rehashing your personal ideas and beliefs and ramming them down everyone else's throat. Not to say that I don't do it, because I do, you just do it on a larger and more infuriating scale.
I guess you've never heard of "illogical fallacies" either. War solves nothing. Period. Sugar coat it all you want. Also, take your Dole hypocrisy else where, with your, "lol, thats ur opinion and therefore the argument is now over." If you weren't prepared to be shown the unpopular opinion because you've been fed the popular one, then you shouldn't have walked into this thread in the first place, nor with the tonality of hypocrisy in feeling like as if you're some kind of victim. You came off just as hostile; I responded in the same way you were talking to me. Don't like your own methods of argument? Then I suggest you try something new.


Good job being a hypocrite. You reply to me, thereby validating and justifying my post, and before my post, here's what you said that didn't relate to the topic:

I fail to see how family structure in third world countries relates to the topic.
That's because you failed to read it. Job well done.



I thought this thread was about soldiers, not minorities. Guess I was wrong, because all-knowing Aggy showed me the way.
Try and read next time then. Maybe the next time you won't further dig your grave into foolishness.


I could go on, but I'm tired of arguing for the sake of arguing and I'm out of this thread before it gets even more ugly.
Good riddance. Maybe next time you can try and contribute to a thread instead of trying to be funny.


I'm not well informed enough to actually get in an argument with this kind of stuff, as I'd probably get my ass handed to me virtually with something I didn't even know, but I will say that if a child sees a gun, it will not do anything to him or her. They do not see a motionless gun and develop violent tendencies from it.
Children learn through observing. You hand a child a pistol, and he might not know how to use it, but he'll get the basic concept after he pulls the trigger. A statue of a soldier holding a rifle with a solemn expression on his face gives the impression that all the killing he has done is justified in bravery, thus giving children the idea it's ok to kill in some instances, and if that's the only way children will be learning about war, then it's the only thing they're going to know, especially at a young age.

[Mass]

I can see where Ross is coming from on the whole, kids should be mature enough to understand its just a statue thing.

However, I disagree. Pomp and pride may have gotten Europe near global domination, but it is hardly a practice to continue in an age of modern war. Attempting to continue a traditional view of war in a time of fighting "enemy combatants" is ridiculous. The fact is that we cannot keep our view of war the same when it itself has changed. While it is important to remember wars and soldiers, there is little room to celebrate fighting itself, as it is now. Face it, theres not much honor in white phosphorous.

In an age where victory is measure by a fucking "kill count" the very idea of building a memorial to a fallen soldier that remembers him as a REAL AMERICAN HERO!!! soldier, not a person is well, disgusting.

The parent's reasoning is meh but I don't think their wrong to oppose the statue.

[Mr Buckshot]

At this rate, we might as well ban action movies, action games, history textbooks, novels with action heroes, and superhero/vigilante comics.

[Agamemnon]

At this rate, we might as well ban action movies, action games, history textbooks, novels with action heroes, and superhero/vigilante comics.
Yeah, and like as if that's the same thing as the government creating propaganda for its people and then mandating it as truth. There is no label at the bottom of propagandistic memorials stating how the design is done in order to fool its people; at least with morale-boosting movies they're labeled as fiction.

[Kornman00]

"No Soldier should be honored, for doing what is expected." - S117.

Case closed.

[rossmum]

Wrong, you said an increasing number of people are losing the family structure. You think that because you're living in an Americanized country, ergo you have bias to a problem that is minor.
I would've thought you'd realise I meant that in reference to the western world. But no, apparently you felt the need to try and apply it to Africa and then... do what, exactly?


What the hell are you on about. You just said it was a free fucking ride for being a white male. I countered, and now you're agreeing me? Is this your second personality or something? Have a sense of deja vu all of the sudden?
What the fuck, no I didn't. I said nothing of the sort, did I? Jesus Christ, stop pulling things out of context and then pretending I meant whatever bizzare mutation of my words you've come out with.


Of course it does, you've been blindly led to believe that, just like the numerous statues of commemorating Lenin in Russia, or the statues Hitler erected in his image. People were just as blind to cry and believe things were justified and those going off to die were brave. It's called propaganda; you're believing it.
No, I haven't. I don't see where the fuck you're trying to go with this, because a statue of a single soldier is hardly comparable to a statue of a fucking dictator. The soldier is depicted as doing what he's meant to, and usually going above and beyond what is expected of a single man. The dictator is depicted as being all-powerful. There's a massive difference between the two.

I still don't understand why you try to second-guess my thoughts and feelings. I would've thought you'd have realised that it doesn't work last time.


Still not getting it it seems. A wall with thousands of names on it is an impact
Yes, I know. But it's a very different kind of impact. It's the same one as the cemetaries: force of numbers. Although it shows many, many names, it doesn't really lend itself to people identifying with the soldier as an individual, does it?


...you just don't recognize it because there isn't a soldier with his jacket ripped off, a la face pose of American male bravado, firing an automatic weapon, because that's what you relate to blind heroism and propaganda.
Oh, yeah, because I'm really talking about building statues of Rambo.

Christ, grow up. If you honestly think I'm expecting - or wanting - a statue that looks like it just fell off a movie screen, you need to get a grip. Why don't you come down here and look at some of our statues? No really, come down and have a fucking look. Maybe then you'll get it. I have never, ever seen a statue like you just described, and I never expect to, either. What I have seen are statues of WWI soldiers preparing for a bayonet charge with expressions of grim determination, standing on a silent, eternal parade with their rifles, or sitting in a trench, rifle laid across their lap, crying.

Not fucking Rambo running around with an M60 in one hand and a knife in the other, shirtless, and screaming.


The Vietnam Memorial makes the correct impact, reminding people of what war solves.
The only 'correct' impact is to remind people of both that or the fact that each of those names is actually an individual man. No wonder people shun returned soldiers so freely; nobody even wants to identify with them. Now I see why this kind of shit happens in the US, yet strangely isn't a problem in countries where most towns have statues depicting soldiers fighting or carrying off the wounded and dead.


Same shit, different story. Just more propaganda in another situation. What you can attain by yourself you'd rather sell yourself and give up. Not my problem you want to give up and blindly believe you're going to do good that way. Also not my problem you fail to see the real reason of propagandistic statues, more so because you are drawn into it as the erectors of the statue wished you to be.
...And you wanted to be a psychologist? I think you need to work on it, since you seem to be falling back to the same generic, cliched reasoning every time something counter to your point is raised. Don't give me shit about that being government propaganda because it bloody well isn't and anybody who has known a soldier should realise that. Both my grandfathers fought in WWII, my maternal great grandfather in WWI, and it was the same back then as it is now. Why don't you go tell a veteran that the lifelong bonds he formed with his squadmates are propaganda and see what the fuck he has to say to that, huh?


What utter bullshit and you know it. Don't throw your faceless and weak propaganda at me; I'm not buying it. If we truly wanted to educate the children about the matter, we'd take them over to Holocaust camps, or we'd let them watch battle footage of some of the wars that were captured. There's your fucking truth, not some American hero pose wielding a weapon living on in propagandistic memory. You're clearly biased on the subject, and you've proved countless times when you are biased on the subject, you refuse to accept the fact that you are wrong. One day it's going to bite you in the ass.
Funny that should come from someone who has proven time and time again that whenever someone actually lands a point home, they'd rather ignore it and pretend it was never said, then go on to use the same weak line of argument and attempt to psychoanalyse the person. I never said this statue should be part of the education, did I? No, I fucking well didn't. You of all people should realise damn well that I meant parents sitting their kids down and telling them why violence isn't a good thing, and while soldiers do often have to kill or be killed, that's not something to aspire to purely because of the killing. I agree, kids should be taken to the cemetaries of Europe, Auschwitz, the Mittelwerk, and the Katyn Forest to see what violence results in. I don't know if you Americans would know about Katyn given that your country only likes to teach kids about its involvement in the war (probably why so many Americans think they won both goddamn world wars, which also makes me sick to the stomach - but that's for another thread). After Stalin and Hitler divided and conquered Poland in 1939, the Soviets wasted no time in rounding up several thousand Polish officers, taking them to the Katyn Forest, and shooting them all. The Germans found out about this about 2 or 3 years later, but the Allies had to suppress all knowledge of it to avoid a major stink amongst the public. They needed the Soviets on their side, because quite frankly we would've had our asses handed to us at Normandy if the Germans weren't so busy on the East.

Children shouldn't just see that side of war though, otherwise you'll end up with a nation of consciencious objectors and antiwar protestors who won't even have the balls to defend the US should it come under attack. The fact of the matter is that it's war. Shit happens. But sometimes, just sometimes, not all of the results are bad. The way you're prattling on, it sounds like you want to suppress that fact just because the development of the computer and the unity of the British people in 1940 is obviously government propaganda. :rolleyes:


It's an extremely weak excuse to even justify WWII by what happened after it.
Where did I justify WWII? I merely said that it did have some positive effects. Hardly the same thing.


We shouldn't need a war where millions die in order to bring each other together
No, we shouldn't. But humankind has proven again and again that until their very survival is directly threatened, they will continue with their petty bullshit. Funnily enough, you can draw a parallel to Halo here - humanity as a whole is getting fucked up sideways and is in very real danger of extinction, so everyone gets over their minor differences and bands together. It'd be nice if there was another way to achieve that, but apparently, most of us just can't.


...and it's even more facetious to believe it's lived on. 9/11 had the same effect for a few months, and then people just went back to going at each other's throats, and automatically assuming anyone who is a Muslim is a terrorist. Instead, it has caused fear, it has sowed seeds of distrust, and has sent things in a completely different direction.
That's the whole thing. In WWII, you knew who the enemy was. Now, you don't. That's why this time around it's caused even more problems.


Stop making yourself believe in your false belief of what you think is the reason why they're trying to stop the construction of this statue. You've done nothing but avoid Korn's, Snaf's, and now my reasons as to why, and you're still doing it. When ever you feel mature enough to accept the fact that your bias has clearly blinded you on the issue, then you can come back and speak in this thread and be taken seriously.
Funny you should say that, since you're so very quick to call anything you disagree with government propaganda. The reason they're trying to stop construction is that they're scared shitless that the inclusion of a rifle - a fucking everyday object in the good ol' US of A - is somehow going to glorify violence and corrupt their children. Please, my friend, do tell me how a statue of a soldier holding his rifle - HOLDING, they didn't even specify it as being shouldered - is threatening to children who watch violent shows on TV, see movies which glorify violence with their friends, listen to music that promotes violence, and are subject to the sight of real rifles constantly.

Yeah, I fucking thought so.


No, but I have been to Dresden.
Same deal, different circumstances. A whole shitload of innocent people, killed for nothing. Most of them were heroes in their own right, sacrificing themselves to rescue others (try checking out some diaries covering the Dresden and Hamburg raids - very interesting, goes to show the Germans were a lot more like us than most people think).

I would've thought you'd know me better by now. Apparently not.

The fact of the matter is that by exposing children to a statue of a soldier with a rifle - an image they see on the news anyway, not to mention in movies or books - will do no more goddamn harm than exposing them to the kind of shit these parents often let their kids watch, read, or listen to.

Like I said, only in America.

e:

Korner - yeah. If it was up to me, every grave would be a little statue of that soldier, not just a plain headstone. Until then, at least some soldiers should be depicted as individuals to remind people that these aren't names on a wall fighting, they're young men just like us.

[Dole]

"I don't think young children should be exposed to that in that way - unsupervised by their parents or any adults," said Emily Cassidy, one of the mothers.Yeah. God fucking forbid children have someone to look up to. Would they rather erect a statue of the Best Buy geek squad in town square?


1. Besides, there's quite a few other ways to memorialize the soldier than "clutching an automatic rifle".

2. (who are likely more educated than you, no less).1. The fact that they are so quick to single out the fact that (get ready for it...) A SOLDIER IS CARRYING A RIFLE shows how little they actually care about a dead boy's monument as opposed to their own quirky predilection with guns. He's a Navy SEAL, the best of the best. A gun is a part of his silhouette. It wasn't the designers of the statue who decided to accentuate and embellish the rifle, all they did was draw up a soldier and his gun; it was the parents who chose to overemphasize the weapon.

You're acting as if the statue was described in detail as Billy Dee Williams stomping on a Sudamerican peasant who has a coulmbian necktie while holding a gatling gun in one hand and a flask of whiskey in the other, chewing on a cigar and being stroked by hostage farm girls he just abducted from the dead man on the ground.

This is almost as bad as when they wanted to change the September 11th memorial of the three white firemen who raised the American flag from the debris to be a white, a black, and a 'Hispanic' all in the name of racial equity even though historically that just was not so.

2. American housewife? Educated? BWARHARHHAHAHHHGG!


1. What horrible parents. Not wanting to have a statue commemorating the true depiction of Americans protecting us from the evils of the world?

2. Read up on symbolism.
1. ...?
2. This isn't V for Vendetta. Anyone who's actually that receptive to symbols doesn't have the assets to make a shit of a difference one way or the other.

[Skiiran]

Has anybody been listening to Korn or I? No, because apparently we aren't worth paying attention to. He was doing his fucking job.

Do I need to repeat that? HE WAS DOING HIS FUCKING JOB.
I'm shocked, confused, dazed and annoyed as to why anyone thinks he was the fucking shit. I mean, yes, I'm sure he was great, I'm sure the gave his life in the defense of the country, but so did -and have- thousands of others. THEREFORE, we should have thousands of statues, no? But we don't. Because why? See the above, bold and red.

[UrKungFuSux]

It's not the point though. The people are arguing that it should not be built because it symbolizes violence. Just because it was his job, doesn't mean you can't build him a statue, and if they want to then fine. But do not cancel it because of some bullshit reason like that. It isn't the image of war to blame, it's the people that fuel the anger.

[ICEE]

:words:


quite an argument, didn't want to quote that whole thing

+ very measly amount of rep

[Skiiran]

It's not the point though. The people are arguing that it should not be built because it symbolizes violence. Just because it was his job, doesn't mean you can't build him a statue, and if they want to then fine. But do not cancel it because of some bullshit reason like that. It isn't the image of war to blame, it's the people that fuel the anger.
You do not get it. He SHOULD NOT get a statue because NO OTHER SOLDIER that has died over there, that I know of, has gotten one.

[thehoodedsmack]

You do not get it. He SHOULD NOT get a statue because NO OTHER SOLDIER that has died over there, that I know of, has gotten one.

You do no get it. The man is getting a statue. Leave your beliefs at the coat-check. This thread is about whether or not he should be depicted holding a gun. Personally, I think it'd be fine if he had it slung around his neck or something. If he was pointing it straight out, getting ready to shoot something, I can understand how that might cause people some unease.

[Skiiran]

You do no get it. The man is getting a statue. Leave your beliefs at the coat-check. This thread is about whether or not he should be depicted holding a gun. Personally, I think it'd be fine if he had it slung around his neck or something. If he was pointing it straight out, getting ready to shoot something, I can understand how that might cause people some unease.
I have a better idea: an addition to the state which has Ross holding his erect phallus while staring at the soldier. Because that is obviously what this thread has become.

[DaneO'Roo]

Um, tbh, I think the parents are right.


No soldier should be glorified for doing what is asked of him.

/thread #3

Took the words right out of my fucking mouth.

[UrKungFuSux]

You do not get it. He SHOULD NOT get a statue because NO OTHER SOLDIER that has died over there, that I know of, has gotten one.

Dude, that isn't your call. The argument isn't whether he deserves it, but whether or not it should be there with the gun. We're not saying (atleast I'm not) that he deserves one because of what he did, but it's coincidental that the people of that town thought he deserved it. You're talking about soldiers deserving a statue, while the topic is that they've decided to get one, but people don't want it BECAUSE IT HAS A GUN. NOT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T DESERVE IT. If you told me that puppies are better than cats during an argument about what game looks the most kick ass, then you're not talking about the same thing.

[Skiiran]

Well if there is no statue there wouldn't be this argument.

Yeah, that was a lame excuse on my part, sorry for wasting your energy dude. (I'm serious, too)

[DaneO'Roo]

No Skiiran, don't apologize. Your fucking right.

[Skiiran]

No Skiiran, don't apologize. Your fucking right.
I know I am, but the fact of the issue is it isn't getting entirely removed.

So it's not worth yelling about it anymore.

Unless, of course, you want to start a petition with me. You're buying the flak vests.

[rossmum]

I have a better idea: an addition to the state which has Ross holding his erect phallus while staring at the soldier. Because that is obviously what this thread has become.
Excuse me kind sir but I do believe I agreed that no one soldier should be given a statue over another. Like I said, every soldier should have one. But that's not likely to happen, so there need to be at least some so that people can identify with the men as just that - men, not names on a wall.

[Skiiran]

Excuse me kind sir but I do believe I agreed that no one soldier should be given a statue over another. Like I said, every soldier should have one. But that's not likely to happen, so there need to be at least some so that people can identify with the men as just that - men, not names on a wall.
Okay, sorry. I STILL LOVE YOU.

[Kornman00]

I STILL LOVE YOU.
get in line with ross's antlion. Yes, a line. :v

[rossmum]

get in line with ross's antlion. Yes, a line. :v
Not a circle then :tinfoil:

[Kornman00]

Not a circle then :tinfoil:
No, the circle would be with jcap. That circle jerk :downs:

[Dole]

No, the circle would be with jcap. That circle jerk http://www.nohomers.net/images/smilies/circlejerk.gif
Edited for great justice.

[rossmum]

Shit, awesome emote.

Also, for what it's worth, my parents agree with me entirely http://sa.tweek.us/emots/images/emot-colbert.gif

[Dr Nick]

Is there any way to locate these abominations of society? The human race deserves better.

I plan to let them know that.:)

[Mass]

Has anybody been listening to Korn or I? No, because apparently we aren't worth paying attention to. He was doing his fucking job.

Do I need to repeat that? HE WAS DOING HIS FUCKING JOB.
I'm shocked, confused, dazed and annoyed as to why anyone thinks he was the fucking shit. I mean, yes, I'm sure he was great, I'm sure the gave his life in the defense of the country, but so did -and have- thousands of others. THEREFORE, we should have thousands of statues, no? But we don't. Because why? See the above, bold and red.
True. After all soldiers are paid because they can die, not to kill people. I mean, the idea of soldiers being paid to do anything other than follow orders disgusts me. I'm back around to this again too: I hate the way 'Nam and this shit bucket we're enjoying are defined as winning and loosing a la "kill count." Disgusting. He deserves no memorial,* considering his salary is more or less based entirely on the jobs lethal and obedient nature. Besides, unless this memorial is engraved "Died nobly protecting Exxon" its simply a lie. A mausoleum is one thing, a memorial for war-time service, ridiculous.

*well, you can honor the soldiers in one monmument, considering the fairly obvious futility and pointlessness of their current mission.

[rossmum]

He died protecting his friends. I seriously doubt him or any of the other troops over there give two shits about oil.

Besides, no oil in Afghanistan.

[Mass]

He died protecting his friends. I seriously doubt him or any of the other troops over there give two shits about oil.

Besides, no oil in Afghanistan.
They don't I'd say, but thats the kind of shit involved I believe; and even if not, no worthy reason at all.
I acknowlegde that he was brave and commendable; and that the reasoning the parents gave is ridiculous, but to be honest, the statue seems silly.

[rossmum]

I honestly don't see how which war he died in makes the slightest bit of difference, myself.

[LinkandKvel]

ok. Time for link to come back. My thoughts are that I can see how it would cause controversy, but being blown way out of proportion. Statues dont make killers, people do. I doubt any 1 kid is going to decide and wants a statue like the soldier and no tell anyone at all. If he speaks to others, relatives most likely, about it they should be willing to explain abit to the child about it. What specifically the soldier does and why. Usually the first person they go to tell about it to is there guardian or whomever they look up to the most. The simple fact that a soldier has a rifle in his hand may not be the best way to memorialize his purpose, but a simple rifle in his hand doesn't make this anymore different than the kid who idolizes the soldier in "the patriot" or whatever war movie they saw the night before. Both sides of the argument are valid but if the child was properly taught from right and wrong which should mainly be between ages 3-5, they could summarize by themselves right from wrong from then on. So some blame does rest in the parent. If by the age of 5 a child doesn't know harming another human being is wrong, something is severly wrong in there enviroment.

[1337_Byte]

Wow what a bunch of lames.

[Con]

I don't have anything against honoring the fallen, but not every soldier can have a statue, and thus I don't think any soldier should get one over any soldier.

[Agamemnon]

I would've thought you'd realise I meant that in reference to the western world. But no, apparently you felt the need to try and apply it to Africa and then... do what, exactly?
http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=188033&postcount=17

These days people are so caught up in their careers and so on and so forth that they're (in general, mind) spending less and less time with their kids, which is no good for them at all (especially at a young age).
You're the one who generalized the whole world. You're the one who made it seem like you were including all seven billion people. Don't try and save face for the lack of proper context on your part. Would've never happened if you stuck to your story.


What the fuck, no I didn't. I said nothing of the sort, did I? Jesus Christ, stop pulling things out of context and then pretending I meant whatever bizzare mutation of my words you've come out with.
http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=188061&postcount=23

Prices of living are going up, everyone who isn't white, straight and male is enjoying the rights they've obtained within the last few decades by working their asses off in jobs they wouldn't have had this time 50 years ago, and kids are having to become more self-sufficient because in a lot of families, either the single parent is working...
You're the one who stated that white straight males are the ones not suffering. Again, not my fault you can't even recognize what you even wrote.


No, I haven't. I don't see where the fuck you're trying to go with this, because a statue of a single soldier is hardly comparable to a statue of a fucking dictator. The soldier is depicted as doing what he's meant to, and usually going above and beyond what is expected of a single man. The dictator is depicted as being all-powerful. There's a massive difference between the two.
Oh, the irony. A single soldier 15-feet-tall in bronze with a stern look and a rifle slung over his shoulder; yeah, I definitely don't get the impression to glorify him at all, nor to say, "Gee, what one man can do." :rolleyes:


I still don't understand why you try to second-guess my thoughts and feelings. I would've thought you'd have realised that it doesn't work last time.
Actually, it does. Ever heard of a little thing called denial?


Yes, I know. But it's a very different kind of impact. It's the same one as the cemetaries: force of numbers. Although it shows many, many names, it doesn't really lend itself to people identifying with the soldier as an individual, does it?
People should do that on their own, not through propaganda. Ever heard of a little thing called "independent investigation?" I doubt you have though. You'll have everyone with "credentials" tell you that they're the ones to be trusted and not people that are considered "crock pots." The point being, of course, a statue of a single soldier in a moment of glorifying his actions does not represent a war, it does not represent every troop, and it most certainly doesn't represent the consequences. It gives people hope, confidence, and courage in the actions of our military; enough as such to not question killing.



Oh, yeah, because I'm really talking about building statues of Rambo.

Christ, grow up. If you honestly think I'm expecting - or wanting - a statue that looks like it just fell off a movie screen, you need to get a grip. Why don't you come down here and look at some of our statues? No really, come down and have a fucking look. Maybe then you'll get it. I have never, ever seen a statue like you just described, and I never expect to, either. What I have seen are statues of WWI soldiers preparing for a bayonet charge with expressions of grim determination, standing on a silent, eternal parade with their rifles, or sitting in a trench, rifle laid across their lap, crying.

Not fucking Rambo running around with an M60 in one hand and a knife in the other, shirtless, and screaming.
And you some how think that's different from Rambo? It depicts a scene in which people are either dying or dying and yet people are still charging in. And what are the facial expressions on these statues? Determination. Like as if to think people didn't desert or run in fear or didn't suffer severe psychological repercussions from this. Yeah, where are the statues of soldiers retreating despite their officer's orders? Where are the statues of soldiers being executed by other soldiers? Where are the statues of soldiers losing their minds in the midst of battle?

Well Rossmum? You're so bent on statues supposedly depicting the real side of war; where are the statues with truth in them?


The only 'correct' impact is to remind people of both that or the fact that each of those names is actually an individual man. No wonder people shun returned soldiers so freely; nobody even wants to identify with them. Now I see why this kind of shit happens in the US, yet strangely isn't a problem in countries where most towns have statues depicting soldiers fighting or carrying off the wounded and dead.
Quit your bullshit. I'm tired of people hopping on the "US sucks" bandwagon. The argument is about statues with propagandistic meanings behind them, not whether the bullshit you've been fed has clouded your judgment beyond repair, as it has already done so. If we're going to glorify one man, then we better fucking glorify every single soldier in the war, and if they can't do that, then no one man has the fucking right to have a statue to himself, except the only other reason being that personalizing a statue with one soldier is done for the effect of remembering him as a hero and not as a soldier.

Here, I'll further give you an example to help you out on this one. After the idea of the Vietnam Memorial was pitched, so many government officials were so against it that they even made building permits a hassle to get in order to build it. Why? Because it wasn't traditional; i.e., it didn't have a group of soldiers portraying something heroic or something propagandistic. Eventually, it was built anyways, and to counter the Vietnam Memorial, the The Three Soldiers was designed, ordered, and erected right next to the Vietnam Memorial. I've seen the statue. It depicts three nameless men who are white, black, and Hispanic. They're grouped together with stern looks on their face, with their shirts open and weapons slung over their shoulders or just holding their weapon. They look like they've been through hell. They're also facing the Vietnam Memorial, like as if they are looking at it and mourning as well.

Now what kind of impact does that have? The artist himself said he designed the statue to "depict the real environment they were in with proper apparel," and I would've bought that if he didn't take it a step further and said that he wanted to capture "their true heroism." The bottom line being that they only had another memorial done to keep all of the traditional politicians, and the ones that felt as if soldiers should be glorified, in order to not give the full effect to the Vietnam Memorial, which was to give the full impact of what war ends with. The image of a wall with hundreds of thousands of names on it; you see nothing but a wall, but I see it showing who the war robbed their lives of. Instead of having a single bronze statue of one soldier in a glorified position and a plaque commemorating his actions and further saying what he did and how he died ("valiantly" and "heroically" are two words that would obviously come up), they should be erecting monuments depicting the true nature of the war.

It really is time to step out of the shadow and into the new era. That age old bullshit of relating soldiers to heroism and valiance because they go out and get themselves killed is complete bullshit. I still can't believe that's how we're treating our own fucking citizens of the world; like as if they were some tool that served their purpose. All you can do is throw sand in my eyes and say, "You don't want this statue either because you'd rather spit on them," or some other crockery bullshit weak excuse to that extent, despite the fact that what I protest is war itself and can only shake my head to think people are still having this bullshit propaganda thought going on today because that's what they grew up with; public school systems with mandated teaching by our government.


...And you wanted to be a psychologist? I think you need to work on it, since you seem to be falling back to the same generic, cliched reasoning every time something counter to your point is raised. Don't give me shit about that being government propaganda because it bloody well isn't and anybody who has known a soldier should realise that. Both my grandfathers fought in WWII, my maternal great grandfather in WWI, and it was the same back then as it is now. Why don't you go tell a veteran that the lifelong bonds he formed with his squadmates are propaganda and see what the fuck he has to say to that, huh?
Generic, cliched reasoning? What the fuck are you talking about? I see no one else in this country speaking the way that I am. They are either saying, "War is justified," or the other side saying, "Soldiers are dumb." I'm expressing the unpopular opinion, while you're explaining the popular opinion you've been spoon-fed since birth. That's what happens when someone is conditioned, Ross; you see nothing else but what you know as the truth and when something else is presented, you'll go for its throat. That's what always happens with you.

I've talked to my grandfather about his experiences in WWII. Want to know what he had to say? "FUBAR." He doesn't go to the VA's hospital every Sunday to meet with veterans and say, "Hey, remember when we charged up that hill and shot all those Krauts in the face? Good times!" He goes to comfort the people who have lost their minds and will to live because of what that war did to them, and that is something you will never understand until you're put in that situation and your friends are being blown apart next to you. When you get there, let me know how heroic and patriotic you are feeling, and whether or not you can find enough of what's left of your friends to see how well they "served their country."

Again, I understand it's hard for you to accept anything but what you've been spoon-fed all your life, but why don't you try and open up your mind?



Funny that should come from someone who has proven time and time again that whenever someone actually lands a point home, they'd rather ignore it and pretend it was never said, then go on to use the same weak line of argument and attempt to psychoanalyse the person.
What I find funny is how you fall into every trap I lay out for you in the attempt to "psychoanalyze" you. You confirmed your thoughts and actions to me long ago Ross, and you're still in denial about it. You'd like to think yourself complex and alone because that's what you've led yourself to believe; that you're going to a "smart school" and you're the loner with Asberger's, like as if that justifies your cold attitude or confirms your own thoughts of being right when you're wrong.

Like I said, you just responding tells me more then I need to know.


I never said this statue should be part of the education, did I? No, I fucking well didn't.
http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=188033&postcount=17

Hell, maybe if the local schools took the time to educate them about war so the parents didn't have to, there wouldn't be a problem.


You of all people should realise damn well that I meant parents sitting their kids down and telling them why violence isn't a good thing, and while soldiers do often have to kill or be killed, that's not something to aspire to purely because of the killing.
No, now you're just trying to save face. You clearly said the statue could and would be a teaching tool for children. You said that because you assumed and generalized that there's some mass conspiracy for American parents to blind their children. Again, see? I don't even have to attempt to "psychoanalyze" you Ross; you let me in just fine enough. You were wrong, and to save face, you deviated to your other following point, followed with strong and angry insults. This is also called "denial."


I agree, kids should be taken to the cemetaries of Europe, Auschwitz, the Mittelwerk, and the Katyn Forest to see what violence results in. I don't know if you Americans would know about Katyn given that your country only likes to teach kids about its involvement in the war (probably why so many Americans think they won both goddamn world wars, which also makes me sick to the stomach - but that's for another thread).
If it was for another thread, then why didn't you keep your over-generalization and assumptions out of it? For example, how about the fact that I was born and raised in Honduras for the first seven years of my life? By your definition, since I was growing up in a country full of governmental corruption, I should only know what the government has told me. But look at that Ross; I'm an independent individual thinking for himself. You should try it some time.


[snip]

Children shouldn't just see that side of war though, otherwise you'll end up with a nation of consciencious objectors and antiwar protestors who won't even have the balls to defend the US should it come under attack. The fact of the matter is that it's war. Shit happens. But sometimes, just sometimes, not all of the results are bad. The way you're prattling on, it sounds like you want to suppress that fact just because the development of the computer and the unity of the British people in 1940 is obviously government propaganda. :rolleyes:
See, it's funny how you constitute bravery with standing opposed with a weapon ready to rob someone of their life. It's funny how you justify violence with our lack of reasoning with others, or our lack of caring. It's also funny how you fall back to the computer and the supposed "unity of the British people" (how's the IRA doing? What about some of Scotland's attempts to become an independent country?) and then some how say that made it ok that millions of people died.

War happens because we let it happen, not because "shit happens," and that's the true fact of the matter.


Where did I justify WWII? I merely said that it did have some positive effects. Hardly the same thing.
The mere fact that you even attempted to counter it is a clear attempt of you saving face when you're proved wrong. Just mentioning it clearly shows that it bothered you and that some how we should have wars because they encourage economic growth, or temporary civilian unity. Hell Ross, let's go drop a few nukes on the biggest populated cities in the world and then afterwards we can all sing kumbaya for a few months and then get on with the bickering of who's fault it was, thus defeating any unity and the end result being millions of deaths and the state of the world still continuing in a downward spiral. But hey, we got new technology out of it! That's gotta count for something.



No, we shouldn't. But humankind has proven again and again that until their very survival is directly threatened, they will continue with their petty bullshit. Funnily enough, you can draw a parallel to Halo here - humanity as a whole is getting fucked up sideways and is in very real danger of extinction, so everyone gets over their minor differences and bands together. It'd be nice if there was another way to achieve that, but apparently, most of us just can't.
No, most of us just won't. There is no such thing as "I can't." Saying "I can't" means you've defeated yourself; that you've already convinced yourself you're unable to do it. "Can't" means it is physically impossible for you to do something, such as an armless, legless man drinking a glass of water, and even that isn't impossible. So unless you're an ineptoid and you're mentally handicap, don't bullshit me with "I can't." It's not a matter of "I can't," it's a matter of, "I don't want to because there's too much effort involved."

That's the whole problem with society today. People just give up and don't attend the problem until the point of no return has passed and the only "solution" becomes killing one another. And we call ourselves civilized.


That's the whole thing. In WWII, you knew who the enemy was. Now, you don't. That's why this time around it's caused even more problems.
There is no enemy. There are people with conditioned thoughts, there are people with ambitions, and then there are people with reason and logic; you put them all in a room, and the most likely solution they'll all come out with is, "The only way to coexist is to fight to the death, and who ever is standing last has earned the right to force their ideals on others." It's a self-defeatist attitude to look at anyone and consider them an enemy. People have this clear definition if someone is trying to kill them they're your enemy, yet no one stops to think exactly why they are. It becomes a conscientious choice of what we put value in, and taking a human life is one of those choices. For some, it's unthinkable; for others, it's not even possible; and then for the majority, they do it when they feel it is "necessary." Everyone justifies their actions, but they just do it differently. If we walked in and asked what the problem was at the beginning before we passed the point of no return, there wouldn't be people shooting each other in the hopeful attempt of killing them.


Funny you should say that, since you're so very quick to call anything you disagree with government propaganda.
Funny how you defend it as your government would hope you would too. But I really wonder who the paranoid one is here; the one who doesn't believe every word of their government/news media, even that of the opinion opposing it, or the one who holds no bias to each side? Then again, I can only wonder who, especially when they believe government propaganda is an unthinkable thing in today's society, especially with such "civilized" countries as America or Britain or Australia. You should go read Brave New World.


The reason they're trying to stop construction is that they're scared shitless that the inclusion of a rifle - a fucking everyday object in the good ol' US of A - is somehow going to glorify violence and corrupt their children.
And you clearly know this because you've talked to the parents? Ah, well, that settles it then. Show's over, folks! Ross has spoken to the parents, they voice the reason why they don't want to statue erected, and he's made more generalizations and assumptions in an attempt to concede in his charade to seem correct on the matter.


Please, my friend, do tell me how a statue of a soldier holding his rifle - HOLDING, they didn't even specify it as being shouldered - is threatening to children who watch violent shows on TV, see movies which glorify violence with their friends, listen to music that promotes violence, and are subject to the sight of real rifles constantly.
Ever heard of a little thing called "observational learning," Ross? You see, it's not the statue holding the weapon that is the problem, which is something Snaf, Korn, and I have pointed out numerous times and you've failed to attempt to recognize; it's the fact that they're going to commemorate one soldier's actions, glorify them, and then consider him a hero. Heros are role models. Parents will then fall under the clear government propaganda of glorifying his actions, and, believe it or not, but that's also where the child is going to learn it as well, because they see their parents standing in front of that statue saying, "Gee, he gave his life for his country. What bravery, what honor," and then those thoughts get going in that child's mind saying, "Hmm, maybe one day I can serve my country."


Yeah, I fucking thought so.
Wait, did you just pose a question and then assume I wouldn't be able to counter it? Oh, wait, I forgot who you were and who I was dealing with.


Same deal, different circumstances. A whole shitload of innocent people, killed for nothing. Most of them were heroes in their own right, sacrificing themselves to rescue others (try checking out some diaries covering the Dresden and Hamburg raids - very interesting, goes to show the Germans were a lot more like us than most people think).
How exactly does this justify anything at all? Because some people risked their lives to help others? We're talking about the actions of the nations that they carried out, not the good that came out of it. People help each other even now, when there isn't violence or the death around them. Why should people only take the initiative to reach out to a fellow human being and help them out when their life is in immediate danger?


I would've thought you'd know me better by now. Apparently not.
I actually know you much better then you think. All these little quips, your mannerisms, your tonality, your thoughts; you think they're complex and hard to see or understand? You're a book, Ross, and you've done nothing but open yourself up and even label the chapters for me.


The fact of the matter is that by exposing children to a statue of a soldier with a rifle - an image they see on the news anyway, not to mention in movies or books - will do no more goddamn harm than exposing them to the kind of shit these parents often let their kids watch, read, or listen to.
No, the fact of the matter is that if the statue is erected, we will have let our government go on with propagandistic material in the hopeful attempt to glorify our military's actions, even trying to find heroism and honor out of it, in the hopeful attempts to swoon the young minds into making a career out of the military, as many other things already do on their own, all government-mandated.

You see, what we've been talking about here is the impact this will have on children on the long run and on the citizens, not your numerous and faceless attempts to claim this is about violence. When Snaf, Korn, or I put the truth under your nose, you quickly retracted it and tried to justify it, and what's sad about that is that you don't even see your bias to the argument; you think that there's nothing wrong with honoring dead, because the true underlying tones of it aren't innocent; they are with the intent to get something out of it. We should remember the dead, not honor them.


Like I said, only in America.
And your thought process as well, but you're in Australia, aren't you? That's interesting. A common-conditioned argument that many people of the world generalize can only be found in America is found within an Australian, who was born in Britain, correct?

Maybe it's time to start thinking for yourself, Ross, and to stop hiding behind useless quips like, "lol America." It reminds me of the numerous people that say, "Bush sucks!" and I ask them why and they can't give any reasons why except that all of their friends say it. The same concept goes with a lot of people who think they win an argument with, "Oh, you're an American; that explains it," despite the fact that they can't even recognize their own arrogance and ignorance with that statement, some how believing that if they watch a few YouTube videos of the actions of a few some how directly translate into all. Perhaps I should think all Australians are racist after the 2005 Cronulla riots. How would you feel about that assessment then?


Korner - yeah. If it was up to me, every grave would be a little statue of that soldier, not just a plain headstone. Until then, at least some soldiers should be depicted as individuals to remind people that these aren't names on a wall fighting, they're young men just like us.
And, again, more proof that you're still failing to realize what we're talking about, or the real reason why the Vietnam Memorial was constructed as it was. Maybe one day you will be able to think for yourself and not for your government.

[Con]

tl;dr

seriously, go write a book <:mad:>

[rossmum]

http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=188033&postcount=17

You're the one who generalized the whole world. You're the one who made it seem like you were including all seven billion people. Don't try and save face for the lack of proper context on your part. Would've never happened if you stuck to your story.
You're the one who resorted to picking out something I thought was obvious because it was the strongest argument you could come up with. I was quite plainly not referring to the third world, as they have nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. Stop trying to use semantics to win an argument, because that only works if it's something crucial to someone's point - and that, unfortunately enough for you, is not.



http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=188061&postcount=23

You're the one who stated that white straight males are the ones not suffering. Again, not my fault you can't even recognize what you even wrote.
Sorry, but it's beyond me as to how the fuck you managed to get that from my original statement. I see nothing that infers - let alone explicitly states - that, anywhere. Stop putting words into my mouth in your attempts to find a foothold, it's a bad habit and from what I can tell it usually forms the basis of any argument you make against me.


Oh, the irony. A single soldier 15-feet-tall in bronze with a stern look and a rifle slung over his shoulder; yeah, I definitely don't get the impression to glorify him at all, nor to say, "Gee, what one man can do." :rolleyes:
You're not everyone, are you? Nor did I, at any point, say he has a stern look on his face. For all the fucking detail that was given in the description, he could be waving his rifle around in the air while pulling some rediculous face. Hell, he might even be clutching his rifle weeping, like a fair few of our statues. Unless you know for sure what the statue's design looked like, then I suggest you don't try and invent it yourself.

In any case, I don't, as explained God knows how many times previously. I see statues of lone soldiers as reminders that these are young men, not just robots like some people seem to think.


Actually, it does. Ever heard of a little thing called denial?
Yeah, I have, actually. I've also heard of a little thing called "getting it wrong", something you've done time and time again. Every single time you've tried to psychoanalyse me, you've either stuffed the details or just plain missed the mark entirely. Contrary to your belief, it takes a damn sight more than a single game of CS for me to decide someone's a decent person. :rolleyes:


People should do that on their own, not through propaganda. Ever heard of a little thing called "independent investigation?" I doubt you have though. You'll have everyone with "credentials" tell you that they're the ones to be trusted and not people that are considered "crock pots." The point being, of course, a statue of a single soldier in a moment of glorifying his actions does not represent a war, it does not represent every troop, and it most certainly doesn't represent the consequences. It gives people hope, confidence, and courage in the actions of our military; enough as such to not question killing.
No, that'd be the impression someone would get if they were looking for some sort of underlying conspiracy - because that's exactly what you're doing. You're going too deep and seeing things that no normal person would at a glance, because you are actively searching for something that will prove you right, and me wrong. I strongly doubt your average kid is going to do that, don't you?

Also, try and remember that I don't live in the US and I never plan to. You seem to think I've been exposed to the US Army's advertising and such all my life, which is a complete joke. I'm exposed to - at absolute most - 2-3 ADFA ads per week, and they're almost always for non-combat, support positions. I'm happy with my government, I'm happy with my country, and I support my army. I'm not a dissatisfied American who's sick to death of the way my country's being run (though I can't stand it anyway, I don't live there so it hardly affects me). I'm not pessimistic about these things like you and a lot of the other members of this forum are (and I can see why - had a discussion on the matter with Snaf the other day).


And you some how think that's different from Rambo? It depicts a scene in which people are either dying or dying and yet people are still charging in.
So you've seen the plans to this statue and you can assure me that it involves Sgt. Dietz killing people or dying himself, and that it is by no means simply him standing with his rifle in hand?


And what are the facial expressions on these statues? Determination. Like as if to think people didn't desert or run in fear or didn't suffer severe psychological repercussions from this. Yeah, where are the statues of soldiers retreating despite their officer's orders? Where are the statues of soldiers being executed by other soldiers? Where are the statues of soldiers losing their minds in the midst of battle?
Well unless I'm much mistaken, I've already told you at least twice that I've seen plenty of those.


Well Rossmum? You're so bent on statues supposedly depicting the real side of war; where are the statues with truth in them?
See above.


Quit your bullshit. I'm tired of people hopping on the "US sucks" bandwagon. The argument is about statues with propagandistic meanings behind them, not whether the bullshit you've been fed has clouded your judgment beyond repair, as it has already done so.
Sorry, but what exactly are you on about? I don't see anywhere there where I hopped on the 'the US sucks' bandwagon, I only see an honest observation based on the kinds of attitudes I see and how frequently I see them.


If we're going to glorify one man, then we better fucking glorify every single soldier in the war, and if they can't do that, then no one man has the fucking right to have a statue to himself, except the only other reason being that personalizing a statue with one soldier is done for the effect of remembering him as a hero and not as a soldier.
As I already said, I think that every soldier should be remembered as an individual, whether it's by a statue or some other means. But since that can't be done, you suggest we just leave them as names on a wall? What about all the soldiers who died whose names aren't known? What about the soldiers themselves, not just their names? How the hell do you propose we recognise them?

Ideally, every statue would have a plaque explaining they behaved in a way common to all soldiers so as to reduce any possibility of people perceiving the statue to glorify a single man and cast a shadow upon the rest... but unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. If these parents should be complaining about anything, it should be that.


Here, I'll further give you an example to help you out on this one. After the idea of the Vietnam Memorial was pitched, so many government officials were so against it that they even made building permits a hassle to get in order to build it. Why? Because it wasn't traditional; i.e., it didn't have a group of soldiers portraying something heroic or something propagandistic. Eventually, it was built anyways, and to counter the Vietnam Memorial, the The Three Soldiers was designed, ordered, and erected right next to the Vietnam Memorial. I've seen the statue. It depicts three nameless men who are white, black, and Hispanic. They're grouped together with stern looks on their face, with their shirts open and weapons slung over their shoulders or just holding their weapon. They look like they've been through hell. They're also facing the Vietnam Memorial, like as if they are looking at it and mourning as well.
And that is a fucking good statue. However, I don't see why the same can't be applied to this case - what if the design of Dietz's statue results in him also looking like he's been through hell? As I said earlier, I neither saw nor heard anything to determine its precise form, so who says he'll be depicted actually fighting or dying? What's to say he won't be just standing there?


Now what kind of impact does that have? The artist himself said he designed the statue to "depict the real environment they were in with proper apparel," and I would've bought that if he didn't take it a step further and said that he wanted to capture "their true heroism." The bottom line being that they only had another memorial done to keep all of the traditional politicians, and the ones that felt as if soldiers should be glorified, in order to not give the full effect to the Vietnam Memorial, which was to give the full impact of what war ends with. The image of a wall with hundreds of thousands of names on it; you see nothing but a wall, but I see it showing who the war robbed their lives of.
Until you've been to Europe and seen what I have, don't you dare talk down to me about what I do or don't see it as. Even thinking of those cemetaries brings me to tears, something I seriously doubt you could say about any memorials you've seen.


Instead of having a single bronze statue of one soldier in a glorified position and a plaque commemorating his actions and further saying what he did and how he died ("valiantly" and "heroically" are two words that would obviously come up), they should be erecting monuments depicting the true nature of the war.
Individual heroism is a part of war, is it not? Yes, obviously every soldier is a hero in their own right, but it's still part of war.


It really is time to step out of the shadow and into the new era. That age old bullshit of relating soldiers to heroism and valiance because they go out and get themselves killed is complete bullshit. I still can't believe that's how we're treating our own fucking citizens of the world; like as if they were some tool that served their purpose. All you can do is throw sand in my eyes and say, "You don't want this statue either because you'd rather spit on them,"
Excuse me, what?

As usual, you have nothing better to argue, so you start inventing quotes. My my, what does Mr. Psychologist have to say about that?


or some other crockery bullshit weak excuse to that extent, despite the fact that what I protest is war itself and can only shake my head to think people are still having this bullshit propaganda thought going on today because that's what they grew up with; public school systems with mandated teaching by our government.
HI. MY NAME IS ALEX ROSS. I WAS BORN IN CANADA IN 1989, BUT BEFORE I COULD BEGIN SCHOOLING, I MOVED TO ENGLAND. THERE, I WAS TAUGHT ABOUT WWI AND II IN GREAT DETAIL, FROM BOTH THE TRADITIONAL SIDE AND THE SIDE WHICH DEMONSTRATED THE COST OF WAR. I VISITED JUST ABOUT EVERY FUCKING CEMETARY, MONUMENT, AND MEMORIAL BETWEEN FUCKING BOULOGNE AND THE GERMAN FUCKING BORDER AND THE MEMORIES OF THAT STILL HURT TO THINK ABOUT. I HAVE NEVER, NOR WILL I EVER LIVE IN THE UNITED FUCKING STATES OF AMERICA, SO I NEITHER KNOW NOR CARE WHAT THE FUCKING SHIT THIS PROPAGANDA TRASH YOU'RE ON ABOUT IS. IT HAS NEVER HAD, AND WILL NEVER HAVE, ANY EFFECT ON ME WHATSO-FUCKING-EVER. STOP BLATHERING ON LIKE I'VE BEEN TRAINED BY YOUR FUCKING PUBLIC SCHOOLING SYSTEM, WHICH I SERIOUSLY DOUBT TEACHES JACK ABOUT WAR ASIDE FROM THE BITS WHERE AMERICA WON, TO ME. IT'S FUCKING INSULTING. THANKS.


Generic, cliched reasoning? What the fuck are you talking about? I see no one else in this country speaking the way that I am. They are either saying, "War is justified," or the other side saying, "Soldiers are dumb." I'm expressing the unpopular opinion, while you're explaining the popular opinion you've been spoon-fed since birth. That's what happens when someone is conditioned, Ross; you see nothing else but what you know as the truth and when something else is presented, you'll go for its throat. That's what always happens with you.
See a-fucking-bove.


I've talked to my grandfather about his experiences in WWII. Want to know what he had to say? "FUBAR." He doesn't go to the VA's hospital every Sunday to meet with veterans and say, "Hey, remember when we charged up that hill and shot all those Krauts in the face? Good times!" He goes to comfort the people who have lost their minds and will to live because of what that war did to them, and that is something you will never understand until you're put in that situation and your friends are being blown apart next to you. When you get there, let me know how heroic and patriotic you are feeling, and whether or not you can find enough of what's left of your friends to see how well they "served their country."
You're talking to someone who had both grandparents fighting in WWII, one with the Canadians in Normandy and one with the Australians in Papua. You're talking to someone whose family had a close friend who had been a Luftwaffe navigator, and had been through the hell of war and then the hell of living under the Soviets in East Germany for several years following. You're talking to someone who has studied war all their goddamn life and probably knows the end result better than you do. Don't you try and tell me what I already know.


Again, I understand it's hard for you to accept anything but what you've been spoon-fed all your life, but why don't you try and open up your mind?
Hey, why the fuck don't you try and be less condescending, less hellbent on winning an argument which you're constantly straying from anyway, and a little more inclined to read some of my goddamn posts before you go ahead and insult me with your half-baked bullshit pertaining to a school system I was never a fucking part of?


What I find funny is how you fall into every trap I lay out for you in the attempt to "psychoanalyze" you. You confirmed your thoughts and actions to me long ago Ross, and you're still in denial about it. You'd like to think yourself complex and alone because that's what you've led yourself to believe; that you're going to a "smart school" and you're the loner with Asberger's, like as if that justifies your cold attitude or confirms your own thoughts of being right when you're wrong.
You're hilarious. I don't think the Asperger's justifies shit. I've lived with it all my life and back then I didn't know I had it to use it as an excuse, so why the fuck should I start now? How have I confirmed your suspicions when half the time, you're the one inventing what I've said? Sorry, but you're going to have to try harder - and don't use denial as an excuse, because you're usually so far wrong that even that doesn't make any sense.


Like I said, you just responding tells me more then I need to know.
Apparently not. Hey why don't you lecture me more about how the American school system has conditioned me to believe that war is glorious and soldiers are actually just tools as opposed to human beings? Oh wait.


[/i]http://www.h2vista.net/forums/showpost.php?p=188033&postcount=17



No, now you're just trying to save face. You clearly said the statue could and would be a teaching tool for children. You said that because you assumed and generalized that there's some mass conspiracy for American parents to blind their children. Again, see? I don't even have to attempt to "psychoanalyze" you Ross; you let me in just fine enough. You were wrong, and to save face, you deviated to your other following point, followed with strong and angry insults. This is also called "denial."
Funny you should accuse me of deviating to another point when - as God and every person in this thread is my witness - you picked on the wording of what I thought was a pretty damn obvious statement and made out like I meant something I clearly didn't. Anyone with a grain of common sense - or, in this case - without some sort of burning desire to win an argument through any means possible - could see I was talking about western society. Fucking Africa is irrelevant to this topic and as a result I saw no need to specify. Sorry, next time I'll be sure to spend twice as long writing my posts so as to be sure you can't try and win through picking on semantics.


If it was for another thread, then why didn't you keep your over-generalization and assumptions out of it? For example, how about the fact that I was born and raised in Honduras for the first seven years of my life? By your definition, since I was growing up in a country full of governmental corruption, I should only know what the government has told me. But look at that Ross; I'm an independent individual thinking for himself. You should try it some time.
I'm an individual thinking for myself too, but apparently that means I'm really under the effect of some sort of voodoo mind-control put about by the US government through the US school system. :confused2:


See, it's funny how you constitute bravery with standing opposed with a weapon ready to rob someone of their life.
So by that logic, people shouldn't be terrfied when there are 30 times their number of ruthless fanatics with rifles trying to rob them of theirs? Make sense, please.


It's funny how you justify violence with our lack of reasoning with others, or our lack of caring.
Sorry, what? I justified violence?


It's also funny how you fall back to the computer and the supposed "unity of the British people" (how's the IRA doing? What about some of Scotland's attempts to become an independent country?) and then some how say that made it ok that millions of people died.
Wow, I hate to have to resort to this, but here goes: stop being such fucking idiot. If you honestly think I ever said that it was alright for 60-some million people, including several family members and their friends, to die over the unity of the British people and the computer, you have some serious issues of their own. I was merely describing two positive things that came out of the war, which is a nice fucking difference from the God knows how many atroicites and such that also came out of it. If you think for one moment I consider that justified, you're the one who's had the wool pulled over their eyes. World War II was a load of shit and it shouldn't have happened. But it did, and you know why? Because funnily enough, some people took exception to the Germans trying to take over the world! Wow, I do wonder what the fuck they were thinking!

WWII was a goddamn mess and the world is still fucked up as a result. But, unlike most wars, at least something was gained from it. I used the unity example as a direct comparison of what is happening right now in various countries around the world, on these forums, and in this thread. There are so many mixed feelings (or, in some cases, none at all) in regard to current issues that it's turned into a matter of every man for himself. People are letting petty and downright pointless differences such as skin colour, religion, or land cause ongoing wars which are opposed by many, but not enough to end them. I'm willing to bet that if humanity as a whole was put under threat of extinction from an identifiable, clear enemy, that unity would come back. It's human nature - well, actually, just nature - to band together when under extreme threat. It's just that these days, either the threat isn't extreme enough, or the enemy isn't clearly separable - hence the unity after 9/11, but the hatred directed towards Muslims in general. The people needed an enemy, and unfortunately, they were the 'closest match', as it were.


War happens because we let it happen, not because "shit happens," and that's the true fact of the matter.
Well unless you've invented some magical time machine that will allow us to go back to the dawn of mankind and make some alterations that will completely rewrite human history, I can't see it stopping anytime soon. You cannot honestly generalise and say we 'let' it happen when some wars are the result of hundreds or even thousands of years' worth of history, which cannot be changed. Some people let it happen, but saying we as a whole let it happen, you're doing the generalising here.


The mere fact that you even attempted to counter it is a clear attempt of you saving face when you're proved wrong. Just mentioning it clearly shows that it bothered you and that some how we should have wars because they encourage economic growth, or temporary civilian unity. Hell Ross, let's go drop a few nukes on the biggest populated cities in the world and then afterwards we can all sing kumbaya for a few months and then get on with the bickering of who's fault it was, thus defeating any unity and the end result being millions of deaths and the state of the world still continuing in a downward spiral. But hey, we got new technology out of it! That's gotta count for something.
Read the above and stop exaggerating to twist my meaning.


No, most of us just won't. There is no such thing as "I can't." Saying "I can't" means you've defeated yourself; that you've already convinced yourself you're unable to do it. "Can't" means it is physically impossible for you to do something, such as an armless, legless man drinking a glass of water, and even that isn't impossible. So unless you're an ineptoid and you're mentally handicap, don't bullshit me with "I can't." It's not a matter of "I can't," it's a matter of, "I don't want to because there's too much effort involved."
Alright, since you're clearly the expert on the matter, find me a period in the last few thousand years of history where every single human being was in peace. Good fucking luck.


That's the whole problem with society today. People just give up and don't attend the problem until the point of no return has passed and the only "solution" becomes killing one another. And we call ourselves civilized.
You almost make it sound like that problem hasn't existed since the beginning of human history. :confused2:


There is no enemy. There are people with conditioned thoughts, there are people with ambitions, and then there are people with reason and logic; you put them all in a room, and the most likely solution they'll all come out with is, "The only way to coexist is to fight to the death, and who ever is standing last has earned the right to force their ideals on others." It's a self-defeatist attitude to look at anyone and consider them an enemy. People have this clear definition if someone is trying to kill them they're your enemy, yet no one stops to think exactly why they are. It becomes a conscientious choice of what we put value in, and taking a human life is one of those choices. For some, it's unthinkable; for others, it's not even possible; and then for the majority, they do it when they feel it is "necessary." Everyone justifies their actions, but they just do it differently. If we walked in and asked what the problem was at the beginning before we passed the point of no return, there wouldn't be people shooting each other in the hopeful attempt of killing them.
What do you think I wish would hurry the fuck up and happen in the world? But unfortunately, fighting that we find strange is part of the instinct we, and all animals, share. Good luck persuading every human alive to override that. Better luck actually making it happen.


Funny how you defend it as your government would hope you would too. But I really wonder who the paranoid one is here; the one who doesn't believe every word of their government/news media, even that of the opinion opposing it, or the one who holds no bias to each side? Then again, I can only wonder who, especially when they believe government propaganda is an unthinkable thing in today's society, especially with such "civilized" countries as America or Britain or Australia. You should go read Brave New World.
You should try and remember that not every country is like the US. The strongest poropaganda in existence here is usually the shit you see a few weeks in advance of the elections, and even that is transparent political mud-slinging. Actually, you'd probably love it down here - I could put you up for a few weeks, if you ever do want to come down.


And you clearly know this because you've talked to the parents? Ah, well, that settles it then. Show's over, folks! Ross has spoken to the parents, they voice the reason why they don't want to statue erected, and he's made more generalizations and assumptions in an attempt to concede in his charade to seem correct on the matter.
Actually that's pretty much the justification they made. Take the issue up with them, not me.


Ever heard of a little thing called "observational learning," Ross? You see, it's not the statue holding the weapon that is the problem, which is something Snaf, Korn, and I have pointed out numerous times and you've failed to attempt to recognize; it's the fact that they're going to commemorate one soldier's actions, glorify them, and then consider him a hero. Heros are role models. Parents will then fall under the clear government propaganda of glorifying his actions, and, believe it or not, but that's also where the child is going to learn it as well, because they see their parents standing in front of that statue saying, "Gee, he gave his life for his country. What bravery, what honor," and then those thoughts get going in that child's mind saying, "Hmm, maybe one day I can serve my country."
Well maybe the school system should teach otherwise, teach both sides of the issue, like I've suggested from the start. In any case, rifle or not, wouldn't the effect be the same if that's the likely scenario? Wouldn't the effect be the same if the kids and their parents saw it somewhere else, away from the schools? The very basis of their complaint is so horribly flawed that it strikes me as little more than ignorance.


Wait, did you just pose a question and then assume I wouldn't be able to counter it? Oh, wait, I forgot who you were and who I was dealing with.
Hey instead of criticising me why don't you go make up some highly offensive and exaggerated statements and then credit them to me? Or go make some deeply-insulting statement based off about as much fact as the 'JEWS DID 9/11" conspiracy? :rolleyes:


How exactly does this justify anything at all? Because some people risked their lives to help others? We're talking about the actions of the nations that they carried out, not the good that came out of it. People help each other even now, when there isn't violence or the death around them. Why should people only take the initiative to reach out to a fellow human being and help them out when their life is in immediate danger?
You're the psychologist, why don't you tell me? I'm not privy to the intricate and still primitive workings of human instinct, sorry.


I actually know you much better then you think. All these little quips, your mannerisms, your tonality, your thoughts; you think they're complex and hard to see or understand? You're a book, Ross, and you've done nothing but open yourself up and even label the chapters for me.
Really?

Protip: English reads left to right, top down


No, the fact of the matter is that if the statue is erected, we will have let our government go on with propagandistic material in the hopeful attempt to glorify our military's actions, even trying to find heroism and honor out of it, in the hopeful attempts to swoon the young minds into making a career out of the military, as many other things already do on their own, all government-mandated.
Christ, you aren't half overdoing the propaganda thing.

It was the guy's home town. Who says good ol' G.W.B and his cronies had anything to do with it? Wouldn't that fall under the state/county government? If so, why would they be doing it for propaganda?

Naturally I don't understand the US governmental system beyond the absolute basics, so if you're going to delve into that shit, at least give me some sort of explanation as to how it ties in with what you're saying.


You see, what we've been talking about here is the impact this will have on children on the long run and on the citizens, not your numerous and faceless attempts to claim this is about violence.
Sorry, but didn't those parents complain that it was a threat because it glorified - hold on, what was it now - oh yeah, violence in the first place?


When Snaf, Korn, or I put the truth under your nose, you quickly retracted it and tried to justify it
What truth? I see about as much truth in your posts as I do in a fairytale, although that could just be left over from that delightful little paragraph where you accused me of thinking war is great.


and what's sad about that is that you don't even see your bias to the argument; you think that there's nothing wrong with honoring dead, because the true underlying tones of it aren't innocent; they are with the intent to get something out of it. We should remember the dead, not honor them.
So we should remember men who volunteered to go and fight for what they believed in, but we shouldn't honour the acts they performed under fire which most people wouldn't even have the balls to perform in their happy little neighbourhoods?

You're at least as biased as me. All I've seen from you is endless drivel about the US government and school system. That comes off as a pretty huge bias against the government and anything you see as supporting them, to me.


And your thought process as well, but you're in Australia, aren't you? That's interesting. A common-conditioned argument that many people of the world generalize can only be found in America is found within an Australian, who was born in Britain, correct?
Wrong, try Canada.

You're generalising just as much at the very least. Don't fucking try it on with me.


Maybe it's time to start thinking for yourself, Ross
Hey what the fuck do you think I'm doing right now?

Oh wait sorry, that's right, I'm obviously just regurgitating all that shit I was taught in American schools.


and to stop hiding behind useless quips like, "lol America." It reminds me of the numerous people that say, "Bush sucks!" and I ask them why and they can't give any reasons why except that all of their friends say it. The same concept goes with a lot of people who think they win an argument with, "Oh, you're an American; that explains it," despite the fact that they can't even recognize their own arrogance and ignorance with that statement, some how believing that if they watch a few YouTube videos of the actions of a few some how directly translate into all. Perhaps I should think all Australians are racist after the 2005 Cronulla riots. How would you feel about that assessment then?
If you're trying to use that shit to describe me, you might want to try unwrapping the book before you try and read it. I can list numerous reasons I want the Bush administration to fuck off out of office (if you really want them that badly, shoot me a PM and I'll gladly do so). I have never said "wow all Americans are ignorant shitbags", as a good deal of my friends are American and little to no different to my local friends.


And, again, more proof that you're still failing to realize what we're talking about, or the real reason why the Vietnam Memorial was constructed as it was. Maybe one day you will be able to think for yourself and not for your government.
Think for my government?

How many more times do I need to tell you? If I was fucking 'thinking for the government', I'd be prattling on about Work Choices and Peter Costello right now. Australia does not give a shit about such petty things as statues. We honour our soldiers regardless of what the goverment thinks, because they - and don't fucking argue, because this is definitely fact - helped to forge our image as a nation.

I swear, if anyone else had said some of the shit you've said to me in that post, I would no longer be speaking to them. Some of that was downright insulting, and I'm surprised you a) didn't realise that yourself, and b) actually sunk that low in your attempt to win.

[Agamemnon]

You're the one who resorted to picking out something I thought was obvious because it was the strongest argument you could come up with. I was quite plainly not referring to the third world, as they have nothing to do with this issue whatsoever. Stop trying to use semantics to win an argument, because that only works if it's something crucial to someone's point - and that, unfortunately enough for you, is not.
Oh please. Again, stop trying to save face. You came off like as if the whole world was going through this problem when, in fact, a fraction of the world's population is even experiencing such problems, and even LESS are falling victim to it. You're amplifying a small problem. I countered, you tried to save face. End of story.


Sorry, but it's beyond me as to how the fuck you managed to get that from my original statement. I see nothing that infers - let alone explicitly states - that, anywhere. Stop putting words into my mouth in your attempts to find a foothold, it's a bad habit and from what I can tell it usually forms the basis of any argument you make against me.Then apparently you're not as intelligent as you make yourself out to be, especially if you can't even understand what you wrote. Again, not my problem.


You're not everyone, are you? Nor did I, at any point, say he has a stern look on his face. For all the fucking detail that was given in the description, he could be waving his rifle around in the air while pulling some rediculous face. Hell, he might even be clutching his rifle weeping, like a fair few of our statues. Unless you know for sure what the statue's design looked like, then I suggest you don't try and invent it yourself.

In any case, I don't, as explained God knows how many times previously. I see statues of lone soldiers as reminders that these are young men, not just robots like some people seem to think.I'm glad that's what you think, but you're not everyone, are you?

I'll use your own dose of medicine when ever you decide to come back and reality and argue like a real person instead of like Dole.


Yeah, I have, actually. I've also heard of a little thing called "getting it wrong", something you've done time and time again. Every single time you've tried to psychoanalyse me, you've either stuffed the details or just plain missed the mark entirely. Contrary to your belief, it takes a damn sight more than a single game of CS for me to decide someone's a decent person. :rolleyes:Yeah, I bet it does. But go on, keep in denial, just like I knew you would. Keep on thinking you're something more then human, or that you're a poor, misunderstood boy. Let me know how self-pity works out for you in the end.



No, that'd be the impression someone would get if they were looking for some sort of underlying conspiracy - because that's exactly what you're doing. You're going too deep and seeing things that no normal person would at a glance, because you are actively searching for something that will prove you right, and me wrong. I strongly doubt your average kid is going to do that, don't you?And I would say you're looking at it on a base level. You see what's in front of you and figure if you can see it and touch it, then it must be real. It is you who lacks the initiative to hold complex thought on something such as this. You see a statue, but I see questions without answers. Why build it now? Why dedicate it to one man? Why build it so near a school? Why would the local government do something like this?

You don't see those questions. You fall victim to being looked down upon if you ask questions; it's authoritative, and it makes sense with an authoritative government. I, on the other hand, am able to look at the deeper meaning of what can be hidden behind it. Others save face by saying, "Oh, you're paranoid," or, "Oh, you're just trying to find an excuse." Those are all base arguments that I would expect out of some conditioned youth whose only source of information is his parents and the news media.

You have that luxury of being ignorant; I don't.


Also, try and remember that I don't live in the US and I never plan to. You seem to think I've been exposed to the US Army's advertising and such all my life, which is a complete joke. I'm exposed to - at absolute most - 2-3 ADFA ads per week, and they're almost always for non-combat, support positions. I'm happy with my government, I'm happy with my country, and I support my army. I'm not a dissatisfied American who's sick to death of the way my country's being run (though I can't stand it anyway, I don't live there so it hardly affects me). I'm not pessimistic about these things like you and a lot of the other members of this forum are (and I can see why - had a discussion on the matter with Snaf the other day).So then why even try to comprehend or speak on a matter that you clearly don't understand? More so, why even direct insults to this country if you're not even going to bother to do some research?

You lost this argument a long time ago Ross, whether you'd like to believe it or not, but with this kind of garbage you're digging yourself deeper. Don't come back into this thread thinking you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't.


So you've seen the plans to this statue and you can assure me that it involves Sgt. Dietz killing people or dying himself, and that it is by no means simply him standing with his rifle in hand?And when did I say that is what the statue was going to be?

You know what, screw this. I already know what the rest of your conditioned self-righteous bullshit is going to be. You're going to keep ignoring the single point of glorifying one soldier, which has always been the main point, and why even bother with someone who believes themselves to be knowledgeable in a subject he clearly isn't. All you keep doing is trying to save face, believing maybe if you can counter everything I've said in nice little paragraphs it looks like you're saying something intelligent when, in fact, you're not, and in the end it doesn't matter because you've already convinced yourself you're right because of what ever terminal conditioning you went through as a child. Let me know when you decide to grow up and stop being such a hypocrite.

[rossmum]

I would go and longpost the fuck out of you, but it's 4:38AM.

I will tomorrow.

Enjoy the wait, good sir.

[Agamemnon]

Enjoy what wait? For more propagandistic bile? Sorry, I get enough of that here in America. And you wonder why I don't take you seriously.

[Skiiran]

You two are going to break the forum over one of these someday, I swear.

[Bodzilla]

HOLLY MUTHA FUCKING TAP DANCING JESUS ON A POGO STICK

LONG QUoTES ARE LLLOOOOoooooonnnnnng.

[Limited]

ross and other bitching guy, you neeed to calm down ok? sure you wanna disagree bt typing so much is just a pain, but i love you both kk?

[Leiukemia]

If you took the time to try to understand and think about what is being said in the "looooooooooooong quotes" then maybe you'd find it needs more then just a few lines of text. It's all very nice if it's too long and you didn't read, but it's pretty assenine to say when people are trying to talk about a serious matter and you come and post that shit.

[Limited]

If you took the time to try to understand and think about what is being said in the "looooooooooooong quotes" then maybe you'd find it needs more then just a few lines of text. It's all very nice if it's too long and you didn't read, but it's pretty assenine to say when people are trying to talk about a serious matter and you come and post that shit.
of course i didnt read it all, jesus i got better things to do (lauren) but still i need to wash up =\ but sitll rossmum makes more sense usually

[rossmum]

Oh please. Again, stop trying to save face. You came off like as if the whole world was going through this problem when, in fact, a fraction of the world's population is even experiencing such problems, and even LESS are falling victim to it. You're amplifying a small problem. I countered, you tried to save face. End of story.
No, I saw no reason to be specific - as, like I said, this line of argument has nought to do with the third world - so I simply didn't bother. You saw an opportunity to drag it out and pick on that, so you were in fact the one who brought Africa into the argument. Not me.

Besides, that 'small problem' sure doesn't seem very small to me. Most of the people I know have something similar to that going on in their lives.

Regardless of the problem's size, you brought Africa into it. Not me. End of.


Then apparently you're not as intelligent as you make yourself out to be, especially if you can't even understand what you wrote. Again, not my problem.
Wrong again. I can sort of see how you managed to pull that out of my statement having looked over it again, but I don't see how you could be so sure that's what I meant. Just because I brought up the issue of everyone else's rights, I hardly said "OH BY THE WAY STRAIGHT WHITE MALES HAVE IT ALL EASY", and I've been fucking preaching that they haven't for God knows how long. We've pretty much lost our rights to do anything, because if x group accuses us of doing something to offend them, our lovely unbiased courts (this is something shared by most western nations) will take their word over ours and we will always come off worse. We lack the special rights, special payments, and special treatment in general that anyone who isn't straight, white, or male receives. Equality my fucking ass.


I'm glad that's what you think, but you're not everyone, are you?
Neither are you. MEXICAN STANDOFF


I'll use your own dose of medicine when ever you decide to come back and reality and argue like a real person instead of like Dole.
I don't see how I'm arguing like Dole.


Yeah, I bet it does. But go on, keep in denial, just like I knew you would. Keep on thinking you're something more then human, or that you're a poor, misunderstood boy. Let me know how self-pity works out for you in the end.
Remind me, how did mighty Mr. Shrink arrive at the conclusion that I'm so shallow that I'll befriend anyone I play CS with?

Wrong again, are we?


And I would say you're looking at it on a base level. You see what's in front of you and figure if you can see it and touch it, then it must be real. It is you who lacks the initiative to hold complex thought on something such as this. You see a statue, but I see questions without answers. Why build it now? Why dedicate it to one man? Why build it so near a school? Why would the local government do something like this?
In other words, I'm seeing it on exactly the same level those kids will. Which, might I add, is the original topic.


You don't see those questions. You fall victim to being looked down upon if you ask questions; it's authoritative, and it makes sense with an authoritative government. I, on the other hand, am able to look at the deeper meaning of what can be hidden behind it. Others save face by saying, "Oh, you're paranoid," or, "Oh, you're just trying to find an excuse." Those are all base arguments that I would expect out of some conditioned youth whose only source of information is his parents and the news media.
I haven't been conditioned by shit, as you should well know. I'm looking at this from the same level as those supposedly endangered kids. Hell, I doubt even their parents would go as far into it as you. From what I gather, working directly off their statements, it's the mere inclusion of a gun on the statue which suddenly makes it a threat to their children. We've both taken this argument so far off the rails that that seems to have been lost in a wall of text a few pages back.


You have that luxury of being ignorant; I don't.
Do something about it, then.

Seriously, if you feel that strongly on the issue, take it up with your local government. Drown them in big words. It works for me.


So then why even try to comprehend or speak on a matter that you clearly don't understand? More so, why even direct insults to this country if you're not even going to bother to do some research?
Direct insults? Which, exactly?


You lost this argument a long time ago Ross, whether you'd like to believe it or not, but with this kind of garbage you're digging yourself deeper. Don't come back into this thread thinking you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't.
I haven't lost at all. Neither have you, not yet anyway. Tell you why?

We've gone so far off-topic that we're not even arguing about the same thing anymore.

Here:

"The inclusion of a gun on this statue (other design elements undisclosed) and its placement in between 3 schools (distance undisclosed) is a danger to local children." Discuss.


And when did I say that is what the statue was going to be?
Several times.


You know what, screw this. I already know what the rest of your conditioned self-righteous bullshit is going to be. You're going to keep ignoring the single point of glorifying one soldier, which has always been the main point
Actually no it hasn't, since that wasn't a reason cited for opposing the statue's design and location.


even bother with someone who believes themselves to be knowledgeable in a subject he clearly isn't. All you keep doing is trying to save face, believing maybe if you can counter everything I've said in nice little paragraphs it looks like you're saying something intelligent when, in fact, you're not, and in the end it doesn't matter because you've already convinced yourself you're right because of what ever terminal conditioning you went through as a child. Let me know when you decide to grow up and stop being such a hypocrite.
I could say the same to you. You're trying to save face by continuing to try and justify your introduction of the whole third-world thing. You've already convinced yourself you're right because of whatever conditioning you went through as a child. You're being a hypocrite yourself.

I sense a stalemate, and an offtopic one at that. Locked; PM me if you wish to continue the matter.