Not a good analogy. Most of us can relate to doing a job.
I only responded to being told I have no opinion. If you base having an opinion on anything is to be defined by myself having the experience then the analogy applies. I was told that since I do not have experience in battle then I have no opinion.
I cannot have an opinion on a persons motives, reaction to an action, or a persons intentions, I just do not have the place to do this since yes I DO NOT have the experience. I can only have an opinion on the final results...and even then it's sketchy at best because I have no knowledge of what this person or persons experienced which led up to their decision->action->final result.
Don't judge until you have walked in that persons shoes.
I just don't appreciate the that someone else can simply say you do not have an opinion.
Take it simply from the standpoint that your government is a democratic institution (and you have free speech on your side) versus the military where no such thing is true.
To be a politician, one must go in almost expecting to be judged. Even at the smallest, most local of offices, someone will have an opinion about what you do. Generally, folks don't join the military for the public exposure or to put themselves out for judgment.
Especially if Van Dorn was known to be a bad commander by his men, it is understandable to some extent that they would be less willing in general to, quite literally, stick their necks out for him.
Edit: I think you're taking RB's comment a bit out of context and rather too seriously.
Look, the basic debate here centers around our approval/disapproval of a rumored action and the subsequent punishment. Under military regulations, if the soldiers violated a primary rule (don't lose your own damn unit's colors) then they are subject to punishment under those rules. Because there are no clear facts in this case and the men involved were later exonerated, anything thrown out here is really speculation. As to that point, any judgment thus rendered on this matter is one concerning morality (broadly defined). In such cases, judgment can be leveled for or against, but there is necessarily a vast grey area in between. I think that what RB is saying is that he understands that from the outside looking in, as it were, that grey area is so complex that he would rather abstain altogether from a hard-line opinion than to wade off into those murky waters, where arguments are based more on simple opinion and emotion than any sort of hard facts.
Judgment is easy - quick and relatively painless in most cases. The most relevant factor might be sympathy. However, once we get into the realm of experience, we are talking more about empathy, and that absolutely colors one's judgments in a much different way. Without being able to access said empathy, RB (and others) are not willing to venture forth a strong opinion.
Last edited by SouthernSteel on Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Take it simply from the standpoint that your government is a democratic institution (and you have free speech on your side) versus the military where no such thing is true.
To be a politician, one must go in almost expecting to be judged. Even at the smallest, most local of offices, someone will have an opinion about what you do. Generally, folks don't join the military for the public exposure or to put themselves out for judgment.
Especially if Van Dorn was known to be a bad commander by his men, it is understandable to some extent that they would be less willing in general to, quite literally, stick their necks out for him.
Edit: I think you're taking RB's comment a bit out of context and rather too seriously.
Look, the basic debate here centers around our approval/disapproval of a rumored action and the subsequent punishment. Under military regulations, if the soldiers violated a primary rule (don't lose your own damn unit's colors) then they are subject to punishment under those rules. Because there are no clear facts in this case and the men involved were later exonerated, anything thrown out here is really speculation. As to that point, any judgment thus rendered on this matter is one concerning morality (broadly defined). In such cases, judgment can be leveled for or against, but there is necessarily a vast grey area in between. I think that what RB is saying is that he understands that from the outside looking in, as it were, that grey area is so complex that he would rather abstain altogether from a hard-line opinion than to wade off into those murky waters, where arguments are based more on simple opinion and emotion than any sort of hard facts.
Judgment is easy - quick and relatively painless in most cases. The most relevant factor might be sympathy. However, once we get into the realm of experience, we are talking more about empathy, and that absolutely colors one's judgments in a much different way. Without being able to access said empathy, RB (and others) are not willing to venture forth a strong opinion.
