Man Applies for Marriage License for 2nd Wife

[TomFoolery]

Maybe you were lucky and were born fiercely intelligent and socially righteous. Not everyone is. Maybe some of us did or experienced things that shaped our worldview, rather than simply inherited them through a lucky stroke of genetics. I can actually tell you the exact moment I realized war was inherently wrong, but I suppose you’re not interested in hearing it, since I’m clearly too stupid to have opinions because I went to war in the first place.

The irony here is up until now I’ve considered you one of the more insightful people on this forum. Then I make a comment about how war drives technology (and not just guns and bombs, but everything from stirrups and zippers to radar and stainless steel) and you come saying I’m a ignorant sociopath that supports war and it’s not your fault that you speak to me the way you do because I’m a “soldier” and I obviously seem to deserve it. You could have, you know, asked for clarification into what I meant if you didn’t understand, but you decided to go right for the throat and condemn me as some kind of conservative, war-mongering sinner against humanity. You might as well say I murdered babies and ate them, and liked it.

In my mind, your instant judgment and sweeping assumptions of me as a human being, based solely on my former military service (that you know nothing about) is hypocritically close to all the religious zealots you so openly condemn.

[drunkenshoe]

Maybe you were lucky and were born fiercely intelligent and socially righteous. Not everyone is. Maybe some of us did or experienced things that shaped our worldview, rather than simply inherited them through a lucky stroke of genetics. I can actually tell you the exact moment I realized war was inherently wrong, but I suppose you’re not interested in hearing it, since I’m clearly too stupid to have opinions because I went to war in the first place.

I don't think you are stupid or that I am very intelligent. If I thought you were stupid, I would tell you that. I am an ordinary person.

The irony here is up until now I’ve considered you one of the more insightful people on this forum.

I am an insightful person. The thing is that doesn't create a conflict when I say something you believe to be very harsh or annoying... or something you find hurtful.

Then I make a comment about how war drives technology (and not just guns and bombs, but everything from stirrups and zippers to radar and stainless steel) and you come saying I’m a ignorant sociopath that supports war and it’s not your fault that you speak to me the way you do because I’m a “soldier” and I obviously seem to deserve it. You could have, you know, asked for clarification into what I meant if you didn’t understand, but you decided to go right for the throat and condemn me as some kind of conservative, war-mongering sinner against humanity. You might as well say I murdered babies and ate them, and liked it.

If you prefer I can write something more dramatic and tearful. I didn't call you conservative and I don't think you are a war mongering baby eating monster either. I was just thinking about logic of militarism and someone making a career out of that logic. That's all. When I read that from someone who told she served actively at Afghanistan and posted those pics, I told you what I thought, I didn't need any clarification. You wouldn't need either, doesn't matter how you would react.

In my mind, your instant judgment and sweeping assumptions of me as a human being, based solely on my former military service (that you know nothing about) is hypocritically close to all the religious zealots you so openly condemn.

Yes it is. And as I told in my previous post, you posting those pics. Because that means a lot and when you speak about 'I did this and that served here and there'. I really don't have to know anything. Would you be so open and quick about your previous occupation if it was something else? I don't think so.

The bolded part doesn't really mean anything. Army is the least flexible structure humans created. It's based on the most legal kind of fanatism and hypocrisy. I am criticising that. Again, I am behind the traits I have described above a soldier should have. Esp. under the those specific circumstances.

Calling something as the thing it is bluntly, doesn't make me a hypocritical zealot. But probably it makes me very annnoying.


Anyway, we do not have to talk about this. It won't go anywhere, it is not a discussion. 

[TomFoolery]

I don't think you are stupid or that I am very intelligent. If I thought you were stupid, I would tell you that.

Then why would you say this?

Then may be, exactly like religious people, soldiers shouldn't be taken seriously as healthy participants in certain discussions. After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?

If you prefer I can write something more dramatic and tearful. I didn't call you conservative and I don't think you are a war mongering baby eating monster either.

You’re right, you didn’t go quite that far. You just said this.

There is no difference between you and an islamist jihaddist from this angle. You see yourself entitled to destory and kill for your benefits and make excuses for it.

And this. And to what other basic human rights issues are you referring?

Considering the last paragraph you wrote along with your other reactions to some basic human rights issues in the forum, you must be surviving on extreme compartmentalisation bordering absolute apathy or some sort of sociopathy.

And this.

It's not differences of opinions or beliefs that has sent 'you' into war. It's money and power and greed. And countless people like you in the world who support that, eager to be a part of it.

Yes it is. And as I told in my previous post, you posting those pics. Because that means a lot and when you speak about 'I did this and that served here and there'. I really don't have to know anything. Would you be so open and quick about your previous occupation if it was something else? I don't think so.

Because it was something I did and it changed a lot about who I am as a person. I posted a picture of myself in a uniform. You then assumed I supported the war on terror, and by your own words “see myself entitled to destory and kill for my benefits and make excuses for it.” Ok, yes, maybe I was young and in a lot of debt and grew up in a country that doesn’t have all the free healthcare and low-cost education that yours does. Maybe the military was a way out of poverty for me and not only allowed me to get a degree, but two root canals I desperately needed and didn't have the $2500 for. Maybe in my early twenties I didn’t think about what it all meant because I wasn’t so enlightened as you, and I was about a month away from being evicted from my apartment and defaulting on student loan debt. I guess I don’t really owe you an explanation, because no doubt you’ll just say I use it as an excuse to behave like a Jihadist with no respect for basic human rights.

You’re just some crass, random, judgmental, jump-to-conclusions bitch on the Internet who prefers to attack people based on a single fact and learn nothing else about them, like fundamentalist idiots. Ignorance is bliss after all. Not name-calling, just telling it like I see it.

[Munch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fYTtTSadx0

[TomFoolery]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fYTtTSadx0

The birth of the Amazons. :) I can see a lot of people saying they're all just lesbian best friends who took it a step too far, but in my mind, they seem happy, and especially the part at the end where they talked about fidelity. If they each want to have a child, isn't three women raising their children together better than three single moms struggling to make ends meet? Of course they could form some kind of informal relationship and still accomplish a lot of the same things, but it would provide their children some legal protections at the very least. Good for them is all I can say.

[Mike Cl]

I feel like the notion of having children raised by professional caretakers runs the risk of homogenizing us too much, which I would think would be as bad as being too fractured. Yes, differences in beliefs and opinions has sent us to war, but war revolutionizes technology. It's a Catch-22. I also feel like the notion of marriage is antiquated, but I don't know if I'm against getting rid of it all together, because ultimately it still serves as a contract between two people to support each other. Unfortunately too many people prefer to walk away from their responsibilities.

I have read most of Heinlein's books, and at one time he was my favorite author.  He opened my eyes to many different taboos and why they were silly.  He touted nudity, multiple spouses, he was a huge critic of organized religion-- and he explored time travel and he loved cats.  What's not to like???  The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a good read--I remember liking it; he most definitely liked strong women who knew what they wanted. 

I have often wondered about child rearing.  It is not easy nor cheap.  And I have wondered if it was time to experiment with different ways of doing it.  I have not come close to offering any type of solution but have thought there must be better ways of doing it.  There seems to be a movement of childless couples--and I say--more power to you!  Children are not needed for a full and rewarding relationship with a member of the opposite sex. 

This statement I found most interesting-- ".... but war revolutionizes technology."  Absolutely!  It is a huge Catch-22 (that was my bible in the Army).  I think that that may be a reason why this country lately has gone to war so much--the military has such interesting and new technology in it's arsenal, that it can't stand not using it.  And the corporations that make that technology pressure to sell it to the govt. and to see it used.  And not only does technology get a huge boost in war, so does medical advancements.  Every war sees huge improvement in the treatment of injuries.  But technology and medical advancements are poor excuses for going to war, for the other side of the ledger is full of pain and suffering that simply cannot be quantified.  But I highly suspect you know that. 

[Mike Cl]

Then may be, exactly like religious people, soldiers shouldn't be taken seriously as healthy participants in certain discussions. After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?

Hmmm..............Shoe.  Wow!  Have you been in the military?  Have you been around many military members or ex-members?  I was a GI for 12 years.  I was trained in the Army branch of Military Intelligence.  My job was to investigate people who had applied for a top secret security clearance.  We were taught to think--and within Army limits, to think creatively and to think on our feet in the field.  We were to gather information and we were taught many different ways to do that.  Later, I joined the Army National Guard and became a rifleman, with the assurance of my commander to become the unit expert in Nuclear, Chemical and Biological warfare.  I was then trained in how to defend out unit against such attacks.  Once again I was taught to think and how to use the equipment I was given in various ways in various environments.  I then spent the last 6 years in a MI unit of the Army Reserve.  I then used both of my trained skills for my unit.  I was always trained to think--and to follow orders.  In my time on duty I met many types of people--both male and female.  They were a general cross section of our society.  Some thought and some didn't.  Some thought as I did and others did not. 

Maybe you are thinking of the combat arms.  The stereotype is a nonthinking killing machine.  I was not in the combat arms, but I was around many who were.  Once again, they were a cross section of our society in general.  In today's combat arms one cannot be the drone like, nonthinking robot, for the technology has grown to such an extent that one has be be fairly smart of use it.  I am not saying that the people in the military are all thinkers or highly intelligent, but for the most part, they are not strikingly stupid either.   

[TomFoolery]

I have read most of Heinlein's books, and at one time he was my favorite author.  He opened my eyes to many different taboos and why they were silly.  He touted nudity, multiple spouses, he was a huge critic of organized religion-- and he explored time travel and he loved cats.  What's not to like???  The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a good read--I remember liking it; he most definitely liked strong women who knew what they wanted. 

Starship Troopers is one of my all time favorite books. Ok, yes, I was in the Army and it's on almost every general's reading list and is often held up by the right wing of a model of what good citizenship should look like, but I like it for the opposite reasons. I see it as more of a cautionary tale about trying to legislate social participation.

And not only does technology get a huge boost in war, so does medical advancements.  Every war sees huge improvement in the treatment of injuries.  But technology and medical advancements are poor excuses for going to war, for the other side of the ledger is full of pain and suffering that simply cannot be quantified.  But I highly suspect you know that.

This is what I was originally trying to point out, so thank you for reading between the lines of my incoherence. Dr. Mengele advanced medicine considerably through disgusting human experiments and created an enormous ethical minefield. In using his findings do we condone his actions, or in discarding the findings do we ensure the people he killed and tortured died in vain? It's an awful Catch-22.

As Louis C.K. would say, there's absolutely no limits to what we can achieve when we throw enough human suffering at it, when you consider the pyramids, the transcontinental railroad, the iPhone... And I should add here a disclaimer that I in no way condone, endorse, support, fund, champion or cheerlead any efforts to make people suffer so I can have an iPhone. I'm merely stating a shitty fact of the world.

I often think back to a Star Trek TNG episode where some good-idea fairies built a perfectly genetically engineered society. The problem was, since no one had any medical problems and everyone was essentially bred to fulfill a role within a society, there weren't a whole lot of problems to solve. It ended up being Geordi, the blind guy with the VISOR that ended up saving the day, a guy who wouldn't have existed in their perfect society.

[Mike Cl]

Starship Troopers is one of my all time favorite books. Ok, yes, I was in the Army and it's on almost every general's reading list and is often held up by the right wing of a model of what good citizenship should look like, but I like it for the opposite reasons. I see it as more of a cautionary tale about trying to legislate social participation.

I did not realize that about Starship Trooper.  I liked the book, and like you put a different spin on it than the general did.  I suspect that the general knew that Heinlein was a naval officer and that his books would be about how to become a model citizen.  Heinlein was quite the opposite.  My favorite of his was Stranger in a Strange Land.  I don't think the general would have approved of it. :))  I also just now remembered that I bought the Starship Trooper game (from Avalon Hill) and played it a few times--it was a war game and I loved war games.  Wish I still had it.

[drunkenshoe]

You’re just some crass, random, judgmental, jump-to-conclusions bitch on the Internet who prefers to attack people based on a single fact and learn nothing else about them, like fundamentalist idiots. Ignorance is bliss after all. Not name-calling, just telling it like I see it.

Crass? You mean blunt? Forward? Yes, that's what happens when you remove political correctness and bullshit. It suddenly becomes very annoying, esp. when it hits home. I talked about the act and the military logic -your previous 'job'- and described how I see that. Because that's what it is. You are calling me 'crass, random, judgmental, jump-to-conclusions bitch' because you don't like what I am saying bluntly about your choice.

It's not how you see it, it's name calling, because it's personal. I don't have a problem with it. Just do it with some integrity. You are not angry with me for what I am saying. You are angry, because I have said it through you, to you, from your example which was triggered by the fact that you have posted those pics although you have said you got out from the army years ago. You also said you have been active in Afghanistan. That's not giving a civilian appearance combined when you say 'war revolutionises technology' or like someone who hates war more than most people. You chose to appear this way in the forum, because you are a veteran and traditionally it scores points everywhere. It's something beyond reflecting bit of a personal history.

This is an internet forum. It's not about knowing someone. We are talking about countless diifferent things. I reacted to an expression you used based on connecting it with the facts you reflected about yourself. I have said these things a dozen time in this forum before in the last 4 years and also for a short time in 2010. They are not some newly invented, home cooked way of looking at things.

None of that changes one thing about the reality of militarism, national armies, its logic and how soldiers should act in combat. What was the recent invasions or the other previous ones about...doesn't matter who is expressing it in what way. They are about power, money, resource and greed. Period.

After all, you people are not programmed to think, are you?

Yes, I have said it. Because they are not. Again, some integrity please. Tell me that you were an ignorant, naive kid looking for a way out and chose a short cut. But don't beat around the bush and go on with whining 'you are calling me stupid, you dont know me, I had to' bullshit. Cut the crap of 'you haven't been in the military'. You do not have to face war or be in it to get what it is. Esp. the one we are talking about. It's an illegal invasion that caused millions of civillian lives. And the president of the time is a war criminal. We have all been suffering the consequence of it dearly all around the world. Like the ones before.

Yes, it is acting like a jihaddist; a terrorist. You just don't condemn the policy and the act; the whole thing, but leave out the individuals who took part in it. Yes I know you don't live in a rich country, that's why I wrote the word as 'rich' in my post. However, you have grown up in a country with 100 times of opportunities compared to those brain dead fuckers living in mud we call terrorists can imagine their life time. That's the point and the ignorance, the bullshit about 'choice'. You chose to do what you did, because it is praised, fully supported, it's turned into a regular 'job'; PAID and it's the main economical wheel the country you live in works on. Not because you didn't have any other way out. I bet you have seen what does mean NOT HAVING ANYTHING or ANY CHOICE in the literal sense after a visit to the obvious place? Nobody could have outlawed you, threaten your life and your family for not deciding to join to some battle defending your homeland contrary to the most people at the other side. The thing you joined is an industry, it is able to be that way and works BECAUSE PEOPLE DOING IT see themselves entitled to do it by their collective identity and culture. It's naked agression and destruction.   

You don't choose to become a soldier and go an active duty and then pretend doing just a regular job and expected to be treated like people suffering from regular jobs. Don't give me the crap that it is just a job. Save that for fucking morons who swallow the bullshit that soldiers are 'heroes' and men and women invading Middle East -or anywhere else before for that matter- were/are keeping US safe.

Your posts about legalising marriage in your country shows you support equality. If you cannot connect that understanding in general with what we are talking about here now, that is deliberate and learned compartmentalisation. Something mentioned before. Religious people are very good at it for example. Also soldiers and nationalists.

Ok, yes, maybe I was young and in a lot of debt and grew up in a country that doesn’t have all the free healthcare and low-cost education that yours does. Maybe the military was a way out of poverty for me and not only allowed me to get a degree, but two root canals I desperately needed and didn't have the $2500 for. Maybe in my early twenties I didn’t think about what it all meant because I wasn’t so enlightened as you, and I was about a month away from being evicted from my apartment and defaulting on student loan debt. I guess I don’t really owe you an explanation, because no doubt you’ll just say I use it as an excuse to behave like a Jihadist with no respect for basic human rights.

Poverty. Yes, it's exactly how easily people strap bombs on to themselves at the other side. Joining groups to kill around for some 'religion'. Becoming terrorists.

Oh wait. There is one difference between a foriegn soldier invading a land and someone who is fighting to defend a homeland though. Big one. Doesn't change no matter what angle you look.
About your sarcasm, you don't need to be 'enlightened' or experience it to get what is militarism, how it works, what kind of a thing is war. You do not need to be smarter or more intelligent than average to get any of it. Basic self awereness. Without that you are in the bliss you are describing in any position.

You can enjoy seeing me as someone bitching from a high horse aaall you like. It is what it is. We are all affected by those invasions in the worst way possible. I live in the Middle East. Everything changed and went for the worse. The religious party who managed to come to the power in the last 90 years here by then THRIVED because of those 'wars' and American policy came with it. People got radicalised. Everything got fucked up. Anyway, that's another subject besides the specific conversation.

Thank you though. Your last paragraph was probably the only sincere and forward attempt you showed. You have been making a lot of explanations for someone who doesn't owe any. Do it with integrity, call it what it is. Just don't whine with 'you don't know me, I had to' after reflecting yourself as you did in your specific position and expect me to respect you or what you say about anything related to it.

[drunkenshoe]

Hmmm..............Shoe.  Wow!  Have you been in the military?  Have you been around many military members or ex-members?  I was a GI for 12 years.  I was trained in the Army branch of Military Intelligence.  My job was to investigate people who had applied for a top secret security clearance.  We were taught to think--and within Army limits, to think creatively and to think on our feet in the field.  We were to gather information and we were taught many different ways to do that.  Later, I joined the Army National Guard and became a rifleman, with the assurance of my commander to become the unit expert in Nuclear, Chemical and Biological warfare.  I was then trained in how to defend out unit against such attacks.  Once again I was taught to think and how to use the equipment I was given in various ways in various environments.  I then spent the last 6 years in a MI unit of the Army Reserve.  I then used both of my trained skills for my unit.  I was always trained to think--and to follow orders.  In my time on duty I met many types of people--both male and female.  They were a general cross section of our society.  Some thought and some didn't.  Some thought as I did and others did not. 

Maybe you are thinking of the combat arms.  The stereotype is a nonthinking killing machine.  I was not in the combat arms, but I was around many who were.  Once again, they were a cross section of our society in general.  In today's combat arms one cannot be the drone like, nonthinking robot, for the technology has grown to such an extent that one has be be fairly smart of use it.  I am not saying that the people in the military are all thinkers or highly intelligent, but for the most part, they are not strikingly stupid either.   

Yes, we are talking about active combat duty.

I do not have to be in the military to know and understand anything about it. Your experience is irrelevant too. Nothing you typed up there changes the facts about militarism, the basic logic of army, making it a regular job the invasions and what is related to it. They are strikingly ignorant and they are happy about it. Willful ignorance. Anti-intellectualism you people keep condemning and how it destroys your country.

And I am certainly not going to write the main traits -again- required in a person who sees nothing wrong in traveling to the other side of the world to invade and kill because he/she was paid and ordered to do it. 

[Mike Cl]

Yes, we are talking about active combat duty.

I do not have to be in the military to know and understand anything about it. Your experience is irrelevant too. Nothing you typed up there changes the facts about militarism, the basic logic of army, making it a regular job the invasions and what is related to it. They are strikingly ignorant and they are happy about it. Willful ignorance. Anti-intellectualism you people keep condemning and how it destroys your country.

And I am certainly not going to write the main traits -again- required in a person who sees nothing wrong in traveling to the other side of the world to invade and kill because he/she was paid and ordered to do it.

Okay, let me see if I understand your points.  You say that any person in the military is responsible for  the militarism within our society.  That each member is equally responsible for all the death and destruction caused by our military.  That each member is responsible for the continuing militarism of this society.  Maybe saying they are equally responsible is too strong a word, but that each are complicit in the militarism of this society.   And if not complicit in the militarism, at least ignorant of it and they don't care to repair that ignorance.  So, from the privates to the generals and to the president, all in the military are complicit in the militarism or willfully ignorant of it.  Is that accurate?

[drunkenshoe]

Okay, let me see if I understand your points.  You say that any person in the military is responsible for  the militarism within our society.  That each member is equally responsible for all the death and destruction caused by our military.  That each member is responsible for the continuing militarism of this society.  Maybe saying they are equally responsible is too strong a word, but that each are complicit in the militarism of this society.   And if not complicit in the militarism, at least ignorant of it and they don't care to repair that ignorance.  So, from the privates to the generals and to the president, all in the military are complicit in the militarism or willfully ignorant of it.  Is that accurate?

Yes and No. Mike, I really don't feel like writing a long post yet again to explain what is so painfully obvious about the subject. I know you don't like it when I get like this, but I have been pretty clear.

[dtq123]

In Summary; The Military sucks, This is no longer about polygamy and HOLY SHIT WTF HAPPENED?

[Munch]

In Summary; The Military sucks, This is no longer about polygamy and HOLY SHIT WTF HAPPENED?

I dunno :S, I'm not even sure where it jumped the shark, but we've left the beach a looooong time ago.