sotonjoe

As I said, I agree it could have been seen as inflammatory, hence why I'm happy to explain, but I'd genuinely hope that more people were capable of reading an argument and trying to appreciate the gist of it as opposed to stampting up and down because they think a word has simply and intentionally been used in a pejorative sense. Puppets would certainly have been less inflammatory though yeh. But the subect is as emotive for me as it for you.

Actually, I've just explained that Delldays. Perhaps puppets would have been less inflammatory though eh?

I clearly meant 'muppets' more literally than you realise, not simply in the pejorative sense. A muppet is a puppet, controlled by somebody else, either by strings or by inserting a hand up said puppet's backside. I think that is a pretty apt way for describing a soldier (not the backside bit). They knowingly sign up for a job which could see them sent to some hellhole with some piddly gun for protection. They have no right to say "I don't fancy that" thanks and have to do as they are told. They allow their lives to be completely dictated and controlled by some government minister sat in Whitehall. Hence, they could be described as puppets, i.e. muppets. You say that's heroic, I think it's craziness. I'm also capable of putting my point of view across without resorting to insults. I hope you understand what I meant by the word now anyway! To be fair, I agree the word has dodgy connotations and I could have inflamed less if i'd stuck with puppets but there we go.

I think some people do yes. The way any anti-soldier comments are twisted to make people seem morally and emotionally bankrupt is a sure fire sign of that in my opinion. I think the way whoever it was on here chipped in with the initial comment I took umbridge with is also a clear sign. As I said, you get into a discussion about people doing something good or deserving of some recognition and there's always somebody trumpeting "what about the soldiers". I think people should be able to have their own moment, in this case we should be able to acknowledge how sad it is that Hartson has been diagnosed with cancer, without some smart arse shouting " but what about the soldiers". Then as soon as somebody says anything to the contrary, there are always a few willing to get all macho and say "criticise the millitary? you should be ashamed of yourself", often without paying too much attention to what has actually been said! And firemen? well, I'd be slightly more surprised at a firemen dying that a soldier, as I think statistically it is less likely. However, I can't say that it would come of much of a surprise. All in a day's work as they say. Actually, I probably respect firemen more than soliders tbh .. but that's an entirely different discussion!

None of that makes squaddies the 'sooper dooper heroes beyond all reproach' that some make them out to be and you've squirrelled the argument in a very off tangent direction to be fair. It was certainly better than your early attempt which just consisted of abuse though.

Unless Liebherr has been at the 'just for men', it wasn't him then.

I don't think he was saying that the job spec for a squaddie says 'a love of plastic guns'!?!?!?! He's saying that boys are programmed from a young age to think that wielding guns and fighting baddies is heroic. He's suggesting that this conditioning goes some way to explaining why a large proportion think that solidiers are heroic and that this conditioning could prevent some from stepping back and considering these sorts of discussions as objectively and dispassionately as they perhaps should do.

Shouldn't somebody be suggesting this is a waste of our money and that we should be donating it all to some war related charity instead?

still boring

little man with white hair?

Surely the thread title is long overdue an edit? The takeover simply hasn't collapsed as of the time I posted this!

You only need to take a walk from London Road, down through Above Bar on a Friday or Saturday evening to see the sort of culture we can proudly boast of.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5842324/Children-traumatised-by-War-of-Worlds-abduction-of-teacher.html

And I was there myself and politely clapped too. I'm not a nutcase and I'm not about to boo them or anything, I just don't want to be told that I owe some huge moral debt to them or must feel shocked / awed / or very very sad if one of them loses their lives. And I hate they way that they are brought out as a sort of trump card as to 'who is best' in modern society.

And you should note that I made a distinction between those who lose their lives as a result of conscription and those who sign up in this day and age as a career choice. It's bitterly cruel that essentially untrained lads were sent off to be used as a human shield in the Somme. I've been there myself to pay my respects and it's a very humbling place to be. However, the situation is very different in the present day.

Not if you can come up with a chant for it to the tune of Oh When the Saints ...

I think the finer points of this discussion have sailed over your head. This isn't a discussion of whether we feel any compassion for those dying in war or not. It was a discussion about who did we 'owe' a chant to more on Saturday. The OP made a suggestion that we sing a song for Hartson and was criticized by someone who said that we owed one to 'the army' a lot more. I said I don't think we owe chants to people doing their jobs, which they knowingly signed up for, especially when we raise huge sums of money for them and acknowledge what they do with all manner of parades etc. I hardly think they army are failing to get enough thanks for whatever they do. We don't need to be singing thank you songs for them at football.

I used "somebody famous" as it was Hartson we were talking about. I could just have easily "a healthy member of the public". I meant somebody who isn't expected to die anytime soon under normal circumstances. I certainly didn't mean to imply that Hartson getting cancer is more of a shock than any other member of the public. You're misinterpreting the gist of my argument there. Neither was I implying that Hartson has done something to protect me. It's the 'pro army' camp that keep playing the 'protection' card, which isn't game in my book as this isn't a pro / anti war / millitary discussion. I put my view out there because somebody suggested that it would be more suitable to sing a chant in favour of the army than it would be to sing one in in favour of Hartson, or rather that we 'owed' the army a chant more than Hartson. This is something I don't believe for the reasons I've already outlined.

I guess he meant that, as supporters of a club previously in crisis, but now with a very bright future to look forward to, we could say that we've been dealt a very goo hand by fate or luck or whatever. Hartson on the other hand, was walking around on Saturday awaiting news about some tests he'd had, by yesterday afternoon he's critically ill after being told that he has cancer in his testicles, lungs and brain. You could say that he's been dealt a pretty rubbish hand by fate or luck or whatever. I think the OP was suggesting we make a gesture which shows we acknowledge how fortunate we are and how tragically unfortunate a situation Hartson now finds himself in. FWIW, I'm not saying I agree with what the OP has said, just that this is my interpretation of what he's saying and that I think you misinterpreted his intentions.

ooh! An auction!

I'm not entirely convinced he meant it like that tbh.:confused:

i fear for the general public ;-)

The view from block 4 is awful. I really don't understand why people would want to sit / stand here and have to turn 45 degress for the majority of the match.

no problem

Ridiculous timing too... Sunday - told he's got testicular cancer. By wed pm - actually it's in your brain and lungs as well. All in the space of 3 days. Craziness.