Stetson hat to be new Army standard headgear

[Tiller]

Nope. I just hat(e) bad logic.

Well what part of his argument don't you agree with? Animals were domesticated to be used as products. Slavery largely started as a spoil of war in order to subdue a different civilization/tribe. Are you suggesting they are similar?

Personally I find the argument that a domesticated cow is similar to an enslaved human to be illogical, and insulting, but that's me.

 

[Lefty]

First, let me say that I'm talking about US slavery. Slaves weren't viewed as people. They were viewed as animals, the best of which (biggest, strongest) were bred to create better products. The biggest, strongest slaves wouldn't have existed in the US without such selective picking (kidnapping, trading in Africa) or cultivation (breeding). Therefore, according to Dan's logic, there's nothing wrong with using them as slaves, because that's the reason they (bigger, stronger US born Africans) exist.

 

[Widebrim]

I really hope that I don't see a lockdown coming...:eusa_doh:

Regarding U.S. armed forces headgear, when the Army first adopted the beret all-around, some of them were made in China, but a large outcry put a stop to that. Where they're made now, I don't know. Regarding leather, the military isn't going to stop using it due to the protestations of any group, be it for better or for worse...

 

[Tiller]

First, let me say that I'm talking about US slavery. Slaves weren't viewed as people. They were viewed as animals, the best of which (biggest, strongest) were bred to create better products. The biggest, strongest slaves wouldn't have existed in the US without such selective picking (kidnapping, trading in Africa) or cultivation (breeding). Therefore, according to Dan's logic, there's nothing wrong with using them as slaves, because that's the reason they (bigger, stronger US born Africans) exist.

I'm going to make the assumption that you aren't a farmer, and have done little work with animals. If I'm wrong you can state that I am wrong, and I'll apologize.

I maybe wrong, but my understanding of Dan's argument is that without mankind many species that are currently domesticated wouldn't exist, and put simply he is right. Domesticated cattle, pigs, chickens, cats, dogs, basically any domesticated animal you argue over wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for mankind. Entire species and breeds would never have existed had our ancestors not a domesticated them and breed them. On the other hand had the slave trade not existed, and had the American South instead used say criminals and indebted servants from Europe, instead of African Slaves, said slaves would have existed on their own in their original tribes. Black men don't exist because white men enslaved them, had American slavery (since this is what you want to talk about) never existed the African race wouldn't have been extinct, they would have gone on living just fine in their tribal systems.

On the other hand had mankind not domesticated cattle, the modern dairy cow would not exist. It's very existence relies on mankind's intervention.

 

[danofarlington]

Oh I agree, I'm not arguing that point. I just have a hard time believing the US Army would change their policy because PETA is protesting something.

I know, I'm just deepening the argument. I also agree that the Army won't be swayed by PETA. Probably the Joint Chiefs don't have a red hotline to their headquarters to consult with them before they make their moves. At least I assume they don't.

 

[JimWagner]

I know, I'm just deepening the argument. I also agree that the Army won't be swayed by PETA. Probably the Joint Chiefs don't have a red hotline to their headquarters to consult with them before they make their moves. At least I assume they don't.

I doubt the military would be directly influenced by special interest groups like PETA, but politicians certainly are and who knows what they might impose on the military? It's happened many times. Without taking sides, gays in the military is a prime example of exactly that.

 

[Tiller]

I would assume the that Joint Chiefs are only going to pretend to care what a outside lobbyist group has to say if they feel it would have a negative affect on the military. So far though we haven't had a US President who cares about PETA's insane arguments, and I don't think their ever will be one. They may offer vegetarian alternatives for chow when your on base, but they are never going to eliminate animal based products. Whether it's the option to have a 100% wool Service Uniform, or hamburgers in the chow hall.

 

[Lefty]

I'm going to make the assumption that you aren't a farmer, and have done little work with animals. If I'm wrong you can state that I am wrong, and I'll apologize.

I maybe wrong, but my understanding of Dan's argument is that without mankind many species that are currently domesticated wouldn't exist, and put simply he is right. Domesticated cattle, pigs, chickens, cats, dogs, basically any domesticated animal you argue over wouldn't exist today if it wasn't for mankind. Entire species and breeds would never have existed had our ancestors not a domesticated them and breed them. On the other hand had the slave trade not existed, and had the American South instead used say criminals and indebted servants from Europe, instead of African Slaves, said slaves would have existed on their own in their original tribes. Black men don't exist because white men enslaved them, had American slavery (since this is what you want to talk about) never existed the African race wouldn't have been extinct, they would have gone on living just fine in their tribal systems.

On the other hand had mankind not domesticated cattle, the modern dairy cow would not exist. It's very existence relies on mankind's intervention.

The only difference is time. We've been playing around with animal breeding for millenia. Had a European conquest of Africa continued, it's likely that there would be no native Africans left, just hundreds of years of selective slave breeding for the ultimate African agricultural tool. Then, those slaves that were brought to the US would be in the same state as the modern dairy cow - specifically created for one function (US agricultural use), with all original ancestors having been exterminated or otherwise caused to be extinct. Under this scenario, the fact that the modern version of the slave wouldn't exist without European intervention certainly wouldn't justify slavery.

Similarly, the argument as to dairy cows and other highly domesticated animals is not that they should run free, it's that they should no longer be produced by humans for the sole reason of our consumption. The fact that this would result in the extinction of these human-created animals, designed solely for our use, is generally viewed as the proper and acceptable end result.

 

[cookie]

click link for military photos & full story:

http://www.army.mil/-news/2011/04/01/54202-stetson-hat-to-be-new-army-standard-headgear/

Nice to see the Yanks catching up with the Aussies!

 

[zetwal]

K-9 Stetsons will also be issued in conjunction with Doggles to ensure explosive detection dogs have maximum protection, while looking as fierce as their handlers.

 

[Widebrim]

Nice to see the Yanks catching up with the Aussies!

When I was outprocessing from the Middle East, I saw an Aussie balancing his slouch hat on a knee. I thought his having that headgear with him was cool, and a positive link with his country's history.

 

[scottyrocks]

April Fools Day joke or not, I think it is a good look.

 

[Tiller]

The only difference is time. We've been playing around with animal breeding for millenia.

Modern cattle are descended from a species called aurochs, which became extinct in the 17th century. When we tried to “breed back” the aurochs we failed, at best we created a beast of burden that looked somewhat similar to the aurochs, but they weren’t genetically aurochs, and they didn‘t have the same psychological temperament . Had mankind not intervened modern cattle wouldn’t exist. Period. Scientific fact. Same thing with the modern dogs and every other domesticated animal that exist today. You can not say that mankind would not exist without slavery, nor that white racist used to see slaves as animals too, and therefor a enslaved man is the same as a cow. It’s not the same argument.

You can not compare a man to a domesticated animal, anymore then you can compare man to a computer. Yes they both are able to do math, but man would exist whether computers existed or not, a computer’s very existence and purpose relies on man’s existence. Without mankind there are no computers in this world, and without mankind there are no domesticated animals. Could the oil that makes plastic exist without man? Yes. Could aurochs exist if mankind never existed? Yes. Would a computer exist without mankind? No. Would domesticated cattle exist without mankind? No. Would a man exist if he wasn’t a slave? Yes. Well a domesticated animals’ very existent requires mankind to exist, a man’s existence does not require slavery to exist. To complain, for example, that a sheep being sheered, is similar to a man being enslaved, is a ridiculous illogical argument. Complaining a sheep is being sheered, is about as logical as complaining that a computer is being used to type up a word document. Both were created in order to be used by mankind, and they serve no other purpose, and could not serve any other purpose. Neither creations are what we would call a “person”, and neither thing has the rights of a person until proven otherwise.

Further more we couldn’t breed a new species of "slaveman" (as your scenario describes bellow) even if we wanted to (Thank God for that. Since the Nazis, the pseudoscience of Eugenics has fallen out of style). We couldn’t breed out mankind’s self awareness anymore then we could breed it into other animals. The situation that you are suggesting bellow is a kind of racist pseudoscience that is seen in only the most racist pieces of science fiction, or in a piece of science fiction horror.

Had a European conquest of Africa continued, it's likely that there would be no native Africans left,

Europeans conquered every nation in Africa except for Ethiopia and Liberia, and if you wish to be technical even Ethiopia eventually was conquered by the Italians in the Golden Age, well Liberia‘s freedom came from the fact that they were politically connected to the United States. The majority of this conquest existed after the slave trade ended. Yet the numbers of native Africans never came close to extinction, nor was there any alteration in their genetic make up that made them something other then human beings. I can also say with confidence that even if the great empires of Europe still existed today, and they still held political control over the whole of Africa, native Africans wouldn’t be extinct, nor would they have any genetic alterations that made them nonhuman. Turning the scenario on it head, had for example the Songhai Empire somehow conquered all of Europe, Europeans wouldn’t be extinct, nor would they have become something other then humans.

Further more if conquest is the big thing, the United Kingdom owned India for 334 years and the Indians didn’t become extinct nor suffer from genetic mutations. Not what your talking about because it doesn’t evolve outright slavery? Fine. Ancient Rome owned Palestine from 63 BC to 640 AD with slavery and a social cast system of one kind or another set up the entire time, and yet their was no mass extinction nor was their any meaningful genetic alterations that occurred despite all the lower class breeding. If you want I can quote to you areas that were ruled by none native civilizations that lasted centuries, and yet the natives humanity remained.

just hundreds of years of selective slave breeding for the ultimate African agricultural tool.

You could set up a breeding program that would make Adolph Hitler proud in the year 1000AD, run it for a thousand years, yet you would never be able to breed out man’s self awareness, or highly developed brain. You could keep your slaves uneducated, but you could never breed them into being another species or even a subspecies, who existence is based around labor without an acting mind, or traits that we wouldn’t see as being what makes a “person“.

Then, those slaves that were brought to the US would be in the same state as the modern dairy cow -specifically created for one function (US agricultural use),

The original argument wasn’t that slaves were used for agricultural use like a cow is. It was that domesticated animals were breed by man, and if it wasn’t for man these domesticated species wouldn’t exist. You cannot say the same thing about a slave. Even if slavery never existed mankind would. If mankind didn’t exist domesticated animals never would have.

with all original ancestors having been exterminated or otherwise caused to be extinct.

For starters for the last part of your statement to be true, mankind itself would have to become extinct, unless of course you believe there is a difference between a native European and a native African when it comes to their humanity.. You seem to be confused by the idea of culture and genetics.

Under this scenario, the fact that the modern version of the slave wouldn't exist without European intervention certainly wouldn't justify slavery.

Slavery existed before Europeans intervened, and it still exist today in certain forms. The people who are enslaved today, be they sex slaves or indentured servants they are still human. Any slave alive today, or 200 years ago could still exist if they came from a different social class, on the other hand a modern dairy cows very existence is because of mankind itself. They wouldn’t exist if mankind didn’t desire to consume them.

Similarly, the argument as to dairy cows and other highly domesticated animals is not that they should run free, it's that they should no longer be produced by humans for the sole reason of our consumption. The fact that this would result in the extinction of these human-created animals, designed solely for our use, is generally viewed as the proper and acceptable end result.

Your argument as a whole, comparing domesticated animals to enslaved humans is 1. very offensive, and 2. illogical. Mankind would exist even if slavery never existed. Modern cattle would not exist if mankind didn’t exist. We aren’t even talking about the same general idea, you are talking about a cultural identity, I’m talking about a scientific fact.

Every animal mankind domesticated, was domesticated for a purpose and became an entirely different spices because of that. The very reason these animals exist is because mankind has breed them to make their life easier, as food for consumption, or in order to fit into another function. Again, had mankind not intervened most domesticated animal species WOULD NOT EXIST. Men can be more then just a slave, a cow will always be a cow, it’s only purpose has been and always will be to become a product that is for human consumption. If you can not see the difference between a cow and a man, then I must give up on you.

Secondly for a man who isn’t a vegan, who wears fur felt and wool felt hats to argue that any animal that is currently around for human consumption is similar to a slave, just makes me scratch my head shock. You have to deep down understand that you are being intellectual dishonest. You can’t put a hat on that is made of either wool of fur, and then complain about someone else eating a hamburger, because they are consuming a different animal in a different way then you are.

If this response sadly get's the thread locked, I apologize ahead of time ladies and gentleman. Honestly though Lefty you have the horrible hobby of entering threads where opinions you don't personally believe in are being expressed, and then you become purposefully bombastic in order to get the thread shut down, or to shut somebody up. It's a hobby you should really break. Otherwise you supply a lot of generally good information to the Lounge, for example you watch E-Bay as if you were ordered to by the government, and you see things many of us miss. All that good work though looks expendable when you continue to do this garbage, time and time again. You don’t like when a certain topic is brought up, report it. Perhaps I should have simply reported your original bombastic attempt to change the flow of the thread to begin with, but honestly someone needs to stand up to you once just to show you how tyrannical and hypocritical you seem to others at times. Your opinion isn’t law here anymore then mine is, but you really need to cut out throwing hand grenades into every thread when an opinion you disagree with is expressed. If you wish to continue this debate let us both do the honorable thing and either do it in our inboxes, or simply accept that we aren’t going to agree and leave it at that. Once again I apologize to those of you who were simply enjoying discussing the US Army’s April’s Fool joke, but honestly this stuff needs to stop. Lefty, I hope that you can just simply positively contribute to threads, but your Curtis Lemay act is getting old. If this was the wrong way going about it, I take full responsibilities for my actions.

 

[azhiker]

WOW, I hope it was not an April fools joke since so much research went into these fine arguments, or posts, or whatever. I do know for a FACT, that I respect BOTH your opinions, that I am insanely jealous of your fine Fedoras, and that I really enjoy the warm, kind spirited threads I see posted. On that note, I am moving to Frankfurt Germany in about 6 days, for 4 years, so I wlil be offf line for a few, but as soon as I get settled, and get internet in my government issued quarters (apartment, 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1 each) I will be back online!

Da Hiker

 

[Lefty]

Tiller, you've lost touch with what I originally posted - that this:

Following that kind of animal logic, we would have to substute vinyl for leather shoes, belts, and leather anything. As far as I'm concerned, that's why a lot of these animals are raised in the first place. There wouldn't be a lot of those animals around without the products they generate.

was bad logic, and was once used like this:

The same argument was once made for slavery.

I'm not using Dan's argument to support slavery, I'm showing that bad logic used to support one idea is still bad logic when used to support another idea.

You've now thrown a straw man into the mix by equating computers with animals, which simply does't work, even under your scenario. While the current species of a given, domesticated animal may not exist without man, the ancestor(s) would have still existed without man. (Whether or not those ancestors continue to exist is a non-issue.) It, and your subsequent thoughts, are based upon the opinion that human life is not only the most important life, but that other life doesn't rate beyond computers. You're certainly welcome to that opinion, but you must recognize that allowing for such an opinions also allows anyone to make distinctions as to the importance of human lives in groups or as individuals.

Further, your argument that the human spirit cannot be removed is touching, but belied by anything other than Cuba Gooding movies. People give up, and those raised in hopelessness, without education or even the idea of a better life, accept that life.

Remember, I'm not the one supporting this line of logic. I'm just illustrating it's absurdity by taking it to its logical conclusion. In addition, I'm not saying that every belief I hold is consistent with every other belief I hold. If ever a walking pile of contradictions existed, I'm it. My user name might be lefty, but I've got enough beliefs on both sides of the aisle to keep any side from choosing me for their team.

 

[Brad Bowers]

Interesting as this discussion has been, it has strayed far from the original topic. Let's keep it on topic and take the discussion of biology and logic elsewhere. Thanks.

Brad