| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Talk:Chickenhawk
Contents
Ain't that just[edit]
ad hominem?--Arisboch (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. Labeling them chickenhawks because they are extremely pro-war, but have no actual combat service and likely never would if given the chance, isnt an ad hominem because it's ultiamtly based on something they do/don't do, not just the fact we don't like them or such. It's the same as brought up on the Rape page, calling somebody a rape apologist because they defend rape isn't an ad hominem because they are defending rape. --Miekal 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, this label implies, that someone's ideas of military policy is less worth, when he wasn't in the military--Arisboch (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Labeling people like this seems pretty bogus from the perspective of people from nations that don't/hardly participate in wars. But the US gets involved in wars all the time, so I guess their abundance of war-worn former soldiers means over in America you get to shame the war proponents that haven't been in the military? Is the opinion of non-military war proponents really always inferior by default? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the opinion of a jingoistic draft-dodger is of questionable value. One might say that it is putting Kant's categorical imperative ass-backwards, sending other people to do a dangerous job that one wasn't willing to do oneself when the opportunity arose.
- Labeling people like this seems pretty bogus from the perspective of people from nations that don't/hardly participate in wars. But the US gets involved in wars all the time, so I guess their abundance of war-worn former soldiers means over in America you get to shame the war proponents that haven't been in the military? Is the opinion of non-military war proponents really always inferior by default? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, this label implies, that someone's ideas of military policy is less worth, when he wasn't in the military--Arisboch (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Those who have seen organized murder and mayhem, up close and personal, tend to recognize war for the stupid wasteful process it is. Based on my own experience, and on conversations with other veterans, I suspect that they would rather have our leaders think long and hard before engaging in a shooting war. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you're not willing to fight, you shouldn't send others to do it for you. (Kant's CI and all that morality-applies-to-everyone jazz)
- That said, this comes dangerously close to ad hom. Just cuz someone supports war but hasn't been to war doesn't mean they're wrong. (FDR is an example of being right but not having fought (regardless of his ability to do so).) FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- FDR gets a pass for obvious reasons. There are some far-fetched scenarios where accusations of chickenhawkery might be used as an ad hom attack, but in general, it is grounds for questioning the validity of calls to war. Any politician who was fit for service, and bolted, should understand that thing about Caesar's wife avoiding the appearance of impropriety. Sadly, the appearance of hypocrisy is not too damaging to a political career. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Those who have seen organized murder and mayhem, up close and personal, tend to recognize war for the stupid wasteful process it is. Based on my own experience, and on conversations with other veterans, I suspect that they would rather have our leaders think long and hard before engaging in a shooting war. Alec Sanderson (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Joschka Fischer (minister of the exterior in Germany 1998-2005) also never served in any military yet was one of the principal architects of the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia 1999. Does this qualify him for being listed as a chickenhawk? Or does his anti Iraq war stance let him off the hook here? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Organizing a war isn't promoting one. Anyone advocating for the necessity of a war without having served can reasonably be termed a chickenhawk. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, if I advocate for the necessity of a war against, say, DAESH while never having served in an army, does that make me a chickenhawk? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's the general idea of the term, yes. All accusations of hypocrisy are fundamentally ad hominems, chicken-hawkery is no exception. Nonetheless it's a particularly resonant accusation for people who don't want to see their family die for arrogant assholes. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- In case you don't know about the whole 1999 mess... This is the speech Fischer gave to convince his party, that had been largely pacifist up to this point. The paint on his suit is from some members of the left wing of his party having thrown paint at him. Without him no German soldier would have ever set foot in Kosovo. And he did in fact never serve in any military (though he did beat up police) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's the general idea of the term, yes. All accusations of hypocrisy are fundamentally ad hominems, chicken-hawkery is no exception. Nonetheless it's a particularly resonant accusation for people who don't want to see their family die for arrogant assholes. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- So, if I advocate for the necessity of a war against, say, DAESH while never having served in an army, does that make me a chickenhawk? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where's the hypocrisy if the definition of chickenhawk is so broad. If a past of active draft-dodging was a requirement, then sure. But since it's apparently not a requirement.. the majority of society goes through life without giving much thought to the possibility of a military career. How are they hypocrites when they think bad situation X probably requires military intervention to solve it? I should also note that if you actually went ahead and required all politicians to be former or acting military personel, you'd have a de facto military junta. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- And what, if there's no conscription in a country? No conscription, no chickenhawks? Does one become a so-called "chickenhawk" by dodging the draft or just not volunteering into the army, if there is no draft, cause as it stands right now, the sole act of not volunteering for the military and endorsing military action is enough to fall under the definition of "chickenhawk" in the article.--Arisboch (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- As it stands now, nearly the only countries that have a draft are those were you should dodge the draft. Sure there are some exceptions of democracies with a draft like Switzerland or Israel, but nowadays countries with a draft are often in the Russia or Turkey category, or even worse... Even Germany got rid of their draft... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- And what, if there's no conscription in a country? No conscription, no chickenhawks? Does one become a so-called "chickenhawk" by dodging the draft or just not volunteering into the army, if there is no draft, cause as it stands right now, the sole act of not volunteering for the military and endorsing military action is enough to fall under the definition of "chickenhawk" in the article.--Arisboch (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where's the hypocrisy if the definition of chickenhawk is so broad. If a past of active draft-dodging was a requirement, then sure. But since it's apparently not a requirement.. the majority of society goes through life without giving much thought to the possibility of a military career. How are they hypocrites when they think bad situation X probably requires military intervention to solve it? I should also note that if you actually went ahead and required all politicians to be former or acting military personel, you'd have a de facto military junta. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes not serving is a good thing[edit]
Imagine a politician was born in a time-frame where him having to serve the Nazi military would have been a real possibility. Instead he went into exile during that time to avoid being caught by the Nazis. Once the war is over, he comes back only to be viciously attacked as a "traitor" who did not serve his country in war - even though everybody admits that the war was criminal in addition to being criminally stupid. Now if we are to uncritically believe the "chickenhawk" narrative, such a politician can only ever take dovish stands. Even though not serving for the Nazis in their wars of extermination was in fact the more courageous stand. Some even paid with their lives for not serving the Nazi war machine. This case is not merely academic. see here. The fact that this particular politician did in fact take a dovish stance is besides the point. He was of course attacked for his conciliatory and dovish policies towards Poland and the Soviet Union, which again shows the amount of courage something like that takes. If however, a politician who thusly avoided being drafted into a murderous war were later to see war as a necessary evil in one select case, would he have to be labeled a chickenhawk? This is just a word of caution not to mindlessly apply this a slur and hope it sticks even if there is little justification... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Uh, so? The argument here isn't that chickenhawks can't be right about a war being needed, just that they make up the overwhelming majority of assholes who push for poorly considered intercessionary wars. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The point is that neither never having served in a military nor advocating for a certain specific war is necessarily a bad thing. Nor is the combination of the two. You can yell "chickenhawk" all you want, the intervention against Nazi Germany was the right decision and it did in fact come way way too late. This article seems to only present a one-sided brouhaha along the lines of "see all those people who wanted to get rid of Saddam never served in the military" which does not a good argument make. Especially if it is applied against people like Christopher Hitchens who never served in a military, yet still went where it hurt in his journalism. He did in fact go to Syria, Iraq, North Korea and all those other "nice" places whereas many of his critics engaged in armchair politics and knew not what they were talking about. And that's not even mentioning the fact that he voluntarily underwent waterboarding to see for himself whether it is torture (it is) My point is: why it may be a legit criticism, this article portrays it as if it were always a good idea to throw around the word chickenhawk instead of making the case for or against a specific war. War is bad. But sometimes the alternative is worse. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, you clearly just don't want to feel guilty about pushing good people to fight and die in war. I can't take that off your conscience for you. Sorry, pal. You're going to have to own a portion of every single person who dies. If you can do that, and say "it was worth it" then by all means, be a comfortable utilitarian. But don't pretend creating narratives for history exempts you for what you choose to do. Either own your choices for what they are or live in denial. Don't mince about words that might be used to describe you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not like you are leading lambs to their slaughter. In most modern armies, there is no conscription and in some armies there is even the (theoretic) possibility of conscientious objection to a specific war. My point is: Whether somebody was in a military or not should not elevate him/her as a better person or for some reason an "expert" on foreign policy or war. McCain's foreign policy is no better than Obama's even though nobody would deny McCain's service (while Obama was not in the military he provided an arguably a lot more worthwhile service as a community organizer). But in the rare cases that a war is justified, it is precisely because having the war saves more lives than not having it. Imagine FDR would have decided to not enter World War II. Do you think he would have had a better conscience after the war upon hearing of the things the Nazis did? (which were more or less already suspected during the war and certainly informed the decision of some people). This decision is not easy either way. As well it shouldn't be. After all, we are talking about human lives. But saying "war is bad" and "you have no right to declare war if you yourself never were a soldier" is cheap and adds nothing of value to the discussion. Sure Bush never really saw a shot fired in anger, but Colin Powell did. Both had the same opinion on Iraq. Does that make one's opinion true and the other's false? And to be precisely clear: In my humble opinion Germany should refrain from intervening in any war for... I guess a thousand years. But a country like the US can't afford that luxury. If the next Rwanda happens, who could even theoretically stop it? China? Belgium? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Choosing to go to war, without listening to the ones who have the experience to plan it and run with the results,
is colossal stupidity. Direct experience of war is not strictly necessary, but it can give a politician some basis for evaluating the capability of the professionals who have to go and do it. - Chickenhawkery is one of those things that you know it when you see it. War is not a debate, and some people deserve a fat wet scaly ad hominem right up alongside the head for lying to send other people's kids into harm's way on foolish missions. Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- If only people who served in the military should be in the business of ordering wars, that in essence ends you up with only military people having control of the military. Exactly the situation you have in a military dictatorship. And as we have seen military dictatorships are usually way more hawkish and have a lot more disregard for the common soldier than civilian governments, even those led by chickenhawks... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good god, you're being shitty right now. You gotta know this is a dishonest argument. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because...?--Arisboch (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because the point of calling people chickenhawks is that they frequently aren't concerned with the human costs they often blithely wrap in faux patriotism. This "you want a military dictatorship because you're okay with calling hypocrites out" is dishonest as fuck. As all hell, really. At no point have I ever said, implied, or suggested that the chickenhawk question should be the end-all be-all in any discussion of war. And the repeated back-handed implication of this shitty BoN has been exactly that. Fuck that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- He just takes this ad hominem-argument, which "chickenhawk" is, to it's rhetorically exaggerated, logical conclusion.--Arisboch (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, when someone goes "if you'd been in the military, you wouldn't be this warhawkish", going "actually, there's plenty of warhawks in the military and letting the military decide for itself when to wage war isn't very likely to eliminate all wars" seems like a legit strategy. If you want to claim "if you'd seen the true face of war, you wouldn't be advocating for it" that's fair enough, but being in the military is far from a guarantee that you'll witness 'the true face of war'. Even if you're out there waging war, that doesn't mean you'll be innately aware of the sufferings of the local population or will automatically de-associate explosions from awesomeness. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because the point of calling people chickenhawks is that they frequently aren't concerned with the human costs they often blithely wrap in faux patriotism. This "you want a military dictatorship because you're okay with calling hypocrites out" is dishonest as fuck. As all hell, really. At no point have I ever said, implied, or suggested that the chickenhawk question should be the end-all be-all in any discussion of war. And the repeated back-handed implication of this shitty BoN has been exactly that. Fuck that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because...?--Arisboch (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good god, you're being shitty right now. You gotta know this is a dishonest argument. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- If only people who served in the military should be in the business of ordering wars, that in essence ends you up with only military people having control of the military. Exactly the situation you have in a military dictatorship. And as we have seen military dictatorships are usually way more hawkish and have a lot more disregard for the common soldier than civilian governments, even those led by chickenhawks... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Choosing to go to war, without listening to the ones who have the experience to plan it and run with the results,
- It's not like you are leading lambs to their slaughter. In most modern armies, there is no conscription and in some armies there is even the (theoretic) possibility of conscientious objection to a specific war. My point is: Whether somebody was in a military or not should not elevate him/her as a better person or for some reason an "expert" on foreign policy or war. McCain's foreign policy is no better than Obama's even though nobody would deny McCain's service (while Obama was not in the military he provided an arguably a lot more worthwhile service as a community organizer). But in the rare cases that a war is justified, it is precisely because having the war saves more lives than not having it. Imagine FDR would have decided to not enter World War II. Do you think he would have had a better conscience after the war upon hearing of the things the Nazis did? (which were more or less already suspected during the war and certainly informed the decision of some people). This decision is not easy either way. As well it shouldn't be. After all, we are talking about human lives. But saying "war is bad" and "you have no right to declare war if you yourself never were a soldier" is cheap and adds nothing of value to the discussion. Sure Bush never really saw a shot fired in anger, but Colin Powell did. Both had the same opinion on Iraq. Does that make one's opinion true and the other's false? And to be precisely clear: In my humble opinion Germany should refrain from intervening in any war for... I guess a thousand years. But a country like the US can't afford that luxury. If the next Rwanda happens, who could even theoretically stop it? China? Belgium? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, you clearly just don't want to feel guilty about pushing good people to fight and die in war. I can't take that off your conscience for you. Sorry, pal. You're going to have to own a portion of every single person who dies. If you can do that, and say "it was worth it" then by all means, be a comfortable utilitarian. But don't pretend creating narratives for history exempts you for what you choose to do. Either own your choices for what they are or live in denial. Don't mince about words that might be used to describe you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The point is that neither never having served in a military nor advocating for a certain specific war is necessarily a bad thing. Nor is the combination of the two. You can yell "chickenhawk" all you want, the intervention against Nazi Germany was the right decision and it did in fact come way way too late. This article seems to only present a one-sided brouhaha along the lines of "see all those people who wanted to get rid of Saddam never served in the military" which does not a good argument make. Especially if it is applied against people like Christopher Hitchens who never served in a military, yet still went where it hurt in his journalism. He did in fact go to Syria, Iraq, North Korea and all those other "nice" places whereas many of his critics engaged in armchair politics and knew not what they were talking about. And that's not even mentioning the fact that he voluntarily underwent waterboarding to see for himself whether it is torture (it is) My point is: why it may be a legit criticism, this article portrays it as if it were always a good idea to throw around the word chickenhawk instead of making the case for or against a specific war. War is bad. But sometimes the alternative is worse. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)My point is this: Military service in no way "ennobles" a person or makes him/her a "better human being" and his/her value judgment when it comes to foreign policy may be affected by military service, but we don't know in which way. Both Erich Maria Remarque and Ernst Jünger served in World War I on the (losing) German side. Both wrote widely read books about their experiences. But while Remarque wrote a scalding indictment of all things war, Jünger's "In Stahlgewittern" was a favorite read among the right wing in the 1920s. There is - in my humble opinion - too high an opinion of the military in general in the US, which makes it hard to acknowledge that US soldiers commit war crimes and other difficult truths. In most developed countries, there is significant skepticism of all things military, at least on the right wing and no ex military (who served voluntarily and above the rank of private) could rise in the ranks of most left wing parties in Europe if (s)he did not show major "serving dove" cred. The US idolizes the military to an - imho - unhealthy degree, which ends up giving us the very concept of chickenhawkery (probably fueled by those never serving wanting to play "tough guy" for once) as well as the needless idolatry of the "war hero" (who as we have seen can make crappy as well as good presidents) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- (I put the contribution here to avoid further confusion above)... Sooner or later the whole concept of chickenhawkery will become obsolete as the last generation to be possible draft dodgers is slowly dropping out of politics and currently only about 1% of the US population ever sees army installations from the inside in earnest. Sure, both parties will from time to time nominate a "war hero" for president (Who will almost always lose), but for the next years and decades to come the vast majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle will be of the "non-serving" variety. Which does not have to be a good or a bad thing. The only thing around this is to reinstate the draft or drastically increase recruitment and even than the political effects (with more of those people appearing at the national political stage) will not be seen until decades later. Yes I know there is a veteran caucus in Congress and the US will probably always have more veterans in parliament than most other developed countries, but if 10% of Congress have served (which implies that ex-soldiers are disproportionately likely to go into politics, which I don't believe) and 90% haven't, throwing around the word chickenhawk becomes rather silly. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Put it this way[edit]
- Assume that war is an evil, by and large, and the the human costs associated with are so great that it can very rarely be justified.
- Further assume that, for a given political divide, more people on one side don't accept that truth than on the other.
- Now expose some people to military service. Assume that those exposed to military service are more likely to adjust their opinions towards the truth (as defined by the first assumption).
So who will be left with the incorrect opinion? It will skew to those on the 'bad' side of the political divide who didn't serve in the military. Is it fair to call them 'chickenhawks'? Probably not. They're not chickenhawks; they're just dumb.
But now consider a further subset - people who actively avoided service or arranged for a cushy posting far from any real danger. They must, at the personal level, accepted that there were human costs to themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have avoided service. So, if they profess a contrary opinion in public, they are hypocrites. 'Chickenhawk' is as good a descriptor of this hypocrisy as any, and they deserve it. It is not ad-hom.
Now, chickenhawks go out of their way to lose themselves amongst the throng of 'just dumb'. It gives them ranks of easy supporters who don't see or don't care about the hypocrisy. Now, at this point, it's perfectly reasonable to call those parts of 'just dumb' by harsher terms - after all, even if they're dumb about the realities of war, they should at least be expected to notice rank hypocrisy. 'Chickenhawk enabler' is a mouthful, and 'easily led sap' is too generic, so you might as well bundle them up with the 'chickenhawks' and have done with it. Not entirely fair, but they had it coming. Again, not ad-hom.
That said, we could stand to make the hypocrisy angle stronger in the article, probably with a cull of the list, to boot. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which is still condemning people's opinions about military policy not due to their arguments, but due to them having or not having served in the military, which is ad hominem . And since there is no draft in the US, that argument will become in the near future even more irrelevant than it is today.--Arisboch (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's condemning people for being wrong and for being hypocrites, not for any personal quality or epxerience. How can you still argue that tripe when the argument is lain bare right in front of you? Queexchthonic murmurings 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Right, if the politics of war were this disconnected, impersonal thing, it'd be such a valid point. But let's be honest. The build up to war, particularly when chickenhawks are in charge tends to center around "them are bad guys, lets get 'em and people who don't want to are cowards". So yeah. People will keep using the chickenhawk argument, because there very rarely is this calm debate about the necessity of war that merits deep counter arguments. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)There are more than enough examples of people going to war and enjoying it, even wanting to make more wars after it. I don't even have to go into Godwin territory, just think of Kennedy (served in World War II, escalated the war in Vietnam), Ernst Jünger (served in World War I, greatly enjoyed himself, glorified the experience), or the guy who said "it's good war is so terrible, otherwise we would enjoy it too much". Yes Ike is on record as saying he disliked war due to his personal experience with it. Did that keep him from sleazy CIA tricks in foreign policy that set the stage for later war criminals like tricky dick, Kissinger or Saint Ronny who all (tried to) get rid of democratically elected governments they did not like through underhand means. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Right, if the politics of war were this disconnected, impersonal thing, it'd be such a valid point. But let's be honest. The build up to war, particularly when chickenhawks are in charge tends to center around "them are bad guys, lets get 'em and people who don't want to are cowards". So yeah. People will keep using the chickenhawk argument, because there very rarely is this calm debate about the necessity of war that merits deep counter arguments. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's condemning people for being wrong and for being hypocrites, not for any personal quality or epxerience. How can you still argue that tripe when the argument is lain bare right in front of you? Queexchthonic murmurings 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- (another edit conflict) "Chickenhawkery" is not yet an obsolete term. There are living examples at whom to point. Citizen soldier and cartoonist Bill Mauldin recognized a form of chicken hawk back in the forties. Even without conscription, there will still be armchair warriors, hypocritical politicians, willing to send other people's kids off to die. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, now that's leaving even the pretense of "chickenhawk" not being ad hominem at the door. How can you avoid military service, when there's not even a draft?? BTW, the draft was instituted in the US in about 1940.--Arisboch (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Say what? Conscription in the United States
has happened on and off since colonial times, and only ended in 1973. Besides, being a draft-dodger is not the only form of saber-rattling hypocrisy. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC) - (EC)God damn it, listen. No one in this entire discussion hasn't said it's not an ad hominem. We have an article on hypocrisy too. That's also, fundamentally and undeniably ad hominem, but we don't shy away from calling out other classes of hypocrites. Yes, it's fallacious, when used as the sole basis of an argument. No that doesn't mean it's not relevant and factual for a rationalist understanding of the world. I'm getting pretty annoyed with the level of "but but but (point totally acknowledged)" you and this IP are exhibiting about this. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Queex, at least, claimed, that it's not ad hominem and the rest tried to minimize it or something similar.--Arisboch (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fine, I admit my mistake. I'm sorry. I did get rather intense about a statement I was totally wrong about. If you want to argue with Queex that it is an ad hominem, go right ahead. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Queex, at least, claimed, that it's not ad hominem and the rest tried to minimize it or something similar.--Arisboch (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Say what? Conscription in the United States
- Wow, now that's leaving even the pretense of "chickenhawk" not being ad hominem at the door. How can you avoid military service, when there's not even a draft?? BTW, the draft was instituted in the US in about 1940.--Arisboch (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- (another edit conflict) "Chickenhawkery" is not yet an obsolete term. There are living examples at whom to point. Citizen soldier and cartoonist Bill Mauldin recognized a form of chicken hawk back in the forties. Even without conscription, there will still be armchair warriors, hypocritical politicians, willing to send other people's kids off to die. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
So what kind of changes (if any) should be made to the mainspace page? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Classify it as ad hominem.--Arisboch (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not ad-hom. Get over it.
- For changes - I'd emphasise the hypocrisy aspect, mention that it's also used more generally for intervention cheerleaders amongst politicians, and restrict the list to known hypocrites. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is, get over it (copy and paste is fun) and is getting even more irrelevant (in most countries of the 1st world without any ongoing conflicts, the draft is abolished, anyway).--Arisboch (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Even if it is an ad hominem, so what? Where is it used to invalidate an argument? It is more typically used to paint a politician as a hypocrite, suggesting they may be unfit to conn the ship of state. Political rhetoric may be effective and influential (for good or ill) without following the rules of formal logic, a fact some naive "rationalists" may lose sight of. See fallacy fallacy and onwards into that rabbit hole. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of course political debate is
oftenalmost always lead with emotional arguments and bullshittery, the RW ain't no exception, not by a long shot.--Arisboch (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC) - "Going to war is wrong because you never served in the military." is ad-hom.
- "Going to war is wrong. You never served in the military, so you don't have any particular insight." is not ad-hom.
- "Going to war is wrong. You arguing for other people to go to war so strongly when you've never shown that enthusiasm on your own behalf is hinky." is not ad-hom.
- Glad to be of service. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Hinky"? "No enthusiasm on your behalf"? That's still talking about what the particular person had done or not done and not about his arguments and thus ad hominem ("no enthusiasm"? Define "enthusiasm" in that context, cause if you said that even not joining the military in absence of a draft is enough to incur your judgment of "no enthusiasm", than it'd basically call for either the abolishment of the military or the establishment of a military regime a la what people misunderstood Robert E. Heinlein wrote about in "Starship Troopers").--Arisboch (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- You appear to need a refresher in what Ad hominem actually means. Hint: It means dismissing the argument solely because of the person. The 'because' I used. No 'because', no 'ad hom'. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which is what "chickenhawk" is there for or implies.--Arisboch (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's a descriptor, not an argument, FFS. I know you're not this dense, really. What's going on? Queexchthonic murmurings 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nice escape hatch, don't forget the parachute.--Arisboch (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually. He's right. It's not an argument. It is a descriptor of an actor. Fuck. Queex was entirely right. I can't really endorse my previous logic of saying it's not an ad hominem. Unless the context is specially "we should not go to war because X is a chickenhawk" it's no an ad homenimem. And we're all goddamn idiots for thinking otherwise. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nice escape hatch, don't forget the parachute.--Arisboch (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's a descriptor, not an argument, FFS. I know you're not this dense, really. What's going on? Queexchthonic murmurings 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which is what "chickenhawk" is there for or implies.--Arisboch (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- You appear to need a refresher in what Ad hominem actually means. Hint: It means dismissing the argument solely because of the person. The 'because' I used. No 'because', no 'ad hom'. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Give that man a cigar, and a C-note to light it with. (hint: pocket the C-note, and use a match like everybody else.) :) Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Hinky"? "No enthusiasm on your behalf"? That's still talking about what the particular person had done or not done and not about his arguments and thus ad hominem ("no enthusiasm"? Define "enthusiasm" in that context, cause if you said that even not joining the military in absence of a draft is enough to incur your judgment of "no enthusiasm", than it'd basically call for either the abolishment of the military or the establishment of a military regime a la what people misunderstood Robert E. Heinlein wrote about in "Starship Troopers").--Arisboch (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Of course political debate is
- Even if it is an ad hominem, so what? Where is it used to invalidate an argument? It is more typically used to paint a politician as a hypocrite, suggesting they may be unfit to conn the ship of state. Political rhetoric may be effective and influential (for good or ill) without following the rules of formal logic, a fact some naive "rationalists" may lose sight of. See fallacy fallacy and onwards into that rabbit hole. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is, get over it (copy and paste is fun) and is getting even more irrelevant (in most countries of the 1st world without any ongoing conflicts, the draft is abolished, anyway).--Arisboch (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
regardless of whether the observation whether somebody served in the military adds much of value or relevance to the discussion or is even particularly intelligent, the fact remains that it adds a somewhat unnecessary loop to the debate where not the war at hand is discussed but rather the military "battle cred" of those proposing it. All the while they - chickenhawk or not - already sent the troops. When did in fact the accusation of chickenhawkery ever stop any chickenhawk from sending people to war? 141.30.210.129 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Under no circumstances should this article change to be categorized as an ad hominem[edit]
The whole point is to highlight people who might be considering the lives of others to be their play things. Yes, it's an ad hom, but it's one that describes a very important factor in discussing this shit. You're both being awful. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- And again, it reads as something personal, like you're trying to justify being callous to yourselves by editing this article. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- First you refuse to call it ad hominem, then call it ad hominem, then allege "personal" motives in people, who disagree with you. What the hell??--Arisboch (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I refuse to categorize the article as such, yes. It's stupid as hell that you're arguing this. Really fucking stupid. Woo-meister, pseudo-science pusher, and other terms are also ad hominems and they're ones with a lot of relevance. You've got something up your pair of asses about this, and it shows. Okay? And I never refused to call it ad hominem, I just think that's a stupid as fuck tranformation to an article that describes some real shitty behavior out there.
- You don't need to jump up and yell "Fallacy" at everything that's not perfectly rational, especially when it has a place in an honest look at the world. It's neither helpful, nor informative. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I propose to change the Wiki into "RationalWhenConvenientAndItSupportsMyWorldViewWiki", LOLz. --Arisboch (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!. Christ. No. You're being a real fucking shithead here. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Drink"? No thanks, I'm not into drinking games. I refuse to eat or drink because of contests and besides that, are you trying to drink from a lawn sprinkler (your "WHARRGARBL").--Arisboch (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever the merits of the chickenhawk argument (or indeed its faults) it is in a technical sense (and usually no-one is more technical than rational people) an attack the person making an argument rather than at the argument itself. I rest my case. (for now) 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Drink"? No thanks, I'm not into drinking games. I refuse to eat or drink because of contests and besides that, are you trying to drink from a lawn sprinkler (your "WHARRGARBL").--Arisboch (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!. Christ. No. You're being a real fucking shithead here. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I propose to change the Wiki into "RationalWhenConvenientAndItSupportsMyWorldViewWiki", LOLz. --Arisboch (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- First you refuse to call it ad hominem, then call it ad hominem, then allege "personal" motives in people, who disagree with you. What the hell??--Arisboch (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
My main problems with this term[edit]
- It adds an unnecessary and largely irrelevant emphasis on warhawks' military careers or lack thereof. Being a warhawk should generally be a bad thing, not just when one hasn't had a military career (yet).
- It paints being a soldier in overly positive terms and dismisses people who don't want to put their life on the line as shameful cowards (and also perpetuates the stereotype that chickens are cowards). Um, hello? I didn't know we were in a military ad campaign.
141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why it's relevant, extracted from our article on war:
“”I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.
|
| —William Tecumseh Sherman, 1865 |
- ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- As I said before, if you want to argue that few warhawks have seen the true face of war, or else they wouldn't be so supportive of it, then fair enough. But joining the military is a farcry from being synonymous with going out on a journey to witness the horrors of war first-hand from the victims' perspective. That's mixing up being a soldier with being a war-zone photographer, methinks. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It's ill-defined, especially when applied to figures like Thatcher & Blair where there's no specific reason why they would be expected to have served in the military. It makes a lot more sense when applied to people like Donald Trump, who escaped a mandatory draft during a major conflict through a series of convenient (and somewhat suspicious) technicalities, but is now not only promulgating hawkish foreign policy but also making absurd comments about John McCain's service record. This is the sort of thing we should be citing instead of presenting a bare list of names. Ŵêâŝêîôîď
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- That sounds suspiciously like a good idea to improve the article. We were having a nice shouting match, thank you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Nice, but not really productive. It's easy to push other people into war if one gets only as close as some names on a spreadsheet to those people or those they care about. It doesn't mean only those who have served can have an opinion. However, the people who want to throw US troops at anyone who so much farts in the US's general direction should calm the fuck down. This isn't a movie or a video game. Especially those, like Trump, that are willing to throw troops at perceived slights and then drop veterans when they come home and need help. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
“”I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it.
|
| —WINSTON CHURCHILL, letter to a friend, 1916 |
- And before the question arises, yes the man saw action. There are people who go out of war and quite enjoy the experience. I can't comprehend it, and so can probably nobody who never fought in a war, but this feeling is real. And it is even more dangerous than Chickenhawkery, imho 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Churchill was a grade-A arsehole, though. It wouldn't surprise me that he would see horror and express glee. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't like Churchill's domestic policies for Britain or his Empire nostalgia one bit. But without him, I would probably never have been born, on account of my grandfather dying in the war. He was an asshole. But he was the right asshole at the right time. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Churchill was a grade-A arsehole, though. It wouldn't surprise me that he would see horror and express glee. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- And before the question arises, yes the man saw action. There are people who go out of war and quite enjoy the experience. I can't comprehend it, and so can probably nobody who never fought in a war, but this feeling is real. And it is even more dangerous than Chickenhawkery, imho 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
out of curiosity...[edit]
In what way are Samantha Power, Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton considered "chickenhawks"?
As a social democrat (and incidentally, an Army veteran), I'm not particularly a fan of any of them, but I don't think the label really applies here. The whole point of a chickenhawk, as opposed to just a regular war hawk, is that the person is a chicken- they've somehow successfully (usually actively) avoided military service themselves. Until relatively recently, women were generally unable to serve in the military (yes, I'm aware of women serving in things like the WAC and so forth, but still). When I think "chickenhawk", I think of loudly pro-war blowhards who are also draft dodgers like Cheney, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc, and especially the outrageous examples like Ted "Pants-shitter" Nugent or Rush "Anal Cyst" Limbaugh.
I guess I can understand, although I disagree with, the basis of the argument for why Clinton would be considered a hawk- because she voted in favor of the Iraq War? I hesitate to use that alone as a reason to label someone a chickenhawk though- Bush used manipulated intelligence and post-9/11 fears of being deemed "unpatriotic" to push through the Iraq authorization; additionally, Clinton has since stated she regrets making that vote (although I also understand that a lot of people, especially those who vehemently dislike her for whatever reason, do not accept this regret as genuine). --DarthBinky (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is no draft in the US anymore, so the "chickenhawk" "argument" became moot, unless you claim, that merely not volunteering to join the military and then endorsing military action is chickenhawkery, which would effectively mean, that one would either want to abolish the military or turn the country into a militarist regime (requiring politicians to participate in combat to fully participate in the political life of the country).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's part of my problem with this article- it does seem to conflate "you didn't volunteer and now are strongly pro-war" with "you dodged the draft and actively avoided serving in Vietnam but now are strongly pro-war". I agree that there's a difference there.
But that still doesn't address my initial query- how are a few women who are currently or formerly in the Obama Administration, who aren't necessarily strongly hawkish and were largely unable to serve*, considered "chickenhawks"? (the * is acknowledgement that some women did in fact serve, as previously stated) --DarthBinky (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're warhawks, but not really chickenhawks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
You all know that there is one country where the draft also applies to women, don't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Skimming a bit of the discussion, it now appears as if there has been considerable debate already as to the merits of the term and its applicability to several cases... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's actually a few countries that draft women (off the top of my head, Israel, North Korea, and Chad; and Norway recently legalized it, while Sweden is considering it), but that's not really relevant to this discussion. The whole point of the term is to point out the hypocrisy of successfully avoiding compulsory service during a war (namely Vietnam), only to be perfectly OK with sending other people to fight unnecessary wars (especially Iraq, and the current push to attack Iran). I agree with the previous discussions (which didn't cover the three specific women I asked about) that as the Vietnam generation continues to grow old and exit politics/die (it's been about 40 years since Vietnam ended, so those veterans are all in their 60s+ now), the term will probably fall out of use. But a lot of politicians/pundits of that generation are still going strong. --DarthBinky (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- In other words, pure ad hom.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't really understand fully what that whole argument was about (something about categories?), nor do I really care. --DarthBinky (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher[edit]
To be fair, British women were not allowed to enlist in the military when she was of military age. The first women in the British military enlisted when she was 44. Is it really fair to include her under these circumstances? Kentuckyball (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, it isn't.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly true in the case of the United Kingdom. Several units of women were formed during and after the World Wars.:
- Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps (1917-1921). Provided female personnel for auxiliary military positions such as clerks, cooks, cooks, telephonists, waitresses, and medical staff. Over 57,000 women served in this unit.
- Women's Royal Naval Service (1917-1919, 1939-1993). Provided female personnel for the Royal Navy. Members served in auxiliary positions such as cooks, clerks, wireless telegraphists, radar plotters, weapons analysts, range assessors, electricians and air mechanics. About 5.500 women served during World War I, 75,000 women during World II. The first member to actually serve on an operational warship did so in 1990, during the Gulf War. The service was merged into the Royal Navy in 1993.
- Women's Royal Air Force (1918-1920, 1949-1994). Provided female personnel for the Royal Air Force. Members served in auxiliary positions such as mechanics, and drivers. The force was merged into the Royal Air Force in 1994.
- Auxiliary Territorial Service (1938-1949). Provided female personnel for auxiliary military positions such as cooks, clerks, storekeepers, telephonists, orderlies, drivers, postal workers, ammunition inspectors, and anti-aircraft artillery personnel. Over 65,000 women served in this unit. Its most famous veteran is Queen Elizabeth II, who spend her service as a lorry (truck) driver.
- Women's Auxiliary Air Force (1939-1949). Provided female personnel for the Royal Air Force. Members served in auxiliary positions, such as parachute packing, crewing of barrage balloons, catering, meteorology, radar operations, aircraft maintenance, transport, communications duties including wireless telephonic and telegraphic operation, code and ciphers operations, reconnaissance photographs analysis, and intelligence operations. At least 180,000 women served this force during World War II, including both volunteers and those conscripted into service.
- Women's Royal Army Corps (1949-1992). The female branch of the British Army following World War II. Disbanded in 1992, with its members absorbed into other military units.
Margaret Thatcher was born in 1925 and was 20 years old at the end of World War II. She was eligible for service in one of these units, but neither volunteered, nor was ever conscripted. She spend the years 1943 to 1947 studying for a Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree in the Somerville College, Oxford and specializing in X-ray crystallography. She graduated in 1947, following the end of the war. She was reportedly the first British Prime Minister with a science degree of any kind. Dimadick (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- The thing is that none of these positions are actually fighting positions (Except maybe the last one but from a quick google search I did not find that to be so, correct me if I'm wrong). Chickenhawk I would imagine wouldn't refer to people who worked in administrative positions or as parachute packers, but would more refer to people who were on the front lines and have really seen the horrors of war. Kentuckyball (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)