History Repeats Itself

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by LDUB

No, I'm pretty sure face rape is listed in the definitions in rule 2. It is somewhere right in there between clipping, down, fair catch, and foul. I've never seen it on the signal chart though. The proper signal must be personal foul, face mask, then disqualification (as a face rape by definition is flagrant).

LOL so to point out a rule, you're going to reference a youtube video of an announcer complaining? whatever...

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

LOL so to point out a rule, you're going to reference a youtube video of an announcer complaining? whatever...

I'm sorry, you can now go back to telling everyone how soldiers encouraged to kill and how rape is much worse that murder.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I'm sorry, you can now go back to telling everyone how soldiers encouraged to kill and how rape is much worse that murder.

Uh..... Thank you?

[tomegun]

Dan, your post was very well put.

Juulie, I also disagree with you, but it is nothing to start a war over - bad joke.
The many rules we follow before we engage the enemy are very frustrating to me. We have the capability to give the non-combatants time to get out, destroy the enemy and then build their (whoever the enemy is at the time) area up again. This would probably cost the taxpayers less money overall and would definitely save more lives. IMHO, young men and women are killed because we play by the rules while our enemies do not. Another point I would like you to consider, although you probably already have, is the fact that without our military we would more than likely be under constant attack and/or not have the freedoms we enjoy today.

[dblref]

I am a veteran, a viet nam tour, and I am also anti-war. However, my country called (1964), and I answered.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LDUB

I'm sorry, you can now go back to telling everyone how soldiers encouraged to kill and how rape is much worse that murder.

Show some class.

Personally, I may disagree with rainmaker's political opinion here, but I really didn't find her analogy all that off base. While it may have shown either an unfamiliarity with military issues or simply imprecise word choices; her point was actually on target.

While we certainly train many in our military to be able to kill when necessary, rape is always off limits for our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen; whether in combat zones or out.

It's a particularly heinous crime for many reasons. For a non-military example, let's just look at the simple fact that when murderers get out of jail, there is a possibility of ending their requirements for state tracking (parole). Sex-offenders aren't afforded that possibility, for good reason.

I could start in about how this past weekends church shootings show that the use of force is sometimes necessary, but that might lead to a debate for which this board isn't suited.

[rainmaker]

My point was simply, as Snaqs and others agreed with, to respond to Rufus' comment that we seem to feel that "They're raping us!" is more offensive than "They're killing us!" I only said the part about my anti-war opinion because I felt I needed to explain my own inaccurate characterization of killing in the military. That mistake doesn't change the comparison of rape to killing and the relative ethical and offensive impact of those acts, and consequently of those accusations.

Snaqs is right that this is not the place to discuss the whys and wherefores of military or non-military or anti-military whatever.

[just another ref]

Specifics aside, can we just say that the term kill is considered to be more socially acceptable than the term rape, even when everyone knows that the use is figurative? For example, if a 6 year old child is asked about the results of his first soccer game, and responds "We killed 'em!" one's response might be to smile and pat the child on the head. If that same child had said, "We raped 'em!" one would probably be inclined to suggest that the child not use that term in that context.

Bottom line: Sometimes you have to treat a coach like you would treat a 6 year old child.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Bottom line: Sometimes you have to treat a coach like you would treat a 6 year old child.

As a general guideline, this is a great recommendation. Except for the phrase, "Okay??" As in, "Stay in your box, okay?" "We're calling what we see, coach, okay?" Works with many 6 year olds. Very bad with any coach!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

As a general guideline, this is a great recommendation. Except for the phrase, "Okay??" As in, "Stay in your box, okay?" "We're calling what we see, coach, okay?" Works with many 6 year olds. Very bad with any coach!

I have been told that okay in this context is not proper, even with kids. (even though we all have said it at times) The use of "okay" indicates that the agreement and/or approval of the other person is necessary, which in this case, it is not. They say that it is infinitely better to say "Stay in your box, understand?"