This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not sure what you call a "distinction" but they certainly used terms that are not all-inclusive. If you're going to say there's freedom of the press, the term "press" doesn't include everything.
Saying something about the military implicitly distingushes between military things and non-military things. If the Air Force only became part of the military later and you are using your "after the fact" standard, then the Air Force would not be part of the military at the time the Constitution was written.
I don't know. You could make arguments for either one. I'd readily agree that we can't prove for certain which one. Some interpretation is inevitable here. But not an unlimited amount of interpretation.
But what are the actual clauses with actual words that go on to make further distinctions between things? Without that, your hypothetical isn't analogous.
Then at least try. Because right now, you're not even trying, and it's becoming ever clearer that it's because you can't. Because the Air Force just isn't authorized. It doesn't fit.
Don't worry, though. There's an easy fix. It's why we have Article V. Literally everybody really wants to have a legal Air Force. You want it so bad that you're tying yourself in knots trying to imagine that you already have it, when you clearly can't even come up with a half-hearted argument for it. Nobody is going to get in the way of passing an amendment to finally make it constitutional.
If I try, you'll argue whatever example I give, even though whether I am right or wrong about the examples is irrelevant.
But sure.
If the government can fund an army and a navy, then when the Air Force is invented, we decide whether it's more like an army or navy for the purposes of being able to fund it. Fortunately, the government is permitted to fund both, so this is easy: the government can fund one.
The army is funded in 2 year intervals and the navy isn't. We say "well, the navy has ships that require maintenance and shouldn't be destroyed after a 2 year period just because we're at peace. The air force has planes that are also expensive and require maintenance, so it is more like a navy than an army in this regard and does not need to be funded in 2 year intervals".
On the other hand, the President is described as the commander in chief of the army and the navy. When you try to decide whether the air force is more like an army or navy there, you notice that the army and navy are treated the same way--he's commander in chief of both of them--so regardless of which one an air force is more like, the president is commander in chief of it.
It is not a question of "being able to fund it". It's a question of whether it's authorized in the first place. So, is it an Army or a Navy?
Same answer. We decide whether it's more like the army or navy for the purpose of being authorized. As both of them are authorized, the answer is easy: it's authorized either way.
You're not giving me an answer. Is it an Army or a Navy? Saying "we decide" isn't an answer. What is your hypothetical decision? What are the reasons?
It is trivially an army: it was originally the Army Air Force and was only separated from the Army for bureaucratic convenience.
Do you think it also satisfies the clauses that describe "land and naval Forces"? Is it a land Force or a naval Force?
It is obviously a land force as demonstrated by its fixed assets (bases, airfields, etc). That some of its units are temporarily airborne doesn't change this fact anymore than the fact that a person who is running temporarily loses all contact with the ground would make running soldiers no longer part of an army.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link