Boss: I’d rather employ a paedo than a veteran

[Agelastus]

We do not have the equivalent of Arlington. The USA, as you have pointed out, does not have the equivalent of a Tatoo. You have used the existence of the Tatoo as evidence that Britain has events closer to North Korea's than the fire safety show in New York, despite the fact that I have never related the event itself to North Korean practises.

We have many Arlingtons.  They're in Flanders.  Menin Gate serves a similar purpose in our national identity I think.

In the commemorative sense yes. As an ongoing official source of internment and national pride no. We tend to do things "after the fact", Arlington is doing something "before the fact" as it were. That's an essential point of the distinction between the two, in my mind.

And unfortunately, there's an awful lot of people in Britain these days who would not even recognise the term "Menin Gate". To them, it's dead and gone. 

Arlington itself is alive, and is kept deliberately so by usage, in the minds of modern Americans. Or so it seems to me as a non-American.

[Sheilbh]

In the commemorative sense yes. As an ongoing official source of internment and national pride no. We tend to do things "after the fact", Arlington is doing something "before the fact" as it were. That's an essential point of the distinction between the two, in my mind.

And unfortunately, there's an awful lot of people in Britain these days who would not even recognise the term "Menin Gate". To them, it's dead and gone. 

I thought Arlington was established during or shortly after the American Civil War?  Incidentally I think in terms of psychological importance to our nations the Civil War and WW1 are similarly defining conflicts.

I'm not sure about people forgetting, hundreds of thousands of school children go to Flanders every year and though they may forget the name 'Menin Gate' I've never met anyone who went and wasn't moved - they've not forgot the feeling, the pity.

[Agelastus]

I thought Arlington was established during or shortly after the American Civil War?

I believe it was, but I also think the original remit was deliberately broader than that of the Commonwealth War Graves commission.

Incidentally I think in terms of psychological importance to our nations the Civil War and WW1 are similarly defining conflicts.

I can't argue with you there, not at all. Perhaps even more so than WWI was for us, in fact. Without doing a full analysis I can't be certain, but the impression I have from Languish is that Americans bring up the Civil War more often than Britons bring up WWI.

I'm not sure about people forgetting, hundreds of thousands of school children go to Flanders every year and though they may forget the name 'Menin Gate' I've never met anyone who went and wasn't moved - they've not forgot the feeling, the pity.

And hundreds of thousands don't. I've never been there, but I can easily imagine myself breaking down and weeping if I came across my Great-grandfather's grave (he was killed on the Somme three months after my grandfather was born, and I am fairly certain he never saw his son.  )

But I also study history for pleasure, which is not as common as it should be in Britain.

I've worked alongside a couple of otherwise bright and intelligent people who think history is meaningless and who would not know what the "Menin Gate" was, is or should mean. I've met even more, idiots and intelligent alike, who have a similar attitude. I think even our politicians are worrying about this forgetfulness now the last of the veterans are dead; am I right in remembering proposals recently for making Remembrance Day explicitly a day for remembering all soldiers killed, not just those during the two world wars?

[DGuller]

Opinions can be changed with facts.

[Agelastus]

Opinions can be changed with facts.

Glad you're amused at this. And after I felt sympathy for you after you were ganged up on in the thread on the Toyota recall as well...

[DGuller]

Opinions can be changed with facts.

Glad you're amused at this. And after I felt sympathy for you after you were ganged up on in the thread on the Toyota recall as well...

I hope you don't think I was laughing at you or your arguments.

[Agelastus]

Opinions can be changed with facts.

Glad you're amused at this. And after I felt sympathy for you after you were ganged up on in the thread on the Toyota recall as well...

I hope you don't think I was laughing at you or your arguments.

I may have misunderstood. Sorry.

[DGuller]

I may have misunderstood. Sorry.

No problem.  I was just using your statement as a launching point to vent my frustration at the level of discourse, both in real life politics, and recently on Languish.

[grumbler]

Opinions can be changed with facts. Conclusions are final. Is that too hard to understand? 

In American English, conclusions are not final, and are opinions.  There are, as wordweb notes, "a position or opinion or judgment reached after consideration."  Is that so hard to understand?

The fact that, in British English, it is no longer possible to consider changing a conclusion may help explain why so few Brits win scientific Nobel Prizes these days - you guys have defined away a critical part of the scientific method.

Westminster Abbey and Arlington's only similarity is that important people are buried there. Comparing a location that has become important for burials due to accidents of history to one specifically established for that function is what I consider obtuse about your position.

What is obtuse is that your "difference" does not even differentiate between the two things you consider so different! 

If you have a point to make about Arlington cemetery, please feel free to make it.  After dancing around the point for three posts, it certainly isn't too soon.

Brookwood's cemetary is related to the memorials around the world for WWI and WWII; I am fairly sure that the USA has its share of war memorials for those two particular conflicts too. Arlington is still in use and has a much broader remit, so again a direct comparison between the two is somewhat invidious. Which is, of course, why your mention of the cenotaph has no relevance either, as would be any mention I could make of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Still don't understand why we are even talking about cemeteries. Care to make a point?

Aldershot's a garrison town, and has been for centuries. I'd be more surprised if there wasn't a military cemetery there. It is also not a  perhaps the best term is "designated national military cemetery" so again the two aren't really comparable. As far as I am aware Arlington's location is due to a battle rather than to it being near a long standing garrison, although I would be happy to be corrected on this point if this is not the case.

Still don't understand why we are even talking about cemeteries. Care to make a point?

We do not have the equivalent of Arlington. The USA, as you have pointed out, does not have the equivalent of a Tatoo. You have used the existence of the Tatoo as evidence that Britain has events closer to North Korea's than the fire safety show in New York, despite the fact that I have never related the event itself to North Korean practises.

Britain does not have the exact equivalent of Arlington, but then one would not expect it to - it is another country, located on another continent.  It has cemeteries very similar to Arlington, though.  Aldershot is identical in function, insofar as I can tell, save for the state funeral types things you very occasionally see at Arlington, which are carried out at Westminster Abbey instead.

But I still don't understand why we are even talking about cemeteries. Care to make a point about them?

The US has nothing like Trooping the Colours or the Military Tatoo, true.

On the other hand, if you are using the Tatoos as you have been doing as an example of reverence for the military that could be seen as excessive, then raising the issue of Arlington is entirely germane to the subject, and you are trying to avoid admitting this.

You keep saying that the existence of Arlington cemetery is "germane" but this is mere argument by assertion.  You have to make it germane to an actual point in contention.

All I can and will say here is that I can now read a thread on Languish and come to a point where I can tell exactly when you will post and ninety percent of the time what type of post it will be. That's why I used the term "one schtick wonder". All I can advise you to do is go back and reread a few of the threads you have added your wisdom too in the last few months.

I have done so.  Now, you go back and reread the posts you have made, and count the number of times you have engaged in personal attacks, strawmanning, and ad hominim arguments.  You see a complete absence of those from me.  Why?  Because for me, this is all intellectual, it isn't personal.  I have no ego invested in this board.

After all, I've pretty much already said I constructed the original post deliberately to exclude the possibility of this type of spurious argumentative behaviour on your part, and all I can say is that I regret it failed to achieve its purpose.

Well, work on your language skills, and maybe you can do better next time.

For5 example, if you are eventually going to have to concede that "as far as I am aware Arlington's location is due to a battle" - a statement completely at odds with reality, and "although I would be happy to be corrected on this point if this is not the case," then one should never, ever tell another poster (who is aware of why both Arlington exists and Westminster Abbey exists) that "If you equate Westminster Abbey with Arlington, then you are being surprisingly obtuse. I'd consider the history of their establishment before considering the two as being beasts of the same ilk."  Given that you later demonstrate you are ignorant of the history of the establishment of Arlington Cemetery, the earlier crack just sounds absurd (particularly when the whole "equate" thing is a bit of a strawman anyway).

Not that you ever made the references to Arlington Cemetery relevant to the discussion anyway.

[Agelastus]

Still don't understand why we are even talking about cemeteries. Care to make a point?

Since I've made it three times, and you are the one who persist in bringing up cemeteries, no.

I have done so.  Now, you go back and reread the posts you have made, and count the number of times you have engaged in personal attacks, strawmanning, and ad hominim arguments.  You see a complete absence of those from me.  Why?  Because for me, this is all intellectual, it isn't personal.  I have no ego invested in this board.

Well, apart from the appropriate  response at the comment that you do not engage in strawmanning and ad hominem arguments, or that you have no ego invested in the board when you demonstrably do, the simple fact is that you, personally, irritate me, and have done so since your inappropriate comments on the death of Robert Jordan. Hence my lack of patience with your standard tactics these days.

Even though, as I have said before, there's a large area of broad agreement between us.

For5 example, if you are eventually going to have to concede that "as far as I am aware Arlington's location is due to a battle" - a statement completely at odds with reality, and "although I would be happy to be corrected on this point if this is not the case," then one should never, ever tell another poster (who is aware of why both Arlington exists and Westminster Abbey exists) that "If you equate Westminster Abbey with Arlington, then you are being surprisingly obtuse. I'd consider the history of their establishment before considering the two as being beasts of the same ilk."  Given that you later demonstrate you are ignorant of the history of the establishment of Arlington Cemetery, the earlier crack just sounds absurd (particularly when the whole "equate" thing is a bit of a strawman anyway).

Yes, that is a fair point. My mind was dwelling on a shoddy reference from a book with a declamatory speech from someone standing in the cemetery running something like "over that hill blah, blah, blah Americans died" as if a battlefield was part of the grounds. The land was, of course, part of Robert E. Lee's estate, confiscated for use as a military cemetery. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't change the fact that comparing the two locations is a case of apples and oranges, which you still will not admit.

Not that you ever made the references to Arlington Cemetery relevant to the discussion anyway.

Not that you ever made references to the Edinburgh tatoo relevant, you mean?

Well, let's try again then...

If you bring up something that one country does that another doesn't as something that is closer to North Korea than anything your own country does, then one should not be surprised if something your country has that another doesn't is brought up in response. Or were you not aware that North Korea has a Revolutionary Martyrs Cemetery? China has a similar institution as well. Britain doesn't. Westminster Abbey, the example you brought up initially, hasn't had a Royal buried there since George II. The other burials are a somewhat eclectic bunch, having nothing of the unity of purpose of the burials at Arlington or the Revolutionary Martyrs cemetery.

But since you are insistent on saying that I have compared the firefighters event itself in New York with North Korean practises when a simple perusal of my original post more than demonstrates that I didn't, I don't suppose anything I say will get through to you.

[grumbler]

Since I've made it three times, and you are the one who persist in bringing up cemeteries, no. 

Okay, cemeteries are not relevant.  Excellent.

Well, apart from the appropriate  response at the comment that you do not engage in strawmanning and ad hominem arguments, or that you have no ego invested in the board when you demonstrably do

Please demonstrate, then. 

Shuld be easy.  Just find the posts with stawmen, ad hominem arguments, and that demonstrate ego-involvement, and post links here.

the simple fact is that you, personally, irritate me, and have done so since your inappropriate comments on the death of Robert Jordan. Hence my lack of patience with your standard tactics these days.

Boo fucking hoo.    I didn't post any inappropriate comments about the death of Robert Jordan, and if you had such an emotional investment in the man that you see any critical remarks as "inappropriate," that is your problem, not mine.

Yes, that is a fair point. My mind was dwelling on a shoddy reference from a book with a declamatory speech from someone standing in the cemetery running something like "over that hill blah, blah, blah Americans died" as if a battlefield was part of the grounds. The land was, of course, part of Robert E. Lee's estate, confiscated for use as a military cemetery. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't change the fact that comparing the two locations is a case of apples and oranges, which you still will not admit.

Fortunately, cemeteries have no relevance here, so we need not debate the ways in which The Abbey and Arlington Cemetery are similar and different. 

If you bring up something that one country does that another doesn't as something that is closer to North Korea than anything your own country does, then one should not be surprised if something your country has that another doesn't is brought up in response.

Or were you not aware that North Korea has a Revolutionary Martyrs Cemetery? China has a similar institution as well. Britain doesn't. Westminster Abbey, the example you brought up initially, hasn't had a Royal buried there since George II. The other burials are a somewhat eclectic bunch, having nothing of the unity of purpose of the burials at Arlington or the Revolutionary Martyrs cemetery.

  The US does not have a "Revolutionary Martyrs Cemetery."  There is no "unity of purpose" to burials at Arlington National Cemetery.  The vast majority of those buried there were grunts, not "martyrs" of any sort.  There are the occasional "big men" buried there, but then that is true of Westminster Abbey as well.

Was this the reason you brought up Arlington Cemetery?  To try to compare it to North Korea's Revolutionary Martyrs Cemetery?  In what way does Arlington Cemetary resemble RMC in which Aldershot Military Cemetery does not (other than having the occasional "big funeral" which in Britain would be at Westminster Abbey)?

[Agelastus]

Should be easy.  Just find the posts with strawmen, ad hominem arguments, and that demonstrate ego-involvement, and post links here.

You won't mind if I include casual insults, will you? You know, the thing you pointed out I was doing that you don't indulge in?

After all, in the last thirty minutes I've caught up on threads which contain at least two such examples merely from today.

Boo fucking hoo.    I didn't post any inappropriate comments about the death of Robert Jordan, and if you had such an emotional investment in the man that you see any critical remarks as "inappropriate," that is your problem, not mine.

Your words were along the lines of you imagining him tripping happily off to his grave pleased that he didn't have to finish his work (roughly, since the original words died with the old database.) You didn't seem to find anything wrong with what you had said then, and you still don't seem to now. I wouldn't have minded at all if you had criticised his writing, or some other aspect of his life, but what you said about his death was in extremely poor taste.

  The US does not have a "Revolutionary Martyrs Cemetery."  There is no "unity of purpose" to burials at Arlington National Cemetery.  The vast majority of those buried there were grunts, not "martyrs" of any sort.  There are the occasional "big men" buried there, but then that is true of Westminster Abbey as well.

The vast majority of those buried there are from the Armed Forces, correct? Do you not consider that a unity of purpose compared to your average cemetery? Are residents local to the area who are not military personnel buried at Arlington as well then?

Arlington, when you consider as well the existence of parts of the site such as the National Memorial Amphitheatre, sounds as close to North Korean practise as the Edinburgh Tatoo does. Neither of them are very close at all, of course, but you are the one who brought the Tatoo up, not me.

As for Aldershot -

It is unlike any other military cemetery in the United Kingdom, for not only is it set on hills and small valleys in natural surrounds, but here, at rest, lie fighting men of nine nations, who have served and died in Aldershot.

Here, in surroundings familiar during their soldiering days are the graves of the fighting men of all ranks and many nations, who have served, lived and died in Aldershot. Some of service personnel having died in the nearby Cambridge Military Hospital, from wounds or disease contracted while on active service overseas.

The key point being that the majority of people buried at Aldershot died locally, they were not brought back from around the world specifically to be buried there. Families of the deceased are also buried there, which I do not believe to be the case at Arlington either. I consider these points to be key differences between the purpose of Aldershot and the purpose of Arlington.

So to recap.

Britain has the Edinburgh Tatoo, which you have stated is something that the USA does not do, and have stated that it is a ceremony closer to North Korean practises than the firefighter event in New York. Why you felt the need to state this is beyond me, given I had specifically separated out three actions from the whole for my thought experiment, but that is somewhat moot at this point. I then pointed out that Britain does not have a National Cemetery in the mold of Arlington, whereas North Korea does have a specifically National cemetery as well. It is, of course, far more extreme than anything at Arlington, but then I am sure that both you and I are aware that an actual North Korean ceremony is more extreme than anything at the Edinburgh Tatoo. You have tried to refute the point that the USA has something closer to the North Korean practise than Britain does by bringing up various British cemeteries to counter this point. Unfortunately for you, as Britain does not have a National Cemetery, you have singularly failed to support your contention in this case.

Satisfied now?

[grumbler]

Should be easy.  Just find the posts with strawmen, ad hominem arguments, and that demonstrate ego-involvement, and post links here.

You won't mind if I include casual insults, will you? You know, the thing you pointed out I was doing that you don't indulge in?

After all, in the last thirty minutes I've caught up on threads which contain at least two such examples merely from today.

Boo fucking hoo.    I didn't post any inappropriate comments about the death of Robert Jordan, and if you had such an emotional investment in the man that you see any critical remarks as "inappropriate," that is your problem, not mine.

Still waiting for the examples of strawmen, ad hominem arguments, and posts that demonstrate ego-involvement.  This utterly fails the test.

Your words were along the lines of you imagining him tripping happily off to his grave pleased that he didn't have to finish his work (roughly, since the original words died with the old database.) You didn't seem to find anything wrong with what you had said then, and you still don't seem to now. I wouldn't have minded at all if you had criticised his writing, or some other aspect of his life, but what you said about his death was in extremely poor taste.

Nope, I didn't say that I imagining him tripping happily off to his grave pleased that he didn't have to finish his work.  You'll have to make up a more plausible lie; I am one of the few here that have stated the desire too finish the series.

The vast majority of those buried there are from the Armed Forces, correct? Do you not consider that a unity of purpose compared to your average cemetery? Are residents local to the area who are not military personnel buried at Arlington as well then?

Nope, I find that the unity of purpose of cemeteries is to bury the dead.  Arlington Cemetery allows the extension of a federal veterans benefit (free funerals) but that is something most Americans don't even know about.  The overwhelming majority of service members and vets are buried in family plots, as I imagine is probably the case in Britain.

Arlington, when you consider as well the existence of parts of the site such as the National Memorial Amphitheatre, sounds as close to North Korean practise as the Edinburgh Tatoo does.

Never heard of it, and I suspect you never had either.  What is your point in bringing up the "National Memorial Amphitheatre?"  And why does it have the British -tre ending to its name?  I had heard of the Edinburgh Tatoo and Trooping the Colours before, though.

The key point being that the majority of people buried at Aldershot died locally, they were not brought back from around the world specifically to be buried there. Families of the deceased are also buried there, which I do not believe to be the case at Arlington either. I consider these points to be key differences between the purpose of Aldershot and the purpose of Arlington.

The vast majority of those in Arlington died here in the US, and were not brought back specifically to be buried there.  Spouses can be buried in National Cemeteries, but not children.  As for Arlington in particular, I don't know if they are allowed any more for space reasons.   I don't see any key differences between Aldershot and Arlington (or any of the other 146 US National Cemeteries) that are not also differences between them and the North Korean Martyrs cemetery

Britain has the Edinburgh Tatoo, which you have stated is something that the USA does not do, and have stated that it is a ceremony closer to North Korean practises than the firefighter event in New York. Why you felt the need to state this is beyond me, given I had specifically separated out three actions from the whole for my thought experiment, but that is somewhat moot at this point.

So far, so good.  The comparison of the fire safety week event to North Korea is now moot.  Agreed.  Can we make the issue of North Korea moot as well?  I never understood why you thought it useful to bring them into the discussion.

I

then pointed out that Britain does not have a National Cemetery in the mold of Arlington, whereas North Korea does have a specifically National cemetery as well.

And I pointed out that the North Korean cemetery seemed about as close to Aldershot + Westminster Abbey as it did to US National Cemeteries, but you never addressed why there was any significance to these cemeteries at all, so I have no idea what comparison is being made.  "X is More like Y than Z is" isn't a useful observation when one doesn't know what about them is being compared.  Types of trees that grow there?   Overall size?  Density of graves?

It is, of course, far more extreme than anything at Arlington, but then I am sure that both you and I are aware that an actual North Korean ceremony is more extreme than anything at the Edinburgh Tatoo.

Again, saying that a military formation in Edinburgh or London is more like a military event in Pyongyang than a fire safety week in New York is like a military event in Pyongyang doesn't seem to me difficult to grasp.  What is difficult to grasp is why we are comparing anything to anything in North Korea.

You have tried to refute the point that the USA has something closer to the North Korean practise than Britain does by bringing up various British cemeteries to counter this point. Unfortunately for you, as Britain does not have a National Cemetery, you have singularly failed to support your contention in this case.

Since I have sen nothing in this debate that has anything to do with the national nature of any given cemetery, I can only observe that my contention is that cemeteries are where people are buried, and that Britain's lack of a national cemetery wherein people are buried doesn't mean that my contention is unsupported.

Satisfied now?

I still don't know why we were dicussing North Korea or cemeteries, but I can't say I really care all that much.

I'd still like to see this evidence of me engaging in strawmen, ad hominem arguments, and ego-involvement.  So far you have you have "singularly failed to support your contention in this case," to borrow a phrase.

[Agelastus]

Nope, I didn't say that I imagining him tripping happily off to his grave pleased that he didn't have to finish his work.  You'll have to make up a more plausible lie; I am one of the few here that have stated the desire too finish the series.

I do not lie. You wrote what you wrote. You have denied writing it before. As you are well aware, unless the old database can be revived, neither of us can prove the other wrong.

So it comes down to how good our respective memories are. Since you do not recall the post in question, I suspect mine is better. You will, of course, disagree with me.

Never heard of it, and I suspect you never had either.  What is your point in bringing up the "National Memorial Amphitheatre?"  And why does it have the British -tre ending to its name?  I had heard of the Edinburgh Tatoo and Trooping the Colours before, though.

My apologies. That should, of course, be Arlington Memorial Amphitheater, although I am surprised you did not realise what I was talking about given your own knowledge of Arlington. The picture on Wikipedia suggests it is quite an imposing monument.

The vast majority of those in Arlington died here in the US, and were not brought back specifically to be buried there.  Spouses can be buried in National Cemeteries, but not children.  As for Arlington in particular, I don't know if they are allowed any more for space reasons.   I don't see any key differences between Aldershot and Arlington (or any of the other 146 US National Cemeteries) that are not also differences between them and the North Korean Martyrs cemetery.

Until you fully consider the implications of having a cemetery officially designated as "national", I am sure you will not.

So far, so good.  The comparison of the fire safety week event to North Korea is now moot.  Agreed.  Can we make the issue of North Korea moot as well?  I never understood why you thought it useful to bring them into the discussion.

Genuinely for the last time, I repeat, I extracted three actions from the event as a whole for a thought. You are the one who persisted in ignoring the fact that I had taken these actions in isolation and persisted in arguing as if I had directly compared the firemen's event to North Korea.

So if you want to drop North Korea, feel free to, since the fuss was on your side only.

...

I deleted all of the above due to the simple reason that it was more "why are we discussing North Korea" stuff when it was you who brought up comparisons of specific events with North Korean practise in the first place. If you do not understand why we are discussing it, do not bring it up.

Are we done now?

[dps]

The vast majority of those in Arlington died here in the US, and were not brought back specifically to be buried there.  Spouses can be buried in National Cemeteries, but not children.  As for Arlington in particular, I don't know if they are allowed any more for space reasons.   I don't see any key differences between Aldershot and Arlington (or any of the other 146 US National Cemeteries) that are not also differences between them and the North Korean Martyrs cemetery.

Until you fully consider the implications of having a cemetery officially designated as "national", I am sure you will not.

The implication is that it's a cemetary established by the national government.  Of course, I don't know whether or not grumbler has fully considered this or not.