Qualifications of a Naval Officer
It is by no means enough that an officer of the Navy should be a capable mariner. He must be that, of course, but also a great deal more. He should be as well a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor.
He should be the soul of tact, patience, justice, firmness, kindness, and charity. No meritorious act of a subordinate should escape his attention or be left to pass without its reward, even if the reward is only a word of approval. Conversely, he should not be blind to a single fault in any subordinate, though at the same time, he should be quick and unfailing to distinguish error from malice, thoughtfulness from incompetency, and well meant shortcomings from heedless or stupid.
In one word, every commander should keep constantly before him the great truth, that to be well obeyed, he must be perfectly esteemed.
Written by Augustus C. Buell in 1900 to reflect his views of John Paul Jones (from Reef Points: 2003-2004, 98th Edition [Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Academy, 2003])
---------------------------------------------------
Every midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy knows these words. Obviously not every Naval officer lives up to them. That doesn't diminish their importance. Why do I post this now? Simple… I invite all members of this committee of correspondence to strive to live by these words, especially those I put in bold, in our conversations with each other at SST.
I have noticed a few more rudely argumentative conversations on SST lately. I'm all for lively discussion, witty comebacks and even occasional ribald humor, but we can easily forget that we are, in effect, sitting in Colonel Lang's living room when we do this. Being rude or smart assed to the host or other guests should be seen as an unthinkable breach of etiquette and a smear on our personal honor.
TTG
You forget, I was raised by a lesbian couple. I don't think my mother should be able to marry her girlfriend though. Your exception does not mean the rule - that male homosexual couples are more often than not extremely hedonistic and polyamorous, is invalidated. Look up bug chasing and gift giving (gay men attempting to catch AIDS on purpose) if you want to see the height of degeneracy.
No one has a 'right' to marry whoever they want to. Explain to me how that right precludes incest or polyamy? Gay people have the same right you do to marry someone: as long as its not another member of the same sex. 'Pursuit of happiness' is not another way of saying ' do whatever I want'.
I'm offended by the Chocolate Messiah's many attempts to undermine our country and his Imperial Rule, much like I was offended when the Shrub did it. No despots, no tyrants - ever.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 June 2013 at 11:26 AM
"He should be as well a gentleman of liberal education, refined manners, punctilious courtesy, and the nicest sense of personal honor.
He should be the soul of tact, patience, justice, firmness, kindness, and charity."
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/06/the-nicest-sense-of-personal-honor-ttg.html#tpe-action-resize-392
Tyler, you consistently violate these rules of civil behavior in your posts. I am a regular here - for several years longer than you - and you have treated me to your verbal "hammer and tongs" more than once for "disagreeing with [you] peaceably".
TTG's post (thanks!) - and the public warning from Col. Lang a few weeks ago to you & EA - have reminded me to be careful with my own writing style (I'm prone to snide, caustic "wit" - and ask forgiveness from any here who I may have insulted).
Tyler, please re-read TTG's original post, and be more careful with your communication in the future.
Posted by: elkern | 27 June 2013 at 12:49 PM
The Shock Doctrine, as described in Niomi Klein, is being implemented in the US, more slowly than it was originally foisted on Chile in the 70s, by both Republican and Democratic administrations. On this we agree. I was giving you crap for mentioning only one side, the liberal, of the criminal equation, though I know you are aware of both sides working in unison. Look at how much of the military/security complex has been contracted to private corporations. Detroit may have to sell off all its assets to pay its bondholders in full, including the paintings in its art museum. In the New World Order, there is no such thing as a bad investment for the 1 percent, only an opportunity to accumulate more valuable assets.
Posted by: optimax | 27 June 2013 at 01:13 PM
Elk earn
I think the Catch here is "Naval Officer" versus the large subset of Army/Marine commentators.
We all come from different life experiences to learn from each others views expressing in different mannerisms. Now while Tyler likes to play the Rogue at times just do not get caught up in the back and forth as he always has the the last comment plus the man has a way with words knowing how to place the knife properly.
I have never known a Army man with "the nicest sense of Personal Honor" they have and are bound by Honor but Nice...come on.
Posted by: Bobo | 27 June 2013 at 02:13 PM
Tyler
Thank you for sharing ..
Posted by: Alba Etie | 27 June 2013 at 03:25 PM
With you there Tyler , not a dime's worth of difference .
Posted by: Alba Etie | 27 June 2013 at 03:27 PM
Well I've yet to see any right wing sophists come through here - just deluded neocons.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 June 2013 at 04:36 PM
Elkern, you constantly make up facts out of whole cloth, refuse to provide sources, ignore facts that contradict your world view, argue past your opponent, strawman horribly, adhom, and refuse to concede when you're proven wrong.
In other words, you're a disingeneous sophist shill at best and doing it AGAIN by wrapping yourself in victim status while claiming you're merely 'peacefully disagreeing'. If you want to improve yourself, look at how alba etie discusses with people he disagrees with.
"be more careful.."? Who the hell are you to give me orders on this forum? Put your female shaming language back in your purse and remove the beam from thy own eye before complaining about the mote in mine.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 June 2013 at 04:44 PM
The Court addressed itself to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, not the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The VRA was not overturned, but it certainly was gutted.
Thank you, TTG, for the original post. I appreciate Buell’s use of “nicest” – a Jane Austenish usage that has mostly gone out of fashion. A nice way to remind us all to be nice......
Posted by: Stephanie | 27 June 2013 at 05:52 PM
Bobo
"... I have never known a Army man with "the nicest sense of Personal Honor" they have and are bound by Honor but Nice...come on." I think that is a bit much. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 27 June 2013 at 06:54 PM
This thread would not be the right place for inter-service rivalry.
Posted by: elkern | 27 June 2013 at 07:31 PM
Oh, well, I tried. My "purse"? Whatever.
One point: I did NOT give you "orders", I asked politely.
SSTers: am I outta line here, or is Tyler?
Posted by: elkern | 27 June 2013 at 07:39 PM
There goes another good idea down the drain.
Posted by: optimax | 27 June 2013 at 07:42 PM
Stephanie,
Thanks for the clarification, I did mistake the bill. Why do you think the VRA is gutted when the court simply decided that separate but equal doesn't apply to states.
Posted by: Fred | 27 June 2013 at 08:02 PM
Excellent observations on all counts.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 June 2013 at 08:08 PM
If you were trying to disprove what I said about you, I don't think arguing past your opponent and ignoring facts that go against your worldview is the way to do it.
Also nice argumentum ad populum fallacy. (Mangling the Latin I know - mea culpa). Your asking was passive aggressive as hell coming at the end of a long list of tears.
Playing the victim is not an attractive sight on a grown ass man. I may be rogue, but at least I own it and argue from facts.
Posted by: Tyler | 27 June 2013 at 08:17 PM
Bobo,
I am not a native speaker of English. Thus, possibly, I cannot see how you equate being "nice" with having the "nicest sense of Personal Honor".
I have met many infantrymen with "nicest sense of Personal Honor", and quite a few with "exquisite sense of Personal Honor". All were/are quite touchy about this "personal honor". I recommend that you look through some cartoons of Bill Mauldin. Don't you think Willie and Joe do, indeed, have "nicest sense of Personal Honor"?
Ishmael Zechariah
BTW I do agree, and thank, TTG.
Posted by: Ishmael Zechariah | 28 June 2013 at 01:16 AM
So those who were enlisted or civilians have no sense of personal honor? I sure hope that's not a common belief.
Posted by: Fred | 28 June 2013 at 08:01 AM
Tyler,
Nonsense. You don't always argue from facts. I've personally called you out several times for misstating and making up things. One stands out: You jumped down someone's throat about using the homosexuality of Sparta in defense of an argument about gays in the military. Your answer was that the Spartans treated their women worse than the Punjabi. That's not factual. They had the highest status of any women in the ancient world. So you were arguing from stuff you made up, not facts.
Here's another example, from your post. An argumentum ad populum is a fallacy that argues that something must be true because people think it's true. (Nine out of ten doctors who smoke smoke Camels, therefore Camels must be safe.) You got the Latin correct but the idea wrong.
In appealing to us, Elkern is asking a question not making an argumentum ad populum.
Posted by: shepherd | 28 June 2013 at 02:53 PM
Oh, and my bad. I believe you said Pashtun, not Punjabi. I'd guess there are plenty of people on this board ready to explain the difference to me.
Posted by: shepherd | 28 June 2013 at 03:53 PM
Hi Ishmael
Hope you and Kunuri are well and safe.
Good to see you posting here .
Posted by: Alba Etie | 28 June 2013 at 09:46 PM
Tyler
I stated both couples are in long term committed monogamous relationships , and as such should have all the same rights afforded to them under marriage as my wife and me. Additionally I can take you to a 'swingers " club or two in Central Texas that straight men & women who are married have multiple partners all in the same outing . Back when I drove taxis I would pick these couples up from some of the finest homes in Central Texas - and wait with the meter on while they 'swung " the night away . I for one was glad to make that revenue , but even more happy I did not have to act out that way . So I am not so sure any one group has a lock on hedonistic life threatening behavior .
Maybe I should not engage with you on these issues Tyler - as I find I agree with you on a great deal of other issues . I particularly enjoyed your Rudyard Kipling quote about the Saxon .
Peace & Respect
Posted by: Alba Etie | 28 June 2013 at 10:00 PM
I think it is all about who is more likely to engage in those behaviors, alba. Homosexuals are about 2% of the population, but make up nearly half of all pedophilia cases.
Again, they have the same right to be married as anyone else - as long as its to someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuality is a choice they make.
I'm glad you enjoyed the bit of Kipling. He's a good 'realtalk' poet. Shame the UK is so poz'd with liberalism they don't want to teach him in their schools anymore.
Posted by: Tyler | 29 June 2013 at 03:32 AM
Bullshit Shepherd. I remember that post because you came across like the 'love scenes' in "300" as actual historical fact (as opposed to laughable invention) and handwaved the DOCUMENTED homosexual pederastry and rape that made up Spartan life as 'unconvincing', you punk. Your romantacizing of Sparta is typical of someone who clicks a wikipedia link and thinks they're an expert. The Spartan system of child rearing for females was much more extreme than anything that the Pashtuns do, they engaged in extreme hypergamy, wife swapping, and weren't allowed to live with their husbands until they were 30.
Please, tell me more about awesome it was to be a Spartan woman under the thumb of a despot state. I'm all ears over here. Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other...
So do you have any other examples of your call outs? Because all I remember you as is yet another leftist big statist who posts a lot of wiki links and 'me too!' style posts without an individual thought to his name, hanging on like a tick to his betters around here.
You're nitpicking the argumentum ad populum, and you know it. By appealing to the crowd, he's trying to say "look how many people are with me, I must be right!". It could also be construed as an appeal to emotion ("B-b-b-but he's mean! Agree with me guys!") but by any measure asking for a popularity contest to decide the validity of an argument is ad populum fallacy.
Posted by: Tyler | 29 June 2013 at 06:28 PM
"And its Tommy this & its Tommy that toss him out the Brute - But its the Thin Red Line of Heroes when the guns begin to shoot " ..
Posted by: Alba Etie | 29 June 2013 at 10:01 PM