Bill Bauknecht sends me these "tidbits". Thought you might enjoy this one. . . gem
Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day and you have to read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children. Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you gotta love this!!!!
This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of a National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base.
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended. All over America, people were thinking:
Semper Fi, Marine !
Equality
Equality
Too bad the interviewer didn't have the logic or debate skills to respond in kind.
My immediate thought was this:
Actually, people with hands are equipped to be killers. So the boys are already 'equipped'. But they are not trained. He is training/teaching them. Does he think it's ok to train girls to be prostitutes?
That being said, I think firearms safety is an excellent thing to teach children and don't in anyway condemn the marine in question. But it's not a solid analogy.
But then these kind of quips are about what sounds good, not logic. Shock someone through personal attacks into not responding to weak logical arguments--also known as modern debating principles.
My immediate thought was this:
Actually, people with hands are equipped to be killers. So the boys are already 'equipped'. But they are not trained. He is training/teaching them. Does he think it's ok to train girls to be prostitutes?
That being said, I think firearms safety is an excellent thing to teach children and don't in anyway condemn the marine in question. But it's not a solid analogy.
But then these kind of quips are about what sounds good, not logic. Shock someone through personal attacks into not responding to weak logical arguments--also known as modern debating principles.
Equality
"But they are not trained. He is training/teaching them. Does he think it's ok to train girls to be prostitutes?"
Sex ed., in high school, and yes, they should be 'trained' about sex so they don't accidently kill themselves or someone else doing it. Exactly the same reason people should be trained with guns.
Sex ed., in high school, and yes, they should be 'trained' about sex so they don't accidently kill themselves or someone else doing it. Exactly the same reason people should be trained with guns.
-
knife fighter
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: California
- Contact:
Equality
Dude, that rules!
When did it air? What was the program on NPR? Is this an exact transcript (minus the interviewer's name), or is it an approximation from memory?
When did it air? What was the program on NPR? Is this an exact transcript (minus the interviewer's name), or is it an approximation from memory?
Equality
TSDguy
"Sex ed., in high school, and yes, they should be 'trained' about sex so they don't accidently kill themselves or someone else doing it. Exactly the same reason people should be trained with guns."
They are taking them out to shoot as well after the safety training. Again, weak analogy. Sex ed. in high school doesn't involve actually applying the training once you've learned to do it safely. At least, it didn't when I was in school. Would have made it a whole lot more fun though.
"Sex ed., in high school, and yes, they should be 'trained' about sex so they don't accidently kill themselves or someone else doing it. Exactly the same reason people should be trained with guns."
They are taking them out to shoot as well after the safety training. Again, weak analogy. Sex ed. in high school doesn't involve actually applying the training once you've learned to do it safely. At least, it didn't when I was in school. Would have made it a whole lot more fun though.
Equality
Originally posted by hsohn:
I don't in anyway condemn the marine in question. But it's not a solid analogy.
But then these kind of quips are about what sounds good, not logic. Shock someone through personal attacks into not responding to weak logical arguments--also known as modern debating principles.
Hello hsohn,
I disagree with your opinion. The Marines "quip" was to the specific statement made by the interviewer "But you're "equipping" them to become violent killers." Therefore his stating that she is "equipped" to be a prostitute is the perfect analogy with word for word logic behind it. You can't base your opinion on what you read into but rather what you read.
Had the interviewer used the term "training" then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is a weak analogy. But she didn't so you can only base your opinion on the term "equipping" and not what you think she was insinuating.
You took the quotes and furthered the thought to your liking, which is also a modern debating principle.
Peace Out, Good Training.....
LAC
I don't in anyway condemn the marine in question. But it's not a solid analogy.
But then these kind of quips are about what sounds good, not logic. Shock someone through personal attacks into not responding to weak logical arguments--also known as modern debating principles.
Hello hsohn,
I disagree with your opinion. The Marines "quip" was to the specific statement made by the interviewer "But you're "equipping" them to become violent killers." Therefore his stating that she is "equipped" to be a prostitute is the perfect analogy with word for word logic behind it. You can't base your opinion on what you read into but rather what you read.
Had the interviewer used the term "training" then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is a weak analogy. But she didn't so you can only base your opinion on the term "equipping" and not what you think she was insinuating.
You took the quotes and furthered the thought to your liking, which is also a modern debating principle.
Peace Out, Good Training.....
LAC
Equality
LAC,
Excellent response and glad to see someone thinking. However my first paragraph read,"Actually, people with hands are equipped to be killers. So the boys are already 'equipped'. But they are not trained. He is training/teaching them. Does he think it's ok to train girls to be prostitutes? "
The act of equipping someone as an active verb carries different connotations then being equipped. You can argue that semantic point but I refer you again to the example of equipping people to be killers. They're already biologically equipped as killers so if you are equipping them you must mean more than the biology so, yes, I think it's a reasonable leap to assume that she meant more than granting them the biological tools. Yes, she's already equipped physically to be a prostitute so a comparable analogy would be providing more than biology.
And most importantly, responding to her question which questions whether she is a prostitute is intended to fluster her and make a nice verbal retort but wouldn't it be better to state that potential and actual are different things rather than sleazing the conversation?
At least you thought it through though as opposed to the number of people who read stuff like this and think "Good one. Let's insult people on a personal level when in doubt." And I've seen plenty of those since this "transcript" bounced around a skydiving email group.
I see your point and feel that my assumption based on the notion of actively equipping implying something different than being equipped is valid. You may certainly disagree.(That's why debates are scored.) But thanks for not debasing it by attacking me personally. That was my point.
Excellent response and glad to see someone thinking. However my first paragraph read,"Actually, people with hands are equipped to be killers. So the boys are already 'equipped'. But they are not trained. He is training/teaching them. Does he think it's ok to train girls to be prostitutes? "
The act of equipping someone as an active verb carries different connotations then being equipped. You can argue that semantic point but I refer you again to the example of equipping people to be killers. They're already biologically equipped as killers so if you are equipping them you must mean more than the biology so, yes, I think it's a reasonable leap to assume that she meant more than granting them the biological tools. Yes, she's already equipped physically to be a prostitute so a comparable analogy would be providing more than biology.
And most importantly, responding to her question which questions whether she is a prostitute is intended to fluster her and make a nice verbal retort but wouldn't it be better to state that potential and actual are different things rather than sleazing the conversation?
At least you thought it through though as opposed to the number of people who read stuff like this and think "Good one. Let's insult people on a personal level when in doubt." And I've seen plenty of those since this "transcript" bounced around a skydiving email group.
I see your point and feel that my assumption based on the notion of actively equipping implying something different than being equipped is valid. You may certainly disagree.(That's why debates are scored.) But thanks for not debasing it by attacking me personally. That was my point.
Equality
Student
You were right. So this is all sort of moot anyway.
http://www.snopes2.com/military/reinwald.htm
The urban legend site is a great site to play on as well.
You were right. So this is all sort of moot anyway.
http://www.snopes2.com/military/reinwald.htm
The urban legend site is a great site to play on as well.
