266 réponses à ce sujet

[Roelandtstorme]

Schroing wrote...

Roelandtstorme wrote...

By the way, since a "Salute" with the right hand is literally constant in every human civilization that has a salute, the introduction of "This ain't the US" while quaint and geo-political, is irrelevent to this discussion.

You know what would be nice for this?
A source.

Sure thing, Schroing.  I'm sorry for not providing you a source earlier.  I assumed everyone knows this from history class in elementary or Jr High.  Sorry I don't have the textbooks I used when I learned all this as a kid but here's a quote and a link so you can learn about it too.  It's pretty interesting.  For more information on the subject, I recommend your local library. Or contact your local University History Department.  Reading Is Fundamental.

Here's the link from an Australian site:
http://www.defence.g...sofSaluting.htm

"There are a number of origins of the military greeting of saluting. In the age of chivalry the knights were all mounted and wore steel armour, which covered the body completely. When two friendly knights met it was the custom for each to raise the visor and expose his face to the view of the other. This was always done with the right hand, the left being used to hold the reins. It was a significant gesture of friendship and confidence, since it exposed the features and also removed the right hand from the vicinity of a weapon (sword). Also in ancient times the freemen of Europe were allowed to carry arms: when two freemen met, each would raise his right hand to show that he held no weapons in it and that the meeting was friendly.
The Coldstream Guards appear to have been the first to depart from this practice as a Regimental Order of 1745 reads: ‘The men are ordered not to pull off their hats when the when they pass an officer, or to speak to them, but only to clap up their hands to their hats and bow as they pass them’.
An extract from the Royal Scots Standing Orders of 1762 stated: ‘as nothing disfigures the hats or dirties the lace worn more than taking off the hats, the men for the future are only to raise the back of their hands to them (hats) with a brisk motion when they pass an officer’.
From this beginning, although there was some resistance, saluting, as we now know it developed. Saluting in a form can also be traced back to the Stone Age when the open hand held high indicated friendliness; while the holding of the head erect is a reminder that officers and airmen are free men not required to avert their eyes from an overlord.
Regardless of its origin, the salute is a symbol of greeting, of mutual respect, trust and confidence initiated by the junior in rank, with no loss of dignity on either side. It is also a sign of loyalty and respect to the Service of which a member forms part and the general tone and spirit of the Service is indicated by the manner in which airmen/airwomen offer the salute and officers return it."

[xDarkicex]

@Roelandtstorme

just pulled this off of wiki but seems it might have something to do with it, Bioware being canadian and all.







Canadian military



Much as the British salute, described above, the Canadian military salutes to demonstrate a mark of respect and courtesy for the commission and/or higher rank of other members. Salutes are not performed if a member is not wearing a headdress; instead they are to stand at attention. A lack of a cap badge, a sign of a new and untrained recruit who has not yet learned to salute, is generally treated as an individual without headdress.

[Schroing]

That's some of Europe at best.

[Roelandtstorme]

Kid_SixXx wrote...
What is absurd is the assumption that well established protocols and policies would change just for the sake of change.  The recent move to a modular force known as DoD Transformation has occurred because the nature of the enemy has changed (ie. more skirmishes on multiple fronts against enemies with a multi-national presence) and the equipment needed to fight such enemies has changed and not because anyone just woke up out of the blue and thought "Y'know, I think we should use Brigades instead of Divisions today." 

Agreed, Kid.  It's really common sense.  Only among fools does change occur for the "sake of change."  Change, including fashion as someone oddly sited as an example of the opposite, occurs out of necessity.  That need might be as simple as a style of clothing which emulates one group or another to "rebel" against one authority or another by wearing the "uniform/style" of your peer group; or as serious as to salute with the right hand so the armed man you are approaching doesn't think you are ready to "throw down" and kill you. 

The trivial mind might disagree with you though, Kid.  With them you just shrug your shoulders and move on.  It's important to share your knowledge and views.  It's less important to convince a fool.  My old boss used to say of idiots, "Acknowledge, Ignore, and Move on."

[Roelandtstorme]

xDarkicex wrote...

@Roelandtstorme
just pulled this off of wiki but seems it might have something to do with it, Bioware being canadian and all.



Canadian military

Much as the British salute, described above, the Canadian military salutes to demonstrate a mark of respect and courtesy for the commission and/or higher rank of other members. Salutes are not performed if a member is not wearing a headdress; instead they are to stand at attention. A lack of a cap badge, a sign of a new and untrained recruit who has not yet learned to salute, is generally treated as an individual without headdress.

That's interesting, Dark.  I have always wondered about the "hat" thing.  Sounds like it's because that form of salute originates from the Removing of the Hat--the salute being a replacement of that.

[Schroing]

Roelandtstorme wrote...

Kid_SixXx wrote...
What is absurd is the assumption that well established protocols and policies would change just for the sake of change.  The recent move to a modular force known as DoD Transformation has occurred because the nature of the enemy has changed (ie. more skirmishes on multiple fronts against enemies with a multi-national presence) and the equipment needed to fight such enemies has changed and not because anyone just woke up out of the blue and thought "Y'know, I think we should use Brigades instead of Divisions today." 

Agreed, Kid.  It's really common sense.  Only among fools does change occur for the "sake of change."  Change, including fashion as someone oddly sited as an example of the opposite, occurs out of necessity.  That need might be as simple as a style of clothing which emulates one group or another to "rebel" against one authority or another by wearing the "uniform/style" of your peer group; or as serious as to salute with the right hand so the armed man you are approaching doesn't think you are ready to "throw down" and kill you. 

The trivial mind might disagree with you though, Kid.  With them you just shrug your shoulders and move on.  It's important to share your knowledge and views.  It's less important to convince a fool.  My old boss used to say of idiots, "Acknowledge, Ignore, and Move on."

...Reducing prejudice against the left-handed is hardly a change for the sake of change; it's a change for the sake of removing ourselves from the restriction of pointless semantics and easier integration into the military.
Traditions are pointless. The logic for them is just as circular as the logic you're arguing against.

[xDarkicex]

Yeah I guess if your British or Canadian, no shiny hat means no respect, you would think they would be able to tell rank by more then a hat but.

[Shin Yodama]

xDarkicex wrote...

Yeah I guess if your British or Canadian, no shiny hat means no respect, you would think they would be able to tell rank by more then a hat but.

Field rank is very dificult to make out these days, being black embroidered upon a camo pattern material (within the British Army at least), and so other cues are often used. Sometimes it is a gamble, though I would far rather NOT salute a commissioned Officer than salute a non-commissioned officer by mistake.

However that is not the point, and I fear you may have grasped the wrong end of the stick.

In British & Canadian military, no headdress means incorrectly dressed. You do not salute if you are incorrectly dressed - in fact you shouldn't present yourself in public if you are incorrectly dressed. Pomp, Circumstance, Ceremony, Tradition, Protocol, call it what you will. These are drilled into us from an early age - it is about discipline and respect,

Welcome back Roelandtstorme, it is nice to see the thread steering back on track and that there are people who can put forward their views in a calm, mature and intelligent way.

[xDarkicex]

So shepard is dressed wrong then?

[Shin Yodama]

No mate - you guessed about Brits and Canucks, so I clarified the situation for you. No insult intended, merely education.

[Shin Yodama]

Just to clarify, I can understand a no hats policy on-board ship in Shepards universe, and saluting regardless - kinda makes sense (though aren't the door marines onboard the SR-1 in ME1 wearing berets, I can't seem to recall).

Also, I do like the military feel both games have, and understand that some perceive anomalies might be there just to push the story along, due to technological limitations, down to lack of research, or just plain inconsistent. It doesn't worry me that much, but just shows it could be better.

All the arguing in the world won't solve anything on these boards, it's Bioware's bus, and they are the ones who are gonna drive it. The thing I would like to see is consistency - which was the whole point of the OP's comments - glad to see they were taken as intended by the drivers.

Modifié par Shin Yodama, 02 avril 2010 - 10:33 .

[Schroing]

Shin Yodama wrote...

Just to clarify, I can understand a no hats policy on-board ship in Shepards universe, and saluting regardless - kinda makes sense (though aren't the door marines onboard the SR-1 in ME1 wearing berets, I can't seem to recall)

Yeah, Jenkins as well as others had berets.
Joker and the vendor wore hats, as well.

Modifié par Schroing, 02 avril 2010 - 10:35 .

[Roelandtstorme]

xDarkicex wrote...

Whats wrong with a civilian doing a salute, and is it still bad if they do it exactly the way its supposed to be done?

If it was done as it's "supposed to be done," the civilian wouldn't be saluting.  It's nothing against the civilian, Dark.  It's the uniform.  By the same token, a serviceman cannot salute when out of uniform and, such as cases of saluting during the National Anthem, must put his hand over his heart instead in the same way civilians do if they wish.  There is no protocol, policy or proceedure that I know of regarding a civilian salute (except I think among polititians).  There are, however, courtesies.  It's up to you and you alone if you wish to be polite or respectful.

Ultimately the civilian can do whatever he wants in public as long as it's not immoral, illegal, or indecent.  Obviously what he does will communicate various levels of contempt or respect to his neighbor according to his desire.  The recipient of the civilian's respect or contempt is free to react as they see fit as well...and that's where learning to play nice with people comes in.  Do or say what you want, but the guy you tick off might be zealous about his right to retaliate.  We don't live in boxes.  We live in communities with other people...and that other person might be a valuable friend or unpleasant enemy. 

For the most part, military personnel don't care what civilians do in regards to protocol because, as I said before, we know the civilian doesn't care.  It's not appropriate to salute out of uniform, so if you KNOW that and "exercise your freedom" and do it anyway...what are you really communicating?  And more importantly, how will that be received? 

[Schroing]

Roelandtstorme wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

Whats wrong with a civilian doing a salute, and is it still bad if they do it exactly the way its supposed to be done?

If it was done as it's "supposed to be done," the civilian wouldn't be saluting.  It's nothing against the civilian, Dark.  It's the uniform.  By the same token, a serviceman cannot salute when out of uniform and, such as cases of saluting during the National Anthem, must put his hand over his heart instead in the same way civilians do if they wish.  There is no protocol, policy or proceedure that I know of regarding a civilian salute (except I think among polititians).  There are, however, courtesies.  It's up to you and you alone if you wish to be polite or respectful.

Ultimately the civilian can do whatever he wants in public as long as it's not immoral, illegal, or indecent.  Obviously what he does will communicate various levels of contempt or respect to his neighbor according to his desire.  The recipient of the civilian's respect or contempt is free to react as they see fit as well...and that's where learning to play nice with people comes in.  Do or say what you want, but the guy you tick off might be zealous about his right to retaliate.  We don't live in boxes.  We live in communities with other people...and that other person might be a valuable friend or unpleasant enemy. 

For the most part, military personnel don't care what civilians do in regards to protocol because, as I said before, we know the civilian doesn't care.  It's not appropriate to salute out of uniform, so if you KNOW that and "exercise your freedom" and do it anyway...what are you really communicating?  And more importantly, how will that be received? 

You're communicating that you're a fan of freedom.

[gneissguy2003]

Schroing wrote...

Roelandtstorme wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

Whats wrong with a civilian doing a salute, and is it still bad if they do it exactly the way its supposed to be done?

If it was done as it's "supposed to be done," the civilian wouldn't be saluting.  It's nothing against the civilian, Dark.  It's the uniform.  By the same token, a serviceman cannot salute when out of uniform and, such as cases of saluting during the National Anthem, must put his hand over his heart instead in the same way civilians do if they wish.  There is no protocol, policy or proceedure that I know of regarding a civilian salute (except I think among polititians).  There are, however, courtesies.  It's up to you and you alone if you wish to be polite or respectful.

Ultimately the civilian can do whatever he wants in public as long as it's not immoral, illegal, or indecent.  Obviously what he does will communicate various levels of contempt or respect to his neighbor according to his desire.  The recipient of the civilian's respect or contempt is free to react as they see fit as well...and that's where learning to play nice with people comes in.  Do or say what you want, but the guy you tick off might be zealous about his right to retaliate.  We don't live in boxes.  We live in communities with other people...and that other person might be a valuable friend or unpleasant enemy. 

For the most part, military personnel don't care what civilians do in regards to protocol because, as I said before, we know the civilian doesn't care.  It's not appropriate to salute out of uniform, so if you KNOW that and "exercise your freedom" and do it anyway...what are you really communicating?  And more importantly, how will that be received? 

You're communicating that you're a fan of freedom.

Really? You're displaying your freedom by performing an act that you know to be considered disrespectful of another person's traditions? Traditions that have absolutely no bearing on how you, as a civilian, should live your life?

[xDarkicex]

Schroing wrote...

Roelandtstorme wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

Whats wrong with a civilian doing a salute, and is it still bad if they do it exactly the way its supposed to be done?

If it was done as it's "supposed to be done," the civilian wouldn't be saluting.  It's nothing against the civilian, Dark.  It's the uniform.  By the same token, a serviceman cannot salute when out of uniform and, such as cases of saluting during the National Anthem, must put his hand over his heart instead in the same way civilians do if they wish.  There is no protocol, policy or proceedure that I know of regarding a civilian salute (except I think among polititians).  There are, however, courtesies.  It's up to you and you alone if you wish to be polite or respectful.

Ultimately the civilian can do whatever he wants in public as long as it's not immoral, illegal, or indecent.  Obviously what he does will communicate various levels of contempt or respect to his neighbor according to his desire.  The recipient of the civilian's respect or contempt is free to react as they see fit as well...and that's where learning to play nice with people comes in.  Do or say what you want, but the guy you tick off might be zealous about his right to retaliate.  We don't live in boxes.  We live in communities with other people...and that other person might be a valuable friend or unpleasant enemy. 

For the most part, military personnel don't care what civilians do in regards to protocol because, as I said before, we know the civilian doesn't care.  It's not appropriate to salute out of uniform, so if you KNOW that and "exercise your freedom" and do it anyway...what are you really communicating?  And more importantly, how will that be received? 

You're communicating that you're a fan of freedom.

This is what I always thought no one tells us Normal people that its a bad thing to do, I now know.
I honestly thought you where supposed to salute soldiers, never have myself because it just seems weird we had to do a different salute in boy scouts though.

Modifié par xDarkicex, 02 avril 2010 - 10:57 .

[Schroing]

gneissguy2003 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

Roelandtstorme wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

Whats wrong with a civilian doing a salute, and is it still bad if they do it exactly the way its supposed to be done?

If it was done as it's "supposed to be done," the civilian wouldn't be saluting.  It's nothing against the civilian, Dark.  It's the uniform.  By the same token, a serviceman cannot salute when out of uniform and, such as cases of saluting during the National Anthem, must put his hand over his heart instead in the same way civilians do if they wish.  There is no protocol, policy or proceedure that I know of regarding a civilian salute (except I think among polititians).  There are, however, courtesies.  It's up to you and you alone if you wish to be polite or respectful.

Ultimately the civilian can do whatever he wants in public as long as it's not immoral, illegal, or indecent.  Obviously what he does will communicate various levels of contempt or respect to his neighbor according to his desire.  The recipient of the civilian's respect or contempt is free to react as they see fit as well...and that's where learning to play nice with people comes in.  Do or say what you want, but the guy you tick off might be zealous about his right to retaliate.  We don't live in boxes.  We live in communities with other people...and that other person might be a valuable friend or unpleasant enemy. 

For the most part, military personnel don't care what civilians do in regards to protocol because, as I said before, we know the civilian doesn't care.  It's not appropriate to salute out of uniform, so if you KNOW that and "exercise your freedom" and do it anyway...what are you really communicating?  And more importantly, how will that be received? 

You're communicating that you're a fan of freedom.

Really? You're displaying your freedom by performing an act that you know to be considered disrespectful of another person's traditions? Traditions that have absolutely no bearing on how you, as a civilian, should live your life?

Precisely the case.
"Traditions," "manners," "procedure," "protocol" and the like are all fancy synonyms for restrictions. I shouldn't have to explain the relationship between restriction and freedom.

[gneissguy2003]

Schroing wrote...

gneissguy2003 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

Roelandtstorme wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

Whats wrong with a civilian doing a salute, and is it still bad if they do it exactly the way its supposed to be done?

If it was done as it's "supposed to be done," the civilian wouldn't be saluting.  It's nothing against the civilian, Dark.  It's the uniform.  By the same token, a serviceman cannot salute when out of uniform and, such as cases of saluting during the National Anthem, must put his hand over his heart instead in the same way civilians do if they wish.  There is no protocol, policy or proceedure that I know of regarding a civilian salute (except I think among polititians).  There are, however, courtesies.  It's up to you and you alone if you wish to be polite or respectful.

Ultimately the civilian can do whatever he wants in public as long as it's not immoral, illegal, or indecent.  Obviously what he does will communicate various levels of contempt or respect to his neighbor according to his desire.  The recipient of the civilian's respect or contempt is free to react as they see fit as well...and that's where learning to play nice with people comes in.  Do or say what you want, but the guy you tick off might be zealous about his right to retaliate.  We don't live in boxes.  We live in communities with other people...and that other person might be a valuable friend or unpleasant enemy. 

For the most part, military personnel don't care what civilians do in regards to protocol because, as I said before, we know the civilian doesn't care.  It's not appropriate to salute out of uniform, so if you KNOW that and "exercise your freedom" and do it anyway...what are you really communicating?  And more importantly, how will that be received? 

You're communicating that you're a fan of freedom.

Really? You're displaying your freedom by performing an act that you know to be considered disrespectful of another person's traditions? Traditions that have absolutely no bearing on how you, as a civilian, should live your life?

Precisely the case.
"Traditions," "manners," "procedure," "protocol" and the like are all fancy synonyms for restrictions. I shouldn't have to explain the relationship between restriction and freedom.

So then why do we have any laws at all, Schroing? Why keep someone who disagrees with you from deciding that putting a bullet through your head for disagreeing is a worthwhile cause? Why put laws in place to keep someone from taking what you think you own? Because, let's face it, your definition of "restriction" calls any form of law enforcement into question.

Modifié par gneissguy2003, 02 avril 2010 - 10:57 .

[Schroing]

gneissguy2003 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

gneissguy2003 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

Roelandtstorme wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

Whats wrong with a civilian doing a salute, and is it still bad if they do it exactly the way its supposed to be done?

If it was done as it's "supposed to be done," the civilian wouldn't be saluting.  It's nothing against the civilian, Dark.  It's the uniform.  By the same token, a serviceman cannot salute when out of uniform and, such as cases of saluting during the National Anthem, must put his hand over his heart instead in the same way civilians do if they wish.  There is no protocol, policy or proceedure that I know of regarding a civilian salute (except I think among polititians).  There are, however, courtesies.  It's up to you and you alone if you wish to be polite or respectful.

Ultimately the civilian can do whatever he wants in public as long as it's not immoral, illegal, or indecent.  Obviously what he does will communicate various levels of contempt or respect to his neighbor according to his desire.  The recipient of the civilian's respect or contempt is free to react as they see fit as well...and that's where learning to play nice with people comes in.  Do or say what you want, but the guy you tick off might be zealous about his right to retaliate.  We don't live in boxes.  We live in communities with other people...and that other person might be a valuable friend or unpleasant enemy. 

For the most part, military personnel don't care what civilians do in regards to protocol because, as I said before, we know the civilian doesn't care.  It's not appropriate to salute out of uniform, so if you KNOW that and "exercise your freedom" and do it anyway...what are you really communicating?  And more importantly, how will that be received? 

You're communicating that you're a fan of freedom.

Really? You're displaying your freedom by performing an act that you know to be considered disrespectful of another person's traditions? Traditions that have absolutely no bearing on how you, as a civilian, should live your life?

Precisely the case.
"Traditions," "manners," "procedure," "protocol" and the like are all fancy synonyms for restrictions. I shouldn't have to explain the relationship between restriction and freedom.

So then why do we have any laws at all, Schroing? Why keep someone who disagrees with you from deciding that putting a bullet through your head for disagreeing is a worthwhile cause? Why put laws in place to keep someone from taking what you think you own?

Because this isn't a free society, obviously.

[gneissguy2003]

Schroing wrote...

gneissguy2003 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

gneissguy2003 wrote...

Schroing wrote...

Roelandtstorme wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

Whats wrong with a civilian doing a salute, and is it still bad if they do it exactly the way its supposed to be done?

If it was done as it's "supposed to be done," the civilian wouldn't be saluting.  It's nothing against the civilian, Dark.  It's the uniform.  By the same token, a serviceman cannot salute when out of uniform and, such as cases of saluting during the National Anthem, must put his hand over his heart instead in the same way civilians do if they wish.  There is no protocol, policy or proceedure that I know of regarding a civilian salute (except I think among polititians).  There are, however, courtesies.  It's up to you and you alone if you wish to be polite or respectful.

Ultimately the civilian can do whatever he wants in public as long as it's not immoral, illegal, or indecent.  Obviously what he does will communicate various levels of contempt or respect to his neighbor according to his desire.  The recipient of the civilian's respect or contempt is free to react as they see fit as well...and that's where learning to play nice with people comes in.  Do or say what you want, but the guy you tick off might be zealous about his right to retaliate.  We don't live in boxes.  We live in communities with other people...and that other person might be a valuable friend or unpleasant enemy. 

For the most part, military personnel don't care what civilians do in regards to protocol because, as I said before, we know the civilian doesn't care.  It's not appropriate to salute out of uniform, so if you KNOW that and "exercise your freedom" and do it anyway...what are you really communicating?  And more importantly, how will that be received? 

You're communicating that you're a fan of freedom.

Really? You're displaying your freedom by performing an act that you know to be considered disrespectful of another person's traditions? Traditions that have absolutely no bearing on how you, as a civilian, should live your life?

Precisely the case.
"Traditions," "manners," "procedure," "protocol" and the like are all fancy synonyms for restrictions. I shouldn't have to explain the relationship between restriction and freedom.

So then why do we have any laws at all, Schroing? Why keep someone who disagrees with you from deciding that putting a bullet through your head for disagreeing is a worthwhile cause? Why put laws in place to keep someone from taking what you think you own?

Because this isn't a free society, obviously.

And that's what you would prefer? A "free" society where laws have no place and people's idea of personal rights and protections are marginalized?

The only reason you have any freedoms, Schroing, is due to "restrictions" upon people's ability to take away those freedoms.

[Schroing]

*snips pyramid*

gneissguy2003 wrote...

And that's what you would prefer? A "free" society where laws have no place and people's idea of personal rights and protections are marginalized?

I said this when?

[Landline]

One thing while comparing Alliance military protocol to real life military protocol, who's protocol are we comparing to?

[Shin Yodama]

Schroing wrote...
Precisely the case.
"Traditions," "manners," "procedure," "protocol" and the like are all fancy synonyms for restrictions. I shouldn't have to explain the relationship between restriction and freedom.

You said it here.

Life without restrictions as you define them would be short and barbarous.

I wouldn't want to live in a society that considered manners a restriction. Maybe that's the soldier in me?

Modifié par Shin Yodama, 02 avril 2010 - 11:16 .

[Seb Smith]

Nice thread especially the comment that America has never lost a war, I guess Vietnam worked out as intended then?

[Schroing]

Shin Yodama wrote...

Schroing wrote...
Precisely the case.
"Traditions," "manners," "procedure," "protocol" and the like are all fancy synonyms for restrictions. I shouldn't have to explain the relationship between restriction and freedom.

You said it here.

Life without restrictions as you define them would be short and barbarous.

I wouldn't want to live in a society that considered manners a restriction.

By definition, that's what they are. Your idealized vision of freedom is the problem here.