TK,

Uhm, since the thread's now 4 pages long, maybe this drift isn't too far off.

You'd give a military person's opinion of the war in Iraq more weight simply because they are in the military, and therefore "walking the talk?"

Makes no sense whatever to me. I respect a military person for his or her service to our country, but his or her opinion of the war has no relevance to me. They are no more likely to be better informed, and just as likely to be misinformed, or just as likely to lack critical analytical skills as other people.

It makes more sense to me to reserve my respect for opinions about the war to those who are better or best informed and share values similar to mine. Same as I reserve my respect for opinions about environment to those who are well informed and share values similar to mine. Heck, a hayseed can walk the talk, as you say. That is, he may be in the military or may care for a riparian zone as you claim to do, but he could also be an intellectual desert, void of informed and well-reasoned opinion. It makes sense only to respect that which is deserving of respect, that is, actions of value, as just described, or opinions of value, independent of whether the war promoter/dissenter is in the military, and independent of whether the environmental supporter/degrader sets aside land or not. Not everyone who believes they have "set aside" a piece of land is preserving a piece of paradise, laudible as such an action is.

It seems to me you're confusing respect for opinions with respect for actions, and clearly, they ain't the same thing.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.