You still don't get it. The English language is the rule book of our civilization. If we start playing fast and loose with what words mean, the next thing you know, we start getting homosexuals demanding the right to be "married", even though by definition of "marriage", they can't. We get illegal aliens demanding to be called "undocumented immigrants", even that's not what they are. We get gloBULL warming dipsticks calling a blast of winter weather a "polar vortex". We get anti-gun tyrants calling semi-auto rifles "assault weapons", even though they're not. We get dumba** reporters calling presidential candidates in a debate "combatants" -- though I wouldn't have minded seeing a big brawl onstage during one of those endless debates in 2012...at least that one would've been interesting.
"Because that’s what warriors do, right? They act with courage for the right things and face serious harm or death on behalf of principles which affect all of humanity - right?"
No...you're still not getting it. Warriors train for and engage in combat on behalf of their nation/state/village/tribe/etc. All the flowery rhetoric about the good of humanity sounds warm and fuzzy...but it's delusional. Army Cav Scouts, Marine infantrymen, A-10 pilots, Navy destroyer gunners -- they are warriors. Ghandi, Rev. Martin Luther King and yes, even Marcus Lutrell's mother, were/are not, despite the good deeds they did and the suffering they endured.
Anyone who wants to be a warrior needs to go talk to their local recruiter, take the oath of enlistment, and put on the uniform of their nation.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Combat. That's what you call a word in the "English language rule book of our civilization."
Warriors is another word. And now, see, here's how civilization rule books work - you can't have different words mean the same things. So if combat meant all warriors, then you would have to come up with another word for warriors who are not in combat. Because combat is only one type of fighting.
You see, if you take a combat warrior prisoner, then he's no longer in combat. Then an interrogator gets ahold of him, and does things to his mind. Is he still a warrior? Yes. But he's not in combat anymore. He's fighting a different type of fight.
That's one small difference.
Another difference in civilization rule book words is "we." Now, the FOunder of this country did not, in fact, declare it a Christian country inside the Constitution, because they knew Christians would argue about the meaning of that concept, and re-create what the Founder left back in Europe.
So when you say "we" start playing fast and loose with what words mean, the next thing you know, we start getting homosexuals demanding the right to be "married", even though by definition of "marriage", they can't, you forget that you are talking about YOUR "we."
You don't like homosexuals being married, because you don't think they can be married because of the meaning of "marriage"? WHOSE meaning of marriage? Yours? Christianities? Which denomination? Because some denominations accept it. How about men and women getting married under Hinduism? Is that valid? For a man and a woman to pledge themselves together under the holy auspices of the blue-colored, four-armed Vishnu? Because they do. Is the word "marriage" not valid in that case? Should the law be changed?
You treat words like a child. Or better yet - you treat word the way a liberal thinks of military training. Simplistically. A liberal doesn't know of the sophistication and depth of military training. And you don't know of the sophistication and depth of words. And you both treat them with contempt.
YOU are playing fast and loose with the English language, with the rule book of society. The reasons warriors ARE warriors is to protect that rule book, but what is that worth is people don't even bother learning how it works? Then they get stuck with homosexual marriage and can't figure out how to stop it, or watch their women molested at their own airports while those they fought in combat warfare walk through without being checked at all.
You think this is a damn game? The country is melting down because of an enemy. This particular country - America - by its Founders declaration, sees ALL of its People as warriors in whatever way is required of them. That's why they called them the militia.
Combat is only one way of being a warrior. It is a genuine way, and a noble way, and deserves immense respect. But it is by no means the only way. You write: Warriors train for and engage in combat on behalf of their nation/state/village/tribe/etc. All the flowery rhetoric about the good of humanity sounds warm and fuzzy...but it's delusional. Army Cav Scouts, Marine infantrymen, A-10 pilots, Navy destroyer gunners -- they are warriors. Ghandi, Rev. Martin Luther King and yes, even Marcus Lutrell's mother, were/are not, despite the good deeds they did and the suffering they endured.
Okay, by your own definitions, getting rid of that delusional flowery rhetoric about the good of humanity, you know who you left IN? You know who fits your definition of "warrior" - those who "train for and engage in combat on behalf of their nation/state/village/tribe/etc."?
The mob. Gangs. Muslim terrorists. Suicide bombers. Mujahaddim, Al Qaida, Muslim Brotherhood, the Nazis in WWII, etc. They ALL "train for and engage in combat on behalf of their nation/state/village/tribe/etc." with NONE of that flowery humanistic rhetoric.
I know some American servicemen and women who might object to what they do being made EQUAL to what those monsters, thugs, maniacs and criminals do.
But you believe what you want.