Update on DADT PolicyFollow

I'd say that everyone should still be careful with their opinions (mostly for their own good), but yeah, that's the proper response. You correct the mistaken opinions with rationality and logic. You don't tell them that their not allowed to have their opinion.

Edited, Jul 7th 2011 3:42pm by Eske

That's not the same thing. Having an opinion on how something should be run and having an opinion on how we should get there are two very different things. You can have one without the other, you can have both, you can have neither.

If all you are doing is voicing your opinion on what you wish the military looked like, then what it actually looks like doesn't mean a damned thing.

Not really.

I live in a world where it's impossible to be intricately involved in the process of change in every area you care about. Sometimes, the best you can do is express your opinion (physically through a vote) and focus on what matters most to you.

Frankly, the idea that everyone who cares about something also needs to have particular knowledge about the current state of affairs if they desire change is what is absurd.

I don't see what other option a person has. If you want something changed, you either vote for the politician that vows to change it or you become an activist and directly fight for it. I don't see any other option.

I wanted DADT repealed, and Obama vowed to do so. Considering all the issues I cared about, I considered him the best choice and voted for him. I was in the hospital when our representatives were elected, so I didn't vote for them, no.

I definitely wanted it repealed. I'm willing to admit I didn't understand every specific aspect of what that entailed (for instance, the appeals process to gain readmission to the military, or the exact nature of the discharges, etc). I don't see how that invalidates my desire to see it repealed, or the vote I cast in favor of it.

But no, I never picketed outside a gov't building. I never wrote letters to my political representatives. I never wrote Op-ed articles on it. I was reasonably up to date on the current events and history of DADT, but specific facts about the military procedures or why they are the way they are never remotely interested me.

And they were irrelevant. I didn't want the change because I thought it would make the military stronger, I wanted it because I thought it was the right thing to do.

The only one that matters.

You're such a jerk, lolgaxe.

Cool, I'm on board. Thank the Maker and stuff. Can we go destroy an evil magic empire now?

And @Ugly (because I'm too lazy to go back and get the quote now), you definitely need to have a loose understanding of current affairs. But only enough that you know that you disagree with a current situation.

DADT's repeal is really a perfect example. Civilians basically just told the military to stop policing any regulations for which DADT was a necessary and sufficient condition. They largely had no clue what those policies were, or what changing them would mean exactly.

But that's exactly why there are people whose job it is to figure those things out. Otherwise, we'd just have congress establish the new regulations specifically.

You keep quiet. I have a valid point here and you thinking you're in anyway supporting it, undermines it.

This is why I always disagree with gbaji when he and varus have the same goal, but come to it by different methods and he says that's fine, because varus has the right goal.

I believe you need to know the details so you know the hurdles you face, whereas Alma thinks you need to know the details so you'll give up.

I know that you want to appear to disagree with me so your point will be "valid", but you've been here long enough to know that it really doesn't matter. Many times people will say the same thing as me and I will still be treated differently.

Then again, we might have different arguments.

I believe that you need know the details because if you attempt to change something without actually knowing the details, you could be causing more harm than good. I used the example of the illegal immigrants getting driving licenses before in the past.

If you just focus on the end result of illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses, you might instantly say "why not?. They're just driving". On the other hand, if you hear the entire argument of an increased threat of national security with illegals possessing valid government ID's, you might change your point. People might zoom in on Mexicans, but not stop and think about how that might affect the other immigrants as well.


So, it's not about "giving up", it's about making the right changes. Just because the end result is the same, doesn't mean the action is the same.

She would never make it as a stripper.

You don't really have to understand the consequences of a policy to fight it. It could be as simple as not liking the policy. But if you don't understand the intent behind the policy, how do you weigh the current consequences against the consequences the policy was designed to prevent?