·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Update on DADT Policy
Update on DADT PolicyFollow
My superiority complex began well before my enlistment date.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
My superiority complex began well before my enlistment date.
I imagine your drill instructors loved you.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
What's up with certain military folk on this board babbling incoherently about how different the military is?
Because being a service member is a very different lifestyle...
You misunderstand. I'm aware that it's quite different. It's just that it's a strawman argument, wholly irrelevant to the discussion. It can be dismissed out of hand because of the facts that DADT is being repealed, and that civilian opinion on military affairs does matter (for the reasons Joph and I pointed out).
Crying "You just don't get it, man. You're just a civilian." is trite. It's an attempt to distract from meaningful discussion on the merit of DADT's removal and the consequences thereof (well, if a meaningful discussion were occurring, I guess).
On a personal note, I think it also makes people sound like pricks.
Edited, Jul 5th 2011 3:51pm by Eske
Quote:
On a personal note, I think it also makes people sound like pricks.
Glad someone said it.
Quote:
Crying "You just don't get it, man. You're just a civilian." is trite. It's an attempt to distract from meaningful discussion on the merit of DADT's removal and the consequences thereof (well, if a meaningful discussion were occurring, I guess).
It's also the exact same argument offered against interracial military units. And it fails for the same reasons it did then.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Eske Esquire wrote:
It's an attempt to distract from meaningful discussion on the merit of DADT's removal and the consequences thereof.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
Quote:
It's an attempt to distract from meaningful discussion on the merit of DADT's removal and the consequences thereof.
There isn't anything to really discuss. All the repeal of DADT is is that people won't be discharged for being gay, and those that were can reenlist (which they were barred from). That's it. There is no underlying anything to it. Their benefits don't change.
On the technical side, all the military HAS to do is allow ****** to openly serve. But what they can do, as a result of that, is a much larger topic. They put in a lot of protections for gays that didn't exist before, but they didn't put them in universally (as their policies for race, gender, religion, etc. are). That's why I take issue with.
There's no reason their anti-discrimination policies cannot be applied universally to homosexuals, exempting those things DOMA is directly responsible for.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
It's an attempt to distract from meaningful discussion on the merit of DADT's removal and the consequences thereof.
lolgaxe: thread buzzkill, everybody. Let's give him a round of applause.
Which policies are those?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
The one we've been discussing for 4 pages? That chaplains are exempt from the anti-discrimination policies regarding homosexuals.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
The Cover Your *** Clause that you've been demonizing to sound like Chaplains get to gaybash with impunity? They're allowed to preface their discussions with "While it is against my religion," without fear of being discharged because it hurt your feelings.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe: thread buzzkill, everybody. Let's give him a round of applause.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I've been trying to find the guidelines for chaplains (and it's proving difficult), but I can't find anything that allows them to say the same thing about women serving in the military. And many religions would consider that a serious offense.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe: thread buzzkill, everybody. Let's give him a round of applause.
Thread fragging.
Women aren't allowed to be infantry. That's not exactly Chaplain, but that is there.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
So Chaplains are only there for infantry?
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The biggest misconception is the belief that what the people want is what's best for the people.
Going back to Ari, I'd say the biggest misconception is that the "military" or the "government" is somehow separate from the citizen population at large and is either something to be deified or something to treat with hostility. Both are nothing more than organizations made up of citizens and neither deserves the overblown importance people give them when they are set up on a hill as some magical, alien construct.
Anyone has the complete right to question, criticize or praise these institutions or anyone in them.
I agree with that. The problem is that even though the government is made up of our citizens, it is THEIR JOB to make the decisions. It's YOUR JOB, to vote and put people that you support in those positions. If McCain had somehow magically won the election, I doubt any of this would have happened. That doesn't make it any more or less "right" or "better for the country". So, my point is that you can't proclaim injustice when your opinion isn't being supported. You have a right to voice your opinion, but you do that by putting in different people to support your cause. A mob of angry people doesn't make something right.
Rao wrote:
Looking at a more realistic example, my wife is a medical lab tech. She's trained in proper evidence handling procedures in regards to specimen collection for drug testing. Because of this, she has to literally be available 24/7. Now she just had a 4 day weekend this weekend because of the holiday. If we decided to go island hoping this weekend she would have had to get permission from her OIC or put in for leave. If she hadn't and was called in, even though she's on a holiday weekend, she could be charged with going AWOL or dereliction of duty.
Don't you hate that.. I'm always asking myself if it's worth it, especially OCONUS traveling.. OMG, I had to do a dissertation to go to he Philippines. I understand the CYA factor, but man....
Jophiel wrote:
Except, when the organization is made and paid for by the citizens then it has an onus to answer the questions of the citizens regardless of how ignorant or asinine they are. It actually has an obligation to keep answering those questions until the citizenry is satisfied. Not you personally, I'm sure they hire professionals for that, but "We're not speaking as equals" is a non-answer which just avoids the question.
In the case of McD's grill workers, they have to do what they're told, lest they lose their jobs. You have to do what your superiors command lest you be reprimanded. I don't have to give a sh*t what the military (or McD's) thinks about me as I question their policies and demand change and, since the military is ultimately dependent upon the citizens to stock it with people and funds, and since its within the rights of the citizenry to make changes to the military (such as DADT repeal) it's on the military to answer to the citizens. No matter how much they feel or don't feel that we're "equals".
In the case of McD's grill workers, they have to do what they're told, lest they lose their jobs. You have to do what your superiors command lest you be reprimanded. I don't have to give a sh*t what the military (or McD's) thinks about me as I question their policies and demand change and, since the military is ultimately dependent upon the citizens to stock it with people and funds, and since its within the rights of the citizenry to make changes to the military (such as DADT repeal) it's on the military to answer to the citizens. No matter how much they feel or don't feel that we're "equals".
I'm not seeing where we disagree. Civilians have the right to disagree and voice their opinions. The government does have an obligation do answer every question brought up. My point is that you might not always like the answer that you are given and that doesn't make it wrong.
People wanted to see the death pictures of Osama. People voiced their opinions. The government answered by saying "no" out of fear of retaliation. The people voiced their opinions. The government addressed the opinions and a decision was made. Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted, does make it a wrong practice. If you really want to see the pictures, put people in charge that are willing to do so.
If the government is doing something that you don't like, you have no one to blame but your fellow civilians.
If a Chaplain says he doesn't believe a woman should be on the battlefield, which is what infantry is first and foremost, they wouldn't be reprimanded for it.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Almalieque wrote:
If the government is doing something that you don't like, you have no one to blame but your fellow civilians.
Citizens. Military folk still get to vote and I don't see reason to separate the two when grousing about the government.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
What's up with certain military folk on this board babbling incoherently about how different the military is?
Because being a service member is a very different lifestyle...
You misunderstand. I'm aware that it's quite different. It's just that it's a strawman argument, wholly irrelevant to the discussion. It can be dismissed out of hand because of the facts that DADT is being repealed, and that civilian opinion on military affairs does matter (for the reasons Joph and I pointed out).
Crying "You just don't get it, man. You're just a civilian." is trite. It's an attempt to distract from meaningful discussion on the merit of DADT's removal and the consequences thereof (well, if a meaningful discussion were occurring, I guess).
On a personal note, I think it also makes people sound like pricks.
Edited, Jul 5th 2011 3:51pm by Eske
It's not irrelevant or a strawman argument. In order for your argument to have value, service members would have to regain all rights lost by joining the military. You can't logically support the military taking away rights from service members and complain when a certain right is taken away based on the fact that civilians in society have that right.
It's one or the other. You can claim that a right taken away shouldn't be taken away, but the premise of your argument can't be based on the fact that it is a civilian right. You would have to restore all rights first in order for that argument to have merit.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If the government is doing something that you don't like, you have no one to blame but your fellow civilians.
Citizens. Military folk still get to vote and I don't see reason to separate the two when grousing about the government.
Correction. citizens..
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
What's up with certain military folk on this board babbling incoherently about how different the military is?
Because being a service member is a very different lifestyle...
You misunderstand. I'm aware that it's quite different. It's just that it's a strawman argument, wholly irrelevant to the discussion. It can be dismissed out of hand because of the facts that DADT is being repealed, and that civilian opinion on military affairs does matter (for the reasons Joph and I pointed out).
Crying "You just don't get it, man. You're just a civilian." is trite. It's an attempt to distract from meaningful discussion on the merit of DADT's removal and the consequences thereof (well, if a meaningful discussion were occurring, I guess).
On a personal note, I think it also makes people sound like pricks.
Edited, Jul 5th 2011 3:51pm by Eske
It's not irrelevant or a strawman argument. In order for your argument to have value, service members would have to regain all rights lost by joining the military. You can't logically support the military taking away rights from service members and complain when a certain right is taken away based on the fact that civilians in society have that right.
It's one or the other. You can claim that a right taken away shouldn't be taken away, but the premise of your argument can't be based on the fact that it is a civilian right. You would have to restore all rights first in order for that argument to have merit.
That was my argument? That's news to me. Your whole post is one giant fallacy gumbo.
Yo dawg, we heard you like strawmen, so we put a strawman in yo' strawman so you can be fallacious while you bein' fallacious. That, and a little False Dilemma, too boot.
Quote:
If a Chaplain says he doesn't believe a woman should be on the battlefield, which is what infantry is first and foremost, they wouldn't be reprimanded for it.
I'm not talking about something like that.
Suppose a female service member is missing her children and goes to a chaplain for support. If he were to say that, according to her religion, she was a bad parent and shouldn't have left her children, he wouldn't be reprimanded for that?
I find that difficult to believe.
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people
lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
He'd be right though. She is a bad parent if she can't find them.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
idiggory wrote:
If he were to say that, according to her religion, she was a bad parent and shouldn't have left her children, he wouldn't be reprimanded for that?
Also, what Ugly said.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
That was my argument? That's news to me. Your whole post is one giant fallacy gumbo.
Ok, maybe I confused your argument with someone else's.
Why should DADT be repealed?
Recent Visitors: 270
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (270)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Update on DADT Policy
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC