Originally posted by Zampanó
I think that being able to spout your civil liberties includes being able to spout burning lead from the nozzle of a glock. I'm not in favor of gun control... I just don't like the invention of guns period.Edit: It took 5 read throughs to understand why DS was calling me "brah" and talking about calling me out.
Do what now? I never called you brah, I called you RH.
And that never has, DS. This is the point; there was never a cohesive logistical, data-based rationalization behind the policy. It was rooted in prejudice, and very little more.
All this means is that at best your net reaction to the discharge of over fourteen thousand men and women over what amounts to homophobia is apathy. I'm not seeing the respect.
Originally posted by Eminence
Edit: also Neph, dadudemon said you're worse than quan. Holy shit son.
Dadudemon hates me because I regularly school him publically. Considering our last debate had him replying once and then copy pasting the reply to all my posts, I'm not really threatened.
Originally posted by truejedi
you know what is way more exciting than the entire DADT story? The freaking particle they clocked at FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED. Meaning, if they get confirmation, the theory of relativity, isn't a law. meaning E doesn't necessarily equal mc^2. meaning. OMG.
HOLY. SHIT!
Do what now? I never called you brah, I called you RH.
That's because instead of seeing those people being happy to serve their country now that they're afforded certain liberties, instead I see them focusing on their sexual orientation and the fact that they can be open about it. Precisely what we DIDN'T want happening. I have nothing but respect for the armed forces and if you're serving your country effectively, your sexual orientation should not be an issue.
Originally posted by Zampanó
I thought Janus's post was written by you.
I think that if this becomes an issue at all (which I doubt it will) it will be a short lived one. Heterosexual soldiers can be open about their sexuality, and that does not distract them from fulfilling their duties.
That's assuming homosexuals and heterosexuals act the same way, which isn't always the case, or even half of the time.
Originally posted by truejedi
you know what is way more exciting than the entire DADT story? The freaking particle they clocked at FASTER THAN LIGHT SPEED. Meaning, if they get confirmation, the theory of relativity, isn't a law. meaning E doesn't necessarily equal mc^2. meaning. OMG.
Yeah... Call me skeptical but I'm not believing it.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Damn, someone's budget is tight.
I am an incredibly frugal person. Past events have showed me the wisdom of having at least several thousand dollars on hand to serve as "oh shit!" money. A percentage of everything I make goes into that oh shit account and never gets touched unless something unexpected happens. After that gets taken out, you have apartment rent, groceries, my awesome business class Internet . . . I've manage to almost completely remove gas from the equation since my student ID card gives me free access to the bus system.
It's just, once all is said and done, I only have about fifty bucks over each month to use as dick around money, since my job at Lenscrafters is getting me **** all for hours, and the contract work barely makes up for it.
!
Is this based on actual facts or personal opinion?
Me
Based off of the research conducted (1, 2, 3) and the statements made by a stark majority of the ranking officials and servicemen who've commented on the matter. Those you can seek out for yourself.I don't expect anyone to actually read the papers, but the summarized results are presented on pages three, eight, and twenty three, respectively.
!
The fact that you chalk DADT solely to prejudice shows your ignorance and personal disgust with it. That's almost like saying "people don't like Obama only because he's black."
Speaking of projection...
Again, if you want to prove DADT was supported by something substantial, then prove it. I'm not going to do it for you.
!
That's because instead of seeing those people being happy to serve their country now that they're afforded certain liberties, instead I see them focusing on their sexual orientation and the fact that they can be open about it. Precisely what we DIDN'T want happening. I have nothing but respect for the armed forces and if you're serving your country effectively, your sexual orientation should not be an issue.
You wouldn't feel quite the same way about this if troops could get booted for revealing that they're Jews. Double standards, eh?
Originally posted by Eminence
Did you just ignore the papers I was kind enough to to link you to even when I told you where you could find the conclusions without actually reading them, or does actual data based research simply not stack up to Rick Santorum? If there's significant reliable evidence suggesting that a military without DADT is one that won't function reliably, find it and show me.
🙄Speaking of projection...
Again, if you want to prove DADT was supported by something substantial, then prove it. I'm not going to do it for you.
You understand that having a picture of your partner where someone can see it counts as "focusing on [...] sexual orientation," yes? You understand that heterosexual folks can have such memorabilia lining the walls, yes?You wouldn't feel quite the same way about this if troops could get booted for revealing that they're Jews. Double standards, eh? [/B]
WTF
And that never has, DS. This is the point; there was never a cohesive logistical, data-based rationalization behind the policy. It was rooted in prejudice, and very little more.
Originally posted by Lucius
Who exactly are the people that get into these GOP debates? Booing a gay soldier because he wanted to know if DADT would be reinstated by the Republican candidates?
It's like the organisers of the debate look for the craziest right wing lunatics they can find, and pack them all into one room. [/B]
They do the same thing during Democratic debates, find the craziest left wing nut jobs and pack them into one room. Except you hear less about that because the left tends to ***** about the right a lot more than the right bitching about the left.
!
Of course you're rolling your eyes. After all, you suggesting that DADT is only a factor of prejudice is no different than my example of those who suggest Obama isn't liked because they're racist.
You are not pulling your weight here. Provide evidence, or don't, and concede that you are simply not interested enough in this discussion to back your case. I'll be gracious enough to accept that.
!
Considering the fact that time and time again I've explained that I did not support DADT at any time, your argument is becoming less of a cogent argument and more of an emotional tirade.
Me
All this means is that at best your net reaction to the discharge of over fourteen thousand men and women over what amounts to homophobia is apathy. I'm not seeing the respect.
Me
You wouldn't feel quite the same way about this if troops could get booted for revealing that they're Jews. Double standards, eh?
!
In case you're having difficulty reading, my accusation of a personal opinion was based on this:
Me
When deciding to violate civil liberties and generally accepted standards of conduct on a scale that involves tens of thousands of service[wo]men, "we have a dearth of evidence suggesting that it'll hurt and lots of evidence that it won't butfvck it they're gayjust to be safe let's do it" is not a sensible, watertight way to lay a foundation.
Me
Any concerns with a semblance of legitimacy have obviously been something that the military is perfectly capable of dealing with.
Me
If there's significant reliable evidence suggesting that a military without DADT is one that won't function reliably, find it and show me.
Me
This is the point; there was never a cohesive logistical, data-based rationalization behind the policy.
You need to be a little quicker on the uptake.
!
Your emotional screams of "prejudice"!!
!
Also, claiming there's no difference between religious faith and sexual orientation is a great way to shut down arguments. That's what I love about people like you, you neglect distinctions unless they could benefit your argument.
If United States federal law had decreed that the presence of Jews praying Jewishly and whatnot demonstrably hurt unit morale, discipline and cohesion and thus mandated that Jews needed to keep their four thousand year old religion to themselves or get the hell out of the army, and as a consequence of this fourteen thousand Jews were discharged from service, what would you say?
If it's "well they should have done what the military said!," then I apologize for overestimating the degree of your homophobia. No other answer is objectively acceptable.
Originally posted by Eminence
It's not, because there is "reasoning", extensive "peer reviewed research," and "historical precedent" behind my assertion and a sizable "NO U" behind yours.
You are not pulling your weight here. Provide evidence, or don't, and concede that you are simply not interested enough in this discussion to back your case. I'll be gracious enough to accept that.I'm sorry, you posted a series of studies and said, "here, read this." You then proceeded to dole out what amounts to a childish argument and basically screamed "prejudice" because if it's not one thing, it has to be the other. I'm pulling as much weight as you except you're treating this as if we're on opposite sides of the net, while in reality, we both oppose DADT but I have the sense not to randomly scream "prejudice" when I don't like something. Once again, it's on the same intellectual plane as calling me a racist for not liking Obama, or claiming I'm a murderer because I support capital punishment. When you begin to throw emotions as the brunt of your argument, it fails.
Based off of the research conducted (1, 2, 3) and the statements made by a stark majority of the ranking officials and servicemen who've commented on the matter. Those you can seek out for yourself.
facepalmNatural reaction to someone who doesn't seem interested enough,
Nothing in the studies conducted post-DADT could not have been determined before the policy went into effect, and all of it should have been. There was no comparatively comprehensive research done to supplant the proposition that homosexuals serving actively in the military would impede its functioning.
You need to be a little quicker on the uptake.
... To what extent, exactly, are you denying the role prejudice has played in extant military policy on the service of homosexuals?To the extent that you're proclaiming prejudice is the sole reason of DADT..
Well it's a damn good thing I didn't claim that then. I do appreciate you completely neglecting to address the point, though. Let's try again.The point you were trying to make with your theoretical argument about the lack of distinctions when you asked me how I would have felt if it happened to be an issue of being a Jew? Totally didn't address this.
If United States federal law had decreed that the presence of Jews praying Jewishly and whatnot demonstrably hurt unit morale, discipline and cohesion and thus mandated that Jews needed to keep their four thousand year old religion to themselves or get the hell out of the army, and as a consequence of this fourteen thousand Jews were discharged from service, what would you say?
If it's "well they should have done what the military said!," then I apologize for overestimating the degree of your homophobia. No other answer is objectively acceptable. [/B]Well, you did scream prejudice repeatedly in your argument, so "homophobia" should be the next natural emotional trigger word. I expect "bigot" and "racist" to follow. However, I thoroughly enjoyed my theoretical response. Even if it couldn't be more incorrect.
Unsurprisingly, you're running this in circles. Square one:
[1] What do you believe was the primary motive of the pro-DADT faction in seeing the policy implemented, and what facts of merit supplanted its position?
Your rampant straw manning notwithstanding I have never said that you actively supported the policy, but that considering your apathy to the injustice homosexuals endured as part of a community you claim to universally respect that is not tantamount to the disavowal of the policy the other five of us espouse. Given this information and extending you a very generous benefit of doubt, the only logical procession is to conclude that you do, in fact, believe that there was a reasonable basis for the implementation of the policy, one that had nothing to do with the particular feelings towards homosexuals of those responsible for and supportive of the legislation: a suspicion that inclusion of homosexuals in the military would have an adverse effect on its efficacy. I have provided you with a great deal of data, itself but a modicum of what is available to anyone willing to look, concluding that this is not the case, and if we employ logic and search engines we find that no similarly exhaustive research was done before the implementation of the policy. If such research had been conducted the results would have been the same, and it would have been made incontrovertibly clear that the aforementioned suspicion is unfounded. Thus, the original concern is moot, and had some effort been dedicated to any diligent scrutiny of the assertion the only thing resembling a real reason to implement the policy would have been rendered baseless. That no evidence of remotely comparable scope or merit contradicted these findings means that the mandate to impose these rules on a select population was carried out without sufficient foundation in reason.
Why?
Was there insufficient time to determine whether trodding on the liberties of tens of thousands of uncommonly brave, patriotic and committed servicemen and women was worth the unsubstantiated security risk and [then unforeseen, no doubt] three hundred million dollar price tag?
Any way you slice it, it comes down to politics and prejudice. Even skipping past the the policy itself, why do you think the homosexual security risk was ever a topic of contention to begin with? Ignoring the opinion of the dissenting majority of the military, what exactly is it about gays that apparently discombobulates the unit dynamic? Homophobia. I understand you have a lascivious proclivity for seizing on words that accurately but unflatteringly explain particular phenomena [toward which you harbor objective but otherwise totally inscrutable sentiments, of course], but unlike "liberal retard" and "pseudointellectual" I use the term with no connotation beyond its most immediate definition: the unreasoning fear of homosexuals. At its core this is an issue of prejudice, and while it obviously wasn't my intention to go this deep, your endless repudiation of any such thing being a paramount motive here is getting unpleasantly grating.
That's about as simultaneously concise and exhaustive as I think this case can be made without losing your attention or feeding you more straw, and that's a stretch. If your interest in continuing the discussion outweighs your desire to troll or take potshots, I'd like for you to at the very least answer the first question. Following that, the onus is on you to support your case, should you remain interested. You have my position detailed here to the letter; everything you might feel the need to address is in there, there is no opportunity for misunderstandings or deliberate misdirection, and I will not repeat myself. If you skirt issues, refuse to answer direct questions directly, or persist with the obscene straw manning this discussion is over. I have no more time to waste with something that is damned to be fruitless.
On the subject of quantum mechanics. This still blows my mind...