And here we go.
Originally posted by Eminence
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?This is another conversation that I will have to seriously think about, but I have a thought at the top of my head. If the military's primary goal is to ensure the utmost efficiency of their troops, and as these studies have allegedly shown that homosexuals don't impede performance or efficiency, then it is not in the best interest of the military to be prejudicial against homosexuals, wouldn't you agree? If so, your prejudice argument is out.
Yourrampant straw manninglack of 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.
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?I'm not following you here specifically because I agree with you regarding this sentiment so there's no reason to type it out.
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. [/B]I'm not sure you're one to talk about losing focus on a particular subject, especially one you're particularly passionate about, as your argument goes from logical, to somewhat logical, to flat out emotional and devoid of all logic. I've explained precisely why prejudice, while probably a small portion of the problem, could NOT fully explain the reason of DADT. That is all my onus requires of me, to negate one of your assumptions. Furthermore, I'd appreciate you stop throwing out words like "straw man" until you learn to use them in the proper context. I wouldn't mind continuing this discussion in greater technical detail if you would forgo the illogical terminology and incessant emotions and focus on the issue at hand and specifically the studies you have posted.
Your "GF" huh. I have the perfect article for you.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-situations-that-are-secretly-terrifying-awkward-people/
Originally posted by Turr_PhennirWhaaat?
Yeah, but you call her Mom.Damn it, Canadian!!!!
Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonYou can, but my own experience provides little enthusiasm for parties, college, and college parties. Parties are nothing more than noise and idiots making noise, and college was nothing more than expensive high school, just without teachers calling home if you skipped a class. And DOB's average. Like the rest of the After Hours gang, their individual selves aren't as good.
Parties are not overrated. Shall I go into my diatribe about how college changes you and molds you into the person you will eventually become, if you use it properly? And DOB is hilarious.
Except Swaim. That guy's awesome.
I've attempted to enjoy parties, but quite frankly they are boring as hell. I almost never drink since I get terribly sick, and like . . . I don't get it. It's boring. I don't understand how parties are fun. All I can ever think about is how people are talking about stupid shit and I just want to go home so I can read.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Whaaat?You can, but my own experience provides enthusiasm for parties, college, and college parties. Parties are nothing more than noise and idiots making noise, and college was nothing more than expensive high school, just without teachers calling home if you skipped a class. And DOB's average. Like the rest of the After Hours gang, their individual selves aren't as good.
Except Swaim. That guy's awesome.
I was completely antisocial in high school and decided to just let loose in college, put myself out there and stuff. Yes, parties are noisy and full of idiots, but it's not so bad when you're barely able to walk and partake in the festivities. That's what college is for, as well as possibly learning something financially beneficial for the future. I wouldn't really compare it to high school at all, since it was the difference between day and night for me.
I've attempted to enjoy parties, but quite frankly they are boring as hell. I almost never drink since I get terribly sick, and like . . . I don't get it. It's boring. I don't understand how parties are fun. All I can ever think about is how people are talking about stupid shit and I just want to go home so I can read.