Originally posted by skekUng
Read it, and then you'll see how right or wrong you are. Reading shouldn't be a problem for you. Besides, no one here is stupid enough to believe you don't read every word addressed to you. That makes about as much sense as the ignore button.
I literally did not read anything in your post. It's very much not worth my time.
Give me a 3 sentence summary.
Edit - For all I know, you agreed with me.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Wasn't DADT just a way to deter unwanted sexual advances?
No, gay people are no more likely to do that than straight people.
Originally posted by The MISTER
If that were the case then child sex advocates should be allowed to marry children as a constitutional right.
You don't see any important differences between children and adults?
Originally posted by The MISTER
If a guy likes it up the butt more power to him but what's to gain in giving him special rights to share his sex life details with his co-workers. Giving details about sex with the wife can cost you your job anywhere in America if the wrong person hears you. Why should special right's be given to a specific sex story?
This adds no special rights, all it does is remove a restriction.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This adds no special rights, all it does is remove a restriction.
Bingo.
I do not think this will increase, significantly, the enrollment of homosexuals in the military. There should be a marginal increase for those that "feared" DADT or the anti-gay mentality, but it should not increase very much at all. There's already plenty serving. 🙂 Some are even open about and no one gives a flying ****.
13000 people dismissed under it since its inception shows that it had a significant effect, so implying that dismissing it is trivial is not reasonable.
This is obviously a victory, and a significant one at that, well worth the time spent on it and the jubilation at the outcome. In defence of Clinton, DADT isn't what he aimed for, of course; it was the compromise he was forced into. A failure, but not one of intent. The hope was at the time that it would effectively allow gays in without too much fuss, but the dismissal rate has in fact been enormous and it needed to go.
Furthermore, this is a notable cultural moment in the history of the United States.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
13000 people dismissed under it since its inception shows that it had a significant effect, so implying that dismissing it is trivial is not reasonable.This is obviously a victory, and a significant one at that, well worth the time spent on it and the jubilation at the outcome. In defence of Clinton, DADT isn't what he aimed for, of course; it was the compromise he was forced into. A failure, but not one of intent. The hope was at the time that it would effectively allow gays in without too much fuss, but the dismissal rate has in fact been enormous and it needed to go.
Furthermore, this is a notable cultural moment in the history of the United States.
I was under the impression that 13,000 was an insignificant number to the total number of armed service personnel and that this was only a "cultural victory".
Of course, those are both subjective terms we are using.
But let's take a look at the current numbers to see why I called it "insignificant."
Current active numbers:
1,445,000
Current Reserve numbers:
833,600
Total: 2,278,600
Some may note, who know about DADT, that DADT does not apply to reservists. Well, that's only after they have enlisted that DADT does not apply. Not all are rejected as frequently as the active members, but they are still rejected. Indeed, some recruiters even for the active service branches still let gays pass through and they tell them to keep quiet about it. (anecdotal, at best, as I only know of one fella from highschool that that exception was made for.)
Still, how does 13,000 stack up against all the personnel that have served in the forces since 1993?
It is very insignificant.
Now, some may argue that that is a subjective statement on my part. But is it?
It is not.
There is an objective and scientific way to approach this.
What is generally accepted as "statistically significant"? That would be two standard deviations, meaning, if we add in the number of gay rejections, it will create at least 2 standard deviations, year over year.
Do the year over year numbers for 13,000 create a statistical significance, aka, two standard deviations?
Not even close. It is not even 1% of the DoD's 77,000 troop increase over 2007s numbers, much less the entire lifetime of DADT since 1993.
When I say it is "insignificant", that's because it really is. This is not only my subjective opinion, it is a literal fact: they (homosexuals) do not make up nearly enough of the population to be statistically significant for total # of personnel if they were proportianlly represented in the military; much less the obviously disproportionate representation in the armed forces, currently. (Because many are afraid to even apply, do not want to apply, or prefer other options.)
If they become proportionally representative of the population, they still will not be statistically significant. This is part of the reason that DADT was stupid to begin with...and one of the reasons I wanted it repealed (other than it being culturally repulsive, of course.)
Originally posted by skekUng
There's no need to repeat anything I said. You read every word of it.
You just can't respond.
You're correct. Everything you stated, I read completely (Honestly, I didn't read a single word).
And whatever points you made were correct, especially if the contradicted my opinions.
I just can't compare to your awesome might of internet discussion and I am incapable of overlooking a post that seems like a waste of time to me because I am not lazy and I itch to read every last post that is responding to me (not true, I'm lazy especially when it comes to reading walls of text or google searching).
You have complete victory on the contents of that post and I bow to your awesome internet might.
Originally posted by Peach
Believe it or not, people can care about more than one thing at a time!Anyway, good, I say. About damned time DADT was gotten rid of.
I just don't understand why Obama is taking so long to sign it. There's not catch 22 about it, unlike other repeals.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Because it's not special rights. Do you think that heterosexual soldiers don't sit around and talk about all the pussy they get (or wish they were getting), all the time?Don't believe the fantasy world that King Kandy tells you about the military. Most soldiers are dudes who are ****ing bored at work 90% of the time, and they talk about crap all day long, sex included.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm, how big is the number 13000 if you compare it to all early dismissals over that time period rather than all service personnel?
Early dismissals for what (such as drug use, admitting to homosexuality, no more need, etc)? Or early dismissals, period?
What about honorable vs. dishonorable discharges?
What distinction are you looking for?
Also, about 3 minutes of google searching could net you whatever you're looking for...maybe. I'm not sure what you're asking for so it may not be there.
If you want to know how many "enlist" in the military, it's between 165,000 and 180,000, each year.
Try http://www.military.com/ as they may have what you're looking for....again... maybe. Obviously, I do not want to lead you astray on what you're looking for.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Early dismissals for what (such as drug use, admitting to homosexuality, no more need, etc)? Or early dismissals, period?What about honorable vs. dishonorable discharges?
What distinction are you looking for?
Also, about 3 minutes of google searching could net you whatever you're looking for...maybe. I'm not sure what you're asking for so it may not be there.
If you want to know how many "enlist" in the military, it's between 165,000 and 180,000, each year.
Try http://www.military.com/ as they may have what you're looking for....again... maybe. Obviously, I do not want to lead you astray on what you're looking for.
Well, we could discuss what we should look at, I'm just saying perhaps that comparing it to the number of all servicemen may not be the best way to judge its impact.
Is a DADT dismissal a dishonorable discharge?
Good Lord, dadude, you have such a skewed idea about objective facts and what-not. Basically, you are making a pompous ass of yourself in this thread by suggesting that 13000 does not matter. Seeing as the number of people that should be being kicked out for that reason is 0, the fact that it's more than one every day is a source of shame. Of course, this is before we get into the fact that you are quoting utterly irrelevant figures and trying to pass them off as some trump card of yours.
Irrelevant and inaccurate- sums up your attitude to too many things really. Luckily, your gibberish here will be mostly ignored.
As mentioned, this is a very relevant and significant day.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Good Lord, dadude, you have such a skewed idea about objective facts and what-not... Seeing as the number of people that should be being kicked out for that reason is 0, the fact that it's more than one every day is a source of shame. Of course, this is before we get into the fact that you are quoting utterly irrelevant figures and trying to pass them off as some trump card of yours.
Two standard deviations is not a "skewed idea about objective facts". You have more secondary (possibly tertiary) education than I am so I will not inadvertently patronize you with this point, further (Even if you were not a global mod, I would still do this simply out of respect for you professional and educational endeavors.)
I never said that 13,000 "does not matter."
I agree that it was a bigoted practice that was morally wrong.
I said they were insignificant on an account of the total numbers (no conversational context is required as that was explicitly outlined in the post you responded to, originally). You disagreed and said it was significant. I put what I said, earlier, into a most direct and factual context to illustrate where I why I said what I said because you disagreed with it being insignificant.
To the bottom line:
I'm more than open to you showing me that, annually, the numbers of rejected homosexual applicants would result in a statistically significant number if added to the total number of accepted. You can do this with an annual average or the average for each year from 1994 to 2009 and then show what the standard deviation would be and compare than number to the average rejected applicants that were rejected, specifically, for being homosexual. I will definitely admit if I'm wrong. I have done it before and even to you and at least two occasions. I will not get immature or dismissive about it: I will apologize if it exceeded more than 2 standard deviations in a year.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
..Basically, you are making a pompous ass of yourself in this thread by suggesting that 13000 does not matter...Irrelevant and inaccurate- sums up your attitude to too many things really. Luckily, your gibberish here will be mostly ignored.
Reported for member bashing and trolling.
Abuse of report then, seeing as this is a criticism of your posting behaviour.
Your standard deviations are meaningless- you are stacking them against the numbers of total servicemen. These are irrelevant numbers to compare to. Very basic stuff, this. Like Bardock has been trying to do, you should at least compare it to discharges for other reasons. I'll give you another to look for- look at it compared to the number of homosexuals estimated to be in the armed forces. That's rather telling.
And meanwhile, of course, that's just discharge numbers- it does not take into account those who never joined because of the law, are discriminated against because of the law or live in fear because of the law. Not to mention the general effect on society having such enshrined discrimination has. No-one is saying that DADT is wiping out the army's ability to fight on grounds of numbers. But people are saying that a. it is wrong, very much so and b. as I said, it's ended up having far more of an effect than originally intended when Clinton signed it.
Your attempts to marginalise its impact, and hence the very good reasons for rejoicing at its downfall, are based on erroneous ideas and your attitude as displayed here says a lot about you.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, we could discuss what we should look at, I'm just saying perhaps that comparing it to the number of all servicemen may not be the best way to judge its impact.
The demographics of the servicemen and women are excellent measures as the only thing we have to do is check to see if they are proportionally represented in the military services compared to the population averages/percentages. (For instance, percentage of homosexuals in the US population versus the percentage of homosexuals in the military or those dismissed for homosexuality and how those numbers compare to the total number in the military. Then, from there, you'd have to find your standard deviation to create your statistical significance.)
We know for a fact that homosexuals are not proportionally represented in the military which lends credence to the idea that those dismissed or rejected would definitely have some sort of statistical representation, but the question I indirectly posed was, "Would that number be significant?"
Originally posted by Bardock42
Is a DADT dismissal a dishonorable discharge?
Discharge would be dishonorable as that would entail lying when applying.