I said they were insignificant on an account of the total numbers
Any number getting kicked out because of their sexuality, or not being allowed to join up, and basically being forced to hide part of who they are, is a significant number. It's discrimination, plain and simple. So yes, 13,000 is a significant number. 100 people would have been a significant number, as it should have been zero.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
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. But people are saying that a. it is wring, 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.
Since it was my point, and not yours, originally, you cannot say it was wrong unless you prove that exact point, incorrect.
My context was quite clear: repealing DADT will not impact, significantly, the number of homosexuals serving in the military. It is statistically insignificant, now, and will be after the repeal.
Mind, you could make an argument that the number of open gays serving in the military, compared to previous years, could, in and of itself, but statistically significant. We should definitely see multiples of the standard deviation since 1993. If that was your point, I would agree to it. That does not seem like your point. You are approaching this (the "insignificant" point) strictly from a moral standpoint and I have not.
Originally posted by Peach
Any number getting kicked out because of their sexuality, or not being allowed to join up, and basically being forced to hide part of who they are, is a significant number. It's discrimination, plain and simple. So yes, 13,000 is a significant number. 100 people would have been a significant number, as it should have been zero.
But that wasn't my point and the counter to that is a strawman as I agree that any number rejected for being homosexual was morally wrong, but definitely not statistically significant and I've clearly outlined that in my post even before I was responded to.
Originally posted by dadudemonDischarge would be dishonorable as that would entail lying when applying.
No, it would be "Other Than Honerable" which isn't the same thing
A Dishonorable discharge can only be given via a General Court Martial and you literally have to commit murder, or desert in the heat of combat to get one.
Your point was irrelevant. Trying to dismiss DADT numbers based on ia meaningless comparison means you are just wasting everyone's time. To use that as a basis of your objective success is feeble.
I'll give you the estimated numbers of homosexuals in the armed forces- it's about 70000. It should be much higher, of course, but discriminatory laws have kept them away. Stacked up on those odds, the situation looks very different. Of course, as mentioned above, DADT basically affects everyone in the armed forces because of the culture it creates. Nonetheless, that 13000 is a very significant number- not astonishingly vast, but significant. Your idea it is not is PRECISELY your subjective opinion and your attempts to make out otherwise are laughably unconvincing. I think you will find how wrong history makes you out to be when you say you don't think repealing this will have an effect on homosexual enlistments.
Your attempted dismissal of the moral side speaks poorly of you as well. There you are just hiding.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your point was irrelevant. Trying to dismiss DADT numbers based on ia meaningless comparison means you are just wasting everyone's time. To use that as a basis of your objective success is feeble.I'll give you the estimated numbers of homosexuals in the armed forces- it's about 70000. It should be much higher, of course, but discriminatory laws have kept them away. Stacked up on those odds, the situation looks very different. Of course, as mentioned above, DADT basically effects everyone in the armed forces because of the culture it creates. Nonetheless, that 13000 is a very significant number. Your idea it is not is PRECISELY your subjective opinion and your attempts to make out otherwise are laughably unconvincing.
I'm definitely not trying to convince you of my factual approach as that is an impossibility. You've strawman argued your point from you first reply and any further attempt to show you were you've made your error has failed and will definitely fail in the future as we have a fundamental disagreement on our approaches of what should be measured.
Also, what does 70,000 represent...those that identify as being exclusively homosexual, or those that are also bisexual?
Based on a "couples" estimate, only 1.2 million Americans out of the 105.5 million Americans that reported living with a mate, were same-sex partners. That represents about 1.14% of Americans are homosexual. But that number may have multiple things wrong with it. But if it is the most accurate number, then that would make the military numbers slightly disproportionate to the population numbers in favor of more homosexuals serving in the military, as a percentage of the whole, that are represented in the population average.
The high end estimate is 10%, but that could include those that simply participated, at one point, in homosexual acts but do not identify themselves as homosexual, on the whole. I consider both numbers to be incorrect because I do not think a person that currently identifies themselves as heterosexual or a bisexual is a homosexual.
But 3-5% seems to be the number quoted as being "most likely."
So 3% versus 3-5%.
In order for us to see a huge jump in numbers, it would rise, at the most, 2% of total service members.
Do we have that already in the armed services? Certainly for active military, that would mean 42,000 of the 1.44 million.
But based on the current numbers, 3% would be 68,358, which already puts it at the low end. (it definitely is if your 70,000 number is even more accurate than the federal eye's number.)
What about the high end of 5%?
That would be 113,930 people: a jump of 60%. A huge increase.
Will the repeal of DADT significantly impact the ratios of the US military? It will most likely remain between 60,000 and 100,000, depending on the total number of service members. But, it should increase.
This is probably irrelevant to you, though, but I feel that it fits nicely into the thread.
Edit - Just thought of something that is important.
My approach is definitely not "misguided" or "feeble" because part of the justification for repealing DADT was how many gays were already serving in the military and the impact of money spent on supporting DADT: it was a very large waste of money and time to even try to support it because we were already approaching population averages but everyone has to "shutup" about it...pretty much a huge waste of time.
See my previous points about population representation.
I think most people will find you trying to say that the numbers affected by this law apparently do not matter to be irrelevant also. It's certainly nothing to do with anything useful, nor does any of that stuff you said change any of my points or any of what was said. This IS significant. Very, very significant, Believe otherwise all you like; even believe your fake numerical justifications if you will. You are simply wrong.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think most people will find you trying to say that the numbers affected by this law apparently do not matter to be irrelevant also. It;'s certainly nothing to do with anything useful, nor does any of that stuff you said change any of my points or any of what was said. This IS significant. Very, very significant, Believer otherwise all you like; even believe your fake numerical justifications if you will. You are simply wrong.
You have yet to prove any statistical significance, which is the point you argued against from the beginning (with a strawman, no less).
Also, checking to see how the repealing of DADT will affect current military participation is directly associated with this thread. That much is very obvious.
Person 1: "What will be the impact of the DADT repeal?"
Person2: "Servicemen and women will be able to openly service in the US Military, but the actual numbers of homosexuals serving will not change very much."
Person 1:"But it is an important moral victory, isn't it?"
Person 2: "That it is."
"Fake numerical justifications" is incorrect and I proved that. You have yet to disprove that.
That's just noise from you, dadude. Your assumption of the numbers not changing much is breathtaking and most likely untrue, though only history will tell. I'd also add "Gay people will no longer have such a huge chance of being fired for their sexual orientation, or have to live a lie to avoid it", which is also statistically significant., Still, no point arguing with someone closed to reason; my points are made so I am done aruging the matter with you.
Originally posted by The MISTER
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?
When I worked at a Shiloh Inn Hotel back in the 90's, we were required to watch a video on sexual harassment. According to the Shiloh Corporation, it was considered sexual harassment (and a fireable offense) to ask a woman what her natural hair color is. The rationale being that that question is equivalent to asking the color of her pubic hair ("does the carpet match the drapes?"😉.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Maybe it´s a cunning plan by the extreme christian loonatics to get rid of gays, the next time there´s a war send in them first! The same way the military carreer folk concentrate mainly on poor urban black nieghbourhoods to get people to join the marines.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's just noise from you, dadude. Your assumption of the numbers not changing much is breathtaking and most likely untrue, though only history will tell. I'd also add "Gay people will no longer have such a huge chance of being fired for their sexual orientation, or have to live a lie to avoid it", which is also statistically significant., Still, no point arguing with someone closed to reason; my points are made so I am done aruging the matter with you.
Actually, I directly showed you a correlation between the population and military representations. That was very clearly outlined for you. I do not see how you can just brush that aside and pretend it doesn't exist.
And, the chance of being fired for being gay is obviously very very slim by your own numbers.
70,000 serving with, at most, 1278 people being "fired". That's a 1.8% chance of being fired in the "hugest" situation possible. How is that even remotely a "huge chance"?
Also, I have not been closed to reason as I agreed that it is definitely morally significant. You, however, have been closed to the idea that there is another measure of "significance" as you believe that no math can compare to the morally appalling discrimination: despite the direct reasons for these, isn't that the very definition of "closed-minded"? I have agreed about the moral approach being significant but you have not agreed that the numbers will not increase a a significant p-value.
In fact, I've conceded that if we measure gay numbers against just themselves (rather than comparatively, against the whole as a function of the population ratios), it would be statistically significant (with a ceiling of about a 60% increase...which IS statistically significant.) But that was not my original point and is a bit silly for me to concede a point I did not argue against...especially when that number is not a good measure as it should be an element compared to the system, as a whole.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yeah, Bardock's right. I could have sworn that I'd edited that to say Kastle...You need to change your name, man. 😐
😆
"The earth is the center of the universe", right?
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanThose guys have to do that in groups that accept that type of talk. They can't do it wherever they want to. Homsexuals already have that same right. Amongst like minded people religion and politics aren't discouraged. They're discouraged as conversation topics at work however. What homosexuals want is equal to two heterosexual soldiers loudly talking about their sexual exploits while surrounded by a room of female soldiers. If heterosexual soldiers will never (and rightly so) never have these special rights again then why should homosexuals have the right to harass people with sexual information that they didn't ask for? Also asking people about their sexual preferences shouldn't be done on the job even though it quite regularly is. This type of talk should be reserved to off duty hours of any job. The rights that homosexuals deserve is to not be harassed by anti-gay sentiment. If harassed the gay man or woman should complain about it and it should be handled as the crime that it is as sexual preference is not a choice and nobody should be mistreated because of who they are. Likewise that person shouldn't have a special right to make others uncomfortable discussing sexual details at work.
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 The MISTER
What homosexuals want is equal to two heterosexual soldiers loudly talking about their sexual exploits while surrounded by a room of female soldiers.
Which is already totally allowed. Also, that's not what they're asking for they're just asking not to be thrown out if someone finds out that they're gay.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which is already totally allowed.
As long as they do not mind that conversation. "Sexual harassment" charges can and have been brought up...so that's an iffy situation.
However, that does not stop the servicemen and women from saying pretty much whatever the hell they want.
Originally posted by inimalist
ddm - your argument is: because there is not a statistically large enough population of gays in the military, the actual impact on how many gays are kicked out will not reach a significant portion of the total people kicked out anyways?
Uh...no.
I don't understand what you were saying. 🙁 But I understand the confusion because we got a little off track from my original point.
But, what I was saying is that there will not be a significant increase in gays in the military because we were close to population average, already...they can just be more open about it, now, and discrimination will not be tolerated even more so than it is not tolerated now(I hope.)
Here's the original point:
Originally posted by dadudemon
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 ****.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Right, but repealing DADT has no effect on sexual harassment rules.
I agree with the second part, too. Well, I hate to make all encompassing statements like that...there probably is an effect...I just don't know how significant it would be.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh...no.I don't understand what you were saying. 🙁 But I understand the confusion because we got a little off track from my original point.
But, what I was saying is that there will not be a significant increase in gays in the military because we were close to population average, already...they can just be more open about it, now, and discrimination will not be tolerated even more so than it is not tolerated now(I hope.)
Here's the original point:
so, the repeal is insignificant because there will be no impact on enrollment?
Originally posted by inimalist
so, the repeal is insignificant because there will be no impact on enrollment?
I did say it would be insignificant on enrollment. The increase would be marginal and later, I outlined why I said that: we are already over a 3% "saturation" which is greater than some conservative measures of the homosexual population percentage of America and nicely within the accepted measures (3-5%).
To directly answer you question, no, there WILL be an impact on enrollment, but it will be insignificant because there is not much room left for the numbers to grow.