M
makare
Reality has a well-known factual bias.[/QUOTE]
I can actually hear Sam the Eagle saying that.
Obama to end "don't ask, don't tell" policy
- Thread starter ZenMonkey
- Start date
- Status
I can actually hear Sam the Eagle saying that.
Reality has a well-known factual bias.[/QUOTE]
I can actually hear Sam the Eagle saying that.[/QUOTE]
This makes me wish I could tune in to CNN some day and see muppets do a round-table about current events.
A
Armadillo
I don't think they're saying that it should prevent the removal of DADT, just that it is a factor that should be compensated for in the process of removing it.
Now, I don't even believe that, but there you go.[/QUOTE]
This, this, this, a million billion kajillion times THIS.
Let me be clear again, speaking only for myself: I hate DADT. I want it gone, and I think any person willing to serve this country should be allowed to, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm for civil unions for all, marriage for the religions. That doesn't mean I think the transition is going to go smoothly, (very few large-scale social transformations do) and I'm not about to knee-jerk shit on opinions that I don't share. To do so is the epitome of the closed-mindedness that so many on my side in this debate claim to despise in their opponents.
I
Iaculus
I don't think they're saying that it should prevent the removal of DADT, just that it is a factor that should be compensated for in the process of removing it.
Now, I don't even believe that, but there you go.[/QUOTE]
This, this, this, a million billion kajillion times THIS.
Let me be clear again, speaking only for myself: I hate DADT. I want it gone, and I think any person willing to serve this country should be allowed to, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm for civil unions for all, marriage for the religions. That doesn't mean I think the transition is going to go smoothly, (very few large-scale social transformations do) and I'm not about to knee-jerk shit on opinions that I don't share. To do so is the epitome of the closed-mindedness that so many on my side in this debate claim to despise in their opponents.[/QUOTE]
Oh, sure, I can see there being obstacles to equal gay rights as a theoretical concept. I just don't see the whole DADT kerfuffle being one, based on prior evidence. It just doesn't qualify a a 'large-scale social transformation' to me. Really, is bathroom sharing the best concern that can be come up with regarding the transition?
J
JCM
I don't think they're saying that it should prevent the removal of DADT, just that it is a factor that should be compensated for in the process of removing it.
Now, I don't even believe that, but there you go.[/quote]
This, this, this, a million billion kajillion times THIS.
Let me be clear again, speaking only for myself: I hate DADT. I want it gone, and I think any person willing to serve this country should be allowed to, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm for civil unions for all, marriage for the religions. That doesn't mean I think the transition is going to go smoothly, (very few large-scale social transformations do) and I'm not about to knee-jerk shit on opinions that I don't share. To do so is the epitome of the closed-mindedness that so many on my side in this debate claim to despise in their opponents.[/quote]
Oh, sure, I can see there being obstacles to equal gay rights as a theoretical concept. I just don't see the whole DADT kerfuffle being one, based on prior evidence. It just doesn't qualify a a 'large-scale social transformation' to me. Really, is bathroom sharing the best concern that can be come up with regarding the transition?[/QUOTE]Because people are prejudiced, and dont want "the gays" using the same bathroom as them? The bathroom "concern" did pop up when the South African president's representative was negotiating with the ANC and Mandela in prison as one "problem".
I can bet at least one white guy said it would be a problem when the blacks wanted equal rights.
Guess some people are so prejudiced against gays that they'll find any excuse, even when the bathroom dillema is idiotic, as one could have anything from artists who draw nudes, scat fetishists, pedophiles and bisexuals/curious people/etc using the bathroom and looking at you/your kid's in a different way.
Looks like for some people its something one cant handle, and worth delaying giving gays rights.
---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------
This.
Of course it's not gonna go over smoothly, the point here is THAT DOESN'T MATTER.
If you only accepted things that went smoothly from start to finish why would you ever submit to a major surgery, just to save your life? Oh, no, it's not worth it, they're creating a whole NEW wound to get into your body and take out that damn tumor! How dare they! It's gonna take WEEKS before you heal! It's a shock to the body! It's against the status quo! RUN! RUN FROM THE CRAZY MAN WITH THE MEDICAL DEGREE!!
If you only accepted things that went smoothly from start to finish why would you ever submit to a major surgery, just to save your life? Oh, no, it's not worth it, they're creating a whole NEW wound to get into your body and take out that damn tumor! How dare they! It's gonna take WEEKS before you heal! It's a shock to the body! It's against the status quo! RUN! RUN FROM THE CRAZY MAN WITH THE MEDICAL DEGREE!!
That's kind of starting to happen in the US.
rly:
Perhaps because the Military has enough to worry about right now, so you want any non-mission-essential change to go as smoothly as possible. Not considering unit-cohesion when implenting such a large change as this is dangerous, and irresponsible.
So everyone keep on thinking that the military culture and mindset is the same as on the Civilian side, it's quite amusing. In the mean time when we have our annual briefings come December I'll let you guys know how this change goes down, when it's told to us officially.
J
JCM
Perhaps because the Military has enough to worry about right now, so you want any non-mission-essential change to go as smoothly as possible. Not considering unit-cohesion when implenting such a large change as this is dangerous, and irresponsible.
So everyone keep on thinking that the military culture and mindset is the same as on the Civilian side, it's quite amusing. In the mean time when we have our annual briefings come December I'll let you guys know how this change goes down, when it's told to us officially.[/QUOTE]Yeah, damn right, thats why we didnt allow them niggahs equal rights.
Oh wait, we did. Without giving shitty excuses for prejudice.
---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:35 PM ----------
Amen.
If a few million people can survive knowing others are gay, there is no reason the military, with better disciline and educatiion, cant.
C
Chibibar
Well... taken from the story before, the unit DID know the guy was gay and haze him for it BUT still using the same bathroom and such. The only reason that kept going because of DADT. If there is no DADT, the soldier could have reported the hazing and even discover that he is gay, the soldier wouldn't have been discharge, BUT since DADT exist, he had to kept quiet if he wants to continue in the military.
I do believe their unit know that their member is gay and take advantage of hazing them since there won't be any repercussion.
I don't think there will be much change in the military OTHER than gay people will get to stay in the military and report abuse by their unit.
I do believe their unit know that their member is gay and take advantage of hazing them since there won't be any repercussion.
I don't think there will be much change in the military OTHER than gay people will get to stay in the military and report abuse by their unit.
It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.
It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.[/QUOTE]
Yes I'm sure kicking people out will cost lives.
despite what you, Calleja, and JCM might think it is the best interest of the military to implement this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible.
It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.[/quote]
Yes I'm sure kicking people out will cost lives.
despite what you, Calleja, and JCM might think it is the best interest of the military to implement this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible.[/QUOTE]
And you base this declarative statement on....
If that were the case we still wouldn't have women serving in the military.
C
Chibibar
It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.[/quote]
Yes I'm sure kicking people out will cost lives.
despite what you, Calleja, and JCM might think it is the best interest of the military to implement this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible.[/QUOTE]
And you base this declarative statement on....
If that were the case we still wouldn't have women serving in the military.[/QUOTE]
sometimes there are policies where you just have to implement it.
Where do I sign up for my "be an ignorant ass and get away with it scott free" card that Steinman apparently has?
Why shouldn't he be treated like anyone else on the board?
I wasn't aware that the cohesion of American military units rested so strongly on its abilities to brutally haze its gay members and get away with it.
It's much more dangerous and irresponsible to kick people out of the armed forces because of their sexuality.[/quote]
Yes I'm sure kicking people out will cost lives.
despite what you, Calleja, and JCM might think it is the best interest of the military to implement this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible.[/QUOTE]
And you base this declarative statement on....
[/quote]
Every single briefing I've had to sit through on Sexual Harassment Prevention, and Suicide Prevention.
We still don't have women serving in the Infantry, Rangers, and other combat Roles in other branches.
Fine by me. Lock it up and throw away the key. Ban me, whatever, I could care less. I'm not going to apologize for speaking my mind.
Fine by me. Lock it up and throw away the key. Ban, me, whatever, I could care less. I'm not going to apologize for speaking my mind.[/QUOTE]
Before the lock-hammer drops, I'll take the opportunity to point one thing out. Rage as much as you like, steiny is at least trying to discuss the thing. I don't always (or even often) agree with his point of view, but he's trying to discuss it. I understand that for some here this is personal. That has the unfortunate effect of making reactions extreme. Whether he's playing devil's advocate or simply expressing his opinion, at least he's trying to discuss reasoning behind it. Every opportunity you get to understand the opposition's reasoning is a chance to actually think about and address their concerns in a way that they can potentially understand. If all you can react with is "You're wrong and you suck for thinking that", or respond with blatant hostility of any kind, then there's no discussion to be had from anybody, just yelling.
Fine by me. Lock it up and throw away the key. Ban, me, whatever, I could care less. I'm not going to apologize for speaking my mind.[/QUOTE]
Before the lock-hammer drops, I'll take the opportunity to point one thing out. Rage as much as you like, steiny is at least trying to discuss the thing. I don't always (or even often) agree with his point of view, but he's trying to discuss it. I understand that for some here this is personal. That has the unfortunate effect of making reactions extreme. Whether he's playing devil's advocate or simply expressing his opinion, at least he's trying to discuss reasoning behind it. Every opportunity you get to understand the opposition's reasoning is a chance to actually think about and address their concerns in a way that they can potentially understand. If all you can react with is "You're wrong and you suck for thinking that", or respond with blatant hostility of any kind, then there's no discussion to be had from anybody, just yelling.[/QUOTE]
Points were made, but quickly tossed aside. His original supposition was that seperate bathrooms would be demanded because gay people apparently can't shower with people of the same gender without accosting them. THAT is what I find willfully ignorant, and there's no reason he shouldn't be called on that.
Fine by me. Lock it up and throw away the key. Ban, me, whatever, I could care less. I'm not going to apologize for speaking my mind.[/quote]
Before the lock-hammer drops, I'll take the opportunity to point one thing out. Rage as much as you like, steiny is at least trying to discuss the thing. I don't always (or even often) agree with his point of view, but he's trying to discuss it. I understand that for some here this is personal. That has the unfortunate effect of making reactions extreme. Whether he's playing devil's advocate or simply expressing his opinion, at least he's trying to discuss reasoning behind it. Every opportunity you get to understand the opposition's reasoning is a chance to actually think about and address their concerns in a way that they can potentially understand. If all you can react with is "You're wrong and you suck for thinking that", or respond with blatant hostility of any kind, then there's no discussion to be had from anybody, just yelling.[/quote]
Points were made, but quickly tossed aside. His original supposition was that seperate bathrooms would be demanded because gay people apparently can't shower with people of the same gender without accosting them. THAT is what I find willfully ignorant, and there's no reason he shouldn't be called on that.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I thought his point was that some people will be uncomfortable showering with people they know to be gay, which is absolutely true. It took an unfortunate turn when he tried to use the argument that we require separate bathrooms for men and women for similar reasons. Either way, try to take this from the debate: people will be made uncomfortable. Does this warrant leaving it in place? No, of course not. Is it going to cause problems when it's repealed? You betcha. Dismissing the concern outright is also willfully ignorant, and falls under the category of "their discomfort is not my problem".
Which frankly is how DADT supporters feel, and why they piss a lot of people off.
It won't get locked, just moved to flame wars.
There isn't a single person here who has said otherwise, you realize.
Again, no one has said otherwise.
What folks have been saying, again and again and again and again is:
The reason why people are getting pissed is because "consider how people are going to be uncomfortable" is pretty much no different from "won't someone think of the children" as an argument tactic, and its being used here (again) to victimize the people who, as a group, share at least some of the responsibility for the victimization of gay people in American society.
No, I have no qualms about locking it up. I'm not going to let some jerks ruin a thread just so they can get it moved where they can really go nuts. If you want to start a flamewar thread about the subject go nuts.
Bowie: You can say whatever you would like. I won't and can't stop you nor was I trying to. I was merely asking for people to lower the rage level that seemed to be brimming. See my drift? If we want tolerance, rational discussion, etc from others we usually get if by showing it first in my opinion.
There isn't a single person here who has said otherwise, you realize.[/QUOTE]
Actually, what they said was "hey, you've probably showered with gay people already, so this is a non-issue", which is nothing less than dismissing the concerns of someone else. Again, same thing the DADT supporters do, except up until now they've been the comfortable majority.
Either way, all I was trying to point out was that getting angry and stomping one's feet does not allow for progress to be made. Trying to understand the thought processes behind those that oppose you does. As Zen has most eloquently pointed out, there's only so far that can get you, but if someone is offering their reasons, however inane they seem to you, it seems like giving them a moment of consideration instead of simply flaming that person might do some good.
A
Armadillo
There isn't a single person here who has said otherwise, you realize.
Again, no one has said otherwise.
What folks have been saying, again and again and again and again is:
The reason why people are getting pissed is because "consider how people are going to be uncomfortable" is pretty much no different from "won't someone think of the children" as an argument tactic, and its being used here (again) to victimize the people who, as a group, share at least some of the responsibility for the victimization of gay people in American society.[/QUOTE]
I think you're reaching pretty hard here. As I've pointed out a few times, NOBODY here is arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed, or that gays shouldn't serve in the military, only that there are people in the military who will have a MAJOR problem with it. To read some of the posts here, you'd think stien or Covar (and maybe myself) are advocating lining up gay people and shooting them. Ignoring an opposing point of view doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and could actually have the undesirable effect of making people feel marginalized, which could radicalize them further. This is why all points of view must have their chance to be heard, and a civil explanation given when that point of view doesn't get its way. Yelling "you're an asshole and you can suck a dick," doesn't accomplish much in terms of unity.
You know what's ironic? If there was a poll question asking, "should DADT be repealed?" I bet "yes" would be the unanimous answer, and yet this is the thread most in danger of devolving into a flame war.
M
makare
I haven't seen anything lock worthy in this thread. Stienman's words are just as vitriolic as everyone else's, they are just said in his usually Gomer-esque "aw gee guys" way that it is hard to spot. But they are just as caustic and hate-filled.
C
Chibibar
After reading stories and trying to understand both sides, I still think DADT is a stupid rules. All it does is allow hazing against gay people and not being reported since the victim is subject to dismiss due to no gay in the military (at least known ones)
There are gays IN the militar, but they just mind their own business and serve their country. But it seems that some people take this opportunity to haze them since they victim will less likely to report it SINCE it will cause their discharge (which I find it unfair)
How is it handle now? is that hazed person shower separately? Do they get their own bathroom? I would say no, since currently military doesn't allow open gay people (again open means it is known to the people who can dismiss them) to serve. So how is it handle now?
I personally believe that people will adjust. People will always adjust, you just have to set in the rules and regulations and people will adjust.
When the military allow non-white into the military, they adjust.
When the military allow female into their ranks, they adjust (slowly since they are not allow in combat zone yet)
I'm sure when people will adjust when DADT is repeal.
It is the basic rights of people are being tread upon. If someone is hazing you due to religion, the guilty are punish cause the victim can report it AND not be dismiss for believing in something else (I'm sure there are exception like a cult that requires to sacrifice your unit's blood or something might cause dismissal)
There are gays IN the militar, but they just mind their own business and serve their country. But it seems that some people take this opportunity to haze them since they victim will less likely to report it SINCE it will cause their discharge (which I find it unfair)
How is it handle now? is that hazed person shower separately? Do they get their own bathroom? I would say no, since currently military doesn't allow open gay people (again open means it is known to the people who can dismiss them) to serve. So how is it handle now?
I personally believe that people will adjust. People will always adjust, you just have to set in the rules and regulations and people will adjust.
When the military allow non-white into the military, they adjust.
When the military allow female into their ranks, they adjust (slowly since they are not allow in combat zone yet)
I'm sure when people will adjust when DADT is repeal.
It is the basic rights of people are being tread upon. If someone is hazing you due to religion, the guilty are punish cause the victim can report it AND not be dismiss for believing in something else (I'm sure there are exception like a cult that requires to sacrifice your unit's blood or something might cause dismissal)
There isn't a single person here who has said otherwise, you realize.[/QUOTE]
Actually, what they said was "hey, you've probably showered with gay people already, so this is a non-issue", which is nothing less than dismissing the concerns of someone else. [/quote]
How so? If you're uncomfortable with gay people in the same bathroom as you, and someone points out that there's nothing to worry about because there have been gay people in the bathroom with you before, then it's pretty much being addressed directly.
Of course, but at some point, if someone is going to persist in making an argument that's demonstrably either not valid or a non-issue, there's really very little that can be done.
Calling them names is a step far, of course, but it's not like (to pick a different extreme example) engaging with the birthers is really going to be productive.
A
Armadillo
I agree, people will adjust. There's been a fairly rapid (by historical standards) acceptance of gay people in the U.S. in the last ten years or so. I've long believed that gay marriage will be allowed and seen as no big deal almost nationwide in my lifetime, and each passing year brings us closer to that. Of course, there will always be resistance to gays, but there are also people who still have a problem with interracial dating.
C
Chibibar
Yea. My parents FINALLY accepts my wife after 9 years of being together (include 4 years of marriage)
Right, but it's being addressed by saying that those concerns are unfounded. It's saying that what you feel or fear or whatever is going through that person's mind is invalid. Great. It's invalid. I concur. But it still needs to be addressed, because it's going to cause problems when this thing is repealed.
Again, I concur. I was just trying to stem the tide of rage that this was becoming.
---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------
I agree, people will adjust. There's been a fairly rapid (by historical standards) acceptance of gay people in the U.S. in the last ten years or so. I've long believed that gay marriage will be allowed and seen as no big deal almost nationwide in my lifetime, and each passing year brings us closer to that. Of course, there will always be resistance to gays, but there are also people who still have a problem with interracial dating.[/QUOTE]
I often wonder if it will be my children or my grandchildren that talk about these controversies the way we talk about segregation. I'm hoping for the former.
I haven't seen anything lockworthy yet, either, I said keep it up and it's going that way. That is it. Sorry, I should have said, "I'm about to take my pants off" like NR, that gets the message across
If someone is spouting hateful speech please use the report button on that post so the mods get a message and we will deal with it. If Stein said something that is hateful, seriously, report it and you will see it dealt with, just like anyone else, I promise.
The thread isn't gonna get locked, we can actually have a discussion without screaming and swearing at each other, just go look at the religion thread.
- Status