Obama to end "don't ask, don't tell" policy

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

This is why I despise political discourse, and also one of the reasons I refrained from expressing my opinion earlier. This group has gone from debating the policy itself to arguing about the validity of the opposing viewpoints.

There always seems to be this "us vs. them" mentality in this forum, with no room for compromise.

 

[makare]

Poking holes in the opposing viewpoint is the only way to debate. Otherwise you are just reciting your feelings.

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

Yo, so I honestly feel that steinman was being a smug and condescending prick and so I expressed that because basically he was saying that we should seriously stop and think about how a few assholes being uncomfortable while taking a shower is too large a price to pay for allowing gays to serve in the military without hiding who they are and without living in constant fear of being discovered.

NOT THAT HE ACTUALLY SUPPORTS THIS BUT COME ON JUST THINK ABOUT IT.

Also when people told him how stupid his position was and why, he responded with "Looks like you guys just don't get what I'm talking about, this is something I don't see discussed and if you're not going to discuss it then that's your problem HEH"

This is why I despise political discourse, and also one of the reasons I refrained from expressing my opinion earlier. This group has gone from debating the policy itself to arguing about the validity of the opposing viewpoints.

Do you understand what "debate" actually is?

Edit: makare I know we've had our differences in the past but you seriously rule in this thread so *daps*

 

[Chibibar]

I thought debate is basically pointing out the flaws of the "evidence" presented by the opposition.

like Which is better Pie vs Cookie
Person A: I like Pie because it taste good
Person B: I like cookies, cookies are better cause there are more recipes than pies
Person A: but pies are more refine and take longer to make than cookies also pies tend to be staple for some traditional holidays like Thanksgiving.
Person B: but cookies also have a holiday. Christmas.

etc etc.. and counter each other point with facts or conjecture (in this forum) or even personal feelings, but when people start spouting personal feelings and ideas without basis of facts, then well...... it turns into a shouting match

 

[makare]

I thought debate is basically pointing out the flaws of the "evidence" presented by the opposition.

like Which is better Pie vs Cookie
Person A: I like Pie because it taste good
Person B: I like cookies, cookies are better cause there are more recipes than pies
Person A: but pies are more refine and take longer to make than cookies also pies tend to be staple for some traditional holidays like Thanksgiving.
Person B: but cookies also have a holiday. Christmas.

etc etc.. and counter each other point with facts or conjecture (in this forum) or even personal feelings, but when people start spouting personal feelings and ideas without basis of facts, then well...... it turns into a shouting match

that example seems more like negotiation to me. This fact for that fact down until you both concur.

To win a debate you have to not only support your side but also show that the other side is wrong and why. That means tearing apart the argument from all angles.

If a person is unable to support his argument and has to fall back on the "I'm just being a devil's advocate" stay out of the debate. If you can't take the heat for you argument. GTFO.

If the devil wants to argue with us it isn't that difficult to make an account himself.

 

[Calleja]

makare, you're gonna be an awesome lawyer, dudette.

 

[Troll]

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..

The problem with your argument, as I see it, is that the military will ALWAYS have something else to worry about. There will never be a convenient time to implement a change like this. The same arguments were used against de-segregating units, and basically the military was just told to deal with it. Everyone worked out fine, and there's no reason to think it wouldn't work out now.

 

[Calleja]

No, we should wait until the US is completely at peace and has NO military action ANYWHERE.

Y'know... cause that's happened so many times.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

It's kind of a tricky thing to try to be civil when one side is literally saying that a group of people can't be equal until it's convenient.

 

[Calleja]

I've been civil throughout the thread. This thread, at least.

 

[JCM]

dangerous, and irresponsible.

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]I can see your worry, but we're talking about the army, you cant be that out-of-date with army training to to think that something that millions can live with after a law is passed, suddenly cant be accepted by the army.

Is the army there, instead of being disciplined soldiers who have undergone training and obey all orders, are just backward retarded hicks who cant keep up with the everyday citizen?

It's kind of a tricky thing to try to be civil when one side is literally saying that a group of people can't be equal until it's convenient.

With people like the guys here, black people would still be at the back of buses and women would still not have the right to vote, "until its convenient".

I'd love to see what the opinion would be if it was, lets say, mine, Covar's or Calleja's rights being taken away he would give the same racism Boer excused used during the apartheid years of South Africa; "implementing this change after all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

Would any of us accept that?

 

[Troll]

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

 

[Calleja]

But it's NEVER going to be convenient! How long has the US had NO military presence elsewhere since World War II? Brief periods between Korea and Vietnam? then came Grenada, Panama, Gulf War, Bosnia... it's unrealistic to just cross our arms until the army isn't "in danger".

 

[JCM]

Bingo.

Thats what every oppressed minority group has realized when given the "its not convenient"excuse, and ended up rebelling/rioting to get such rights.

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Neither do I, since we are on that subject, think he is racist, just that his argument was used heavily by the Boers and white Americans in order to extend prejudiced laws.

In all cases where its done so, often it ends up in protests and/or violence for gaining the aforementioned rights, so why not skip that and let the president do what should have been done before?

Although I'm betting easily that he, Chichi, Stienman and anyone would sing a different song if it was their rights that were taken away until "all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

 

[@Li3n]

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.

That's how the military has operated since like forever...

 

[Chibibar]

Bingo.

Thats what every oppressed minority group has realized when given the "its not convenient"excuse, and ended up rebelling/rioting to get such rights.

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Neither do I, since we are on that subject, think he is racist, just that his argument was used heavily by the Boers and white Americans in order to extend prejudiced laws.

In all cases where its done so, often it ends up in protests and/or violence for gaining the aforementioned rights, so why not skip that and let the president do what should have been done before?

Although I'm betting easily that he, Chichi, Stienman and anyone would sing a different song if it was their rights that were taken away until "all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

I hope chichi is not me. I dislike DADT and support equal rights on all bases.

 

[DarkAudit]

Fox couldn't be bothered to even point a camera out the window, but they send a satellite truck to cover an empty sidewalk in NJ.

 

[Espy]

I hope chichi is not me. I dislike DADT and support equal rights on all bases.

Are you actually asking someone to read what is posted? That ain't gonna happen.

 

[JCM]

I hope chichi is not me. I dislike DADT and support equal rights on all bases.

Are you actually asking someone to read what is posted? That ain't gonna happen.[/QUOTE]Errr, I said everyone in this thread, and included my name.

How is that not reading, if I may inquire?

 

[Bowielee]

Bingo.

Thats what every oppressed minority group has realized when given the "its not convenient"excuse, and ended up rebelling/rioting to get such rights.

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Neither do I, since we are on that subject, think he is racist, just that his argument was used heavily by the Boers and white Americans in order to extend prejudiced laws.

In all cases where its done so, often it ends up in protests and/or violence for gaining the aforementioned rights, so why not skip that and let the president do what should have been done before?

Although I'm betting easily that he, Chichi, Stienman and anyone would sing a different song if it was their rights that were taken away until "all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

 

[Fun Size]

Bingo.

Thats what every oppressed minority group has realized when given the "its not convenient"excuse, and ended up rebelling/rioting to get such rights.

To be fair Covar never used the word "convenient," and I never meant to imply he was racist by comparing the issue to de-segregation. It's just a very apt comparison for other reasons, such as logistical concerns.

Neither do I, since we are on that subject, think he is racist, just that his argument was used heavily by the Boers and white Americans in order to extend prejudiced laws.

In all cases where its done so, often it ends up in protests and/or violence for gaining the aforementioned rights, so why not skip that and let the president do what should have been done before?

Although I'm betting easily that he, Chichi, Stienman and anyone would sing a different song if it was their rights that were taken away until "all the bases have been covered, and to have it go as smoothly as possible."

Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.[/QUOTE]

I should clarify myself here, because I really don't want you or anyone to think that's what I was ever trying to say. You have every right to be pissed. You should be pissed. I would be pissed if it was me. I was just trying to express that the anger could be directed towards something productive.

You know what? There's a reason I try to keep myself to smart ass comments and whatnot. I somehow almost never manage to express what it is I'm trying to say without being misunderstood and irritating people, or worse, having someone think they know my position on something when they really, really don't. I think I'll go back to that for a long, long time now.

 

[JCM]

Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Dont worry mate.

Like I said, everyone here, including those who said "lets wait", would sing a different song and have a different opinion, if it was them being discriminated against.

 

[SpecialKO]

You know what? There's a reason I try to keep myself to smart ass comments and whatnot. I somehow almost never manage to express what it is I'm trying to say without being misunderstood and irritating people, or worse, having someone think they know my position on something when they really, really don't. I think I'll go back to that for a long, long time now.

I think you're doing just fine, actually. Nothing wrong with trying to inject a breather into a strident conversation.

 

[makare]

Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Dont worry mate.

Like I said, everyone here, including those who said "lets wait", would sing a different song and have a different opinion, if it was them being discriminated against.[/QUOTE]

Since alot of us in this thread are against DADT and discrimination against gays you are saying that if we were being discriminated against we would "sing a different song" and suddenly be FOR DADT and discrimination against gays.

Why would that be? To get the focus off our own discrimination?

 

[Bowielee]

Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Dont worry mate.

Like I said, everyone here, including those who said "lets wait", would sing a different song and have a different opinion, if it was them being discriminated against.[/QUOTE]

Since alot of us in this thread are against DADT and discrimination against gays you are saying that if we were being discriminated against we would "sing a different song" and suddenly be FOR DADT and discrimination against gays.

Why would that be? To get the focus off our own discrimination?[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the flippant attitude that people are having by basically putting basic non-issues up against the rights of those being descriminated against.

And lets face it, as I said in the beginning, the whole shower issue is a strawman argument in every definition of the term. It's making a mountain out of a molehill and using it as a possible roadblock to a real issue.

 

[JCM]

Pretty much that.

Like I mentioned before, the same "wait until we´re ready" has always led to either a)riots, or b)violence, and the exact exuses here have been used by the Boer and white americans, to no avail.

Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Dont worry mate.

Like I said, everyone here, including those who said "lets wait", would sing a different song and have a different opinion, if it was them being discriminated against.[/QUOTE]

Since alot of us in this thread are against DADT and discrimination against gays you are saying that if we were being discriminated against we would "sing a different song" and suddenly be FOR DADT and discrimination against gays.

Why would that be? To get the focus off our own discrimination?[/QUOTE]You would sing it, with a gayer tune, ala me?

 

[Steven Soderburgin]

Well, seeing as I AM one of the one's who's been descriminated against, and still is being descriminated against, I guess that is why my responses have been so much more extreme than usual.

I don't see why I shouldn't be able to get pissed off when someone minimizes the struggle that I and people like me have to go through and say my freedoms are less important than some dicks being uncomfortable showering around gay people.

Yep. It really, really makes me mad when someone tells me I should just sit back and wait for when it's more convenient for the government to stop restricting my rights.

And it makes me especially mad when someone implies that my rights have to wait until we can make separate (but... equal?) showers for people like me.

 

[Jake]

Steinman is the best troll ever. :hail:

 

[Rob King]

Something just hit me, and since it's sort of topical, I figured I'd throw it up here. Do I remember someone telling me that there are no women in the Marines?

I remember someone, somewhere, telling me that women are barred from joining the Marines, because their presence destabilizes the psychology of the unit or something. Something to do with the fact that males supposedly are predisposed to protecting women, and introducing women to a unit would degrade the relaibility.

Again. I don't know if this is fact or fiction. If it's fiction, I'll feel a little silly, and move on with my life. If it's fact ... well ... that seems to me that it would bode ill for homosexuals in the military.

If "no women in the marines" is just a sexist issue, so many decades since women started their fight for equal rights, then it's going to be a longer, harder, uphill battle for homosexuals than I would have first imagined.

If it's a legitimate psychological concern, though, then I can only begin to imagine what kind of shit is going to fly in the next few decades to continue to preclude homosexuals from fully serving in the military, even after DADT goes away.

 

[DarkAudit]

Something just hit me, and since it's sort of topical, I figured I'd throw it up here. Do I remember someone telling me that there are no women in the Marines?

I remember someone, somewhere, telling me that women are barred from joining the Marines, because their presence destabilizes the psychology of the unit or something. Something to do with the fact that males supposedly are predisposed to protecting women, and introducing women to a unit would degrade the relaibility.

Again. I don't know if this is fact or fiction. If it's fiction, I'll feel a little silly, and move on with my life. If it's fact ... well ... that seems to me that it would bode ill for homosexuals in the military.

If \"no women in the marines\" is just a sexist issue, so many decades since women started their fight for equal rights, then it's going to be a longer, harder, uphill battle for homosexuals than I would have first imagined.

If it's a legitimate psychological concern, though, then I can only begin to imagine what kind of shit is going to fly in the next few decades to continue to preclude homosexuals from fully serving in the military, even after DADT goes away.

Total lie. They're about 6.2 % of active duty Marines.

 

[Rob King]

Total lie. They're about 6.2 % of active duty Marines.

Well, I'll just go feel dumb over here ... then ...

 

[@Li3n]

Total lie. They're about 6.2 % of active duty Marines.

Well, I'll just go feel dumb over here ... then ...[/QUOTE]

Plus, the Sacred Band of Thebes did just fine and they had the whole psychological protection thing...

 

[Covar]

not a total lie. Women are allowed in the marines, but do not serve in active combat roles. Same as in the Army. That is not to say that women can't see combat, but that they are not in positions where their unit actively seeks it out. The reasons are not just sexist reasons, (still not sure why there is no all woman infantry unit other than sexism or lack of demand, probably both), its partially the reasons you listed as well as some logistical purposes. Personally I wouldn't want to be in combat alongside any of the females in my unit. The reasons are purely Physical. I know another man beside me is held to the same level of strength and fitness as I am. Female soldiers are not held to the same standard, it's a lot lower.

As for people asking when a good time will be, saying there would never be a good time, how about 2000. not a lot going on in the military then, or 92-93 right after the first Gulf War. Same thing. Having a few units, and SF deployed is a lot different than >100k.

 

[Troll]

Steinman is the best troll ever. :hail:

 

[Covar]

Steinman is the best troll ever. :hail:

[/QUOTE]

dude, it's not his fault you suck at trolling.