Obama and the Gay Military...

[Bill Thompson]

You brought up military massacres as if they were somehow relevent to the discussion of DADT. If that is not a strawman, I don't know what is.

If not relevant, related. Everything is relative.

I have brought up issues in which DADT is damaging to the military. loss of dedicated, trained, willing soldiers. Specificially we have had issues with a number number of Arabic translators in military intelligence being drummed out for being openly gay, while attempting to deal with increased terrorist threats from the Aribic speaking world.

in other words, it is broke, and DADT is what is broke, it needs to be fixed.

You need to watch that video about Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. You go with where the preponderance of evidence points, not cherry pick one or two instances.

You only have to look as far as the making of the military co-ed to see the damage that has done.

Ironically feminist also cherry pick when they build their case that having women in the military has been a good thing. It has not been a good thing. That is, specifically, having women and men serve together side-by-side in combat.

I have found that progressives in this issue only go with what the news tells them and the most outspoken are the ones with the least first-hand experience. I was in the military for 3 years active duty. I know what I am talking about.

And by the way, being rude and insulting does not add a leg for our case to stand on.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

If not relevant, related. Everything is relative.



You need to watch that video about Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. You go with where the preponderance of evidence points, not cherry pick one or two instances.

You only have to look as far as the making of the military co-ed to see the damage that has done.

Ironically feminist also cherry pick when they build their case that having women in the military has been a good thing. It has not been a good thing. That is, specifically, having women and men serve together side-by-side in combat.

I have found that progressives in this issue only go with what the news tells them and the most outspoken are the ones with the least first-hand experience. I was in the military for 3 years active duty. I know what I am talking about.

And by the way, being rude and insulting does not add a leg for our case to stand on.

I'll see your "3 years" of military service and raise you my 6. I'd raise you the rest of the years of service from the other ex-military in here, but I don't want to speak for them in regards to women serving (wasn't a properly addressed topic prior to this, at least not that I recall) that women serving in the military has not been detrimental. Nor has women serving in combat been detrimental. Nor, in our opinions (okay, so I'm speaking for the rest of the ex-military in this thread here ) would allowing homosexuals to serve openly be detrimental. That's a lot of years to your 3.

As long as these women and openly homosexual members aren't turning cartwheels in combat, who cares?

(and yes, I realize this is a fallacious response to a fallacious argument...but so be it )

 

[Cleon]

I'll see your "3 years" of military service and raise you my 6.

It's weird the way Bill keeps insisting that his three years of service gives him some special knowledge - and then completely ignores the fact that a number of people who have served, including people currently on active duty, completely disagree with him.

 

[Aitch]

It's weird the way Bill keeps insisting that his three years of service gives him some special knowledge - and then completely ignores the fact that a number of people who have served, including people currently on active duty, completely disagree with him.

Maybe he is hoping for some sort of homeopathic effect? In which case, somebody who once shook hands with a recruiting sergeant is probably the ultimate authority.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Maybe he is hoping for some sort of homeopathic effect? In which case, somebody who once shook hands with a recruiting sergeant is probably the ultimate authority.

But wouldn't someone who shook hands with the person who shook hands with the recruiting sergeant be more of a homeopathic authority?

(Really, this could go handshakes all the way down....)

 

[Alan]

Its proper name is "handsuccussion".

 

[Bill Thompson]

It's weird the way Bill keeps insisting that his three years of service gives him some special knowledge - and then completely ignores the fact that a number of people who have served, including people currently on active duty, completely disagree with him.

It is more than that. Many things seem like good ideas and, on the face of it, are clearly the right thing to do. But what will work out in theory often do not work out in practice. This is because we are seduced by the idea of a better, fairer and more just world and we ignore or find a way to dismiss any information that is contrary to our vision.

We point to other countries who have changed and say that if it worked out for the UK or for Sweden then, clearly it will work out for other countries because we are all equally human beings.

I have already cited examples of things that have worked out great in Canada or the UK but have failed horribly in the USA.

I have statistics and clear evidence that a change might fail. It is simple. In most states in the USA gay marriage is not allowed. This shows the attitude of people in "middle America". This attitude is not shared in other countries where openly gay servicemen are accepted.

For people who have attacked me crudely and personally here I have to say this. I think it would be great if a change worked. But what if it won't? What if it is too soon? What if the USA is not ready for it? You are assuming that human nature is funamentally kind and accepting. That does not make sense. Aren't there many more examples of the fact that human nature is NOT fundamentally kind and accepting than there are examples that we are fundamentally good in nature? if human nature was funamentally kind and accepting, there would be no wars and little need for such a collosal military.

To repeat:

It's weird the way Bill keeps insisting that his three years of service gives him some special knowledge - and then completely ignores the fact that a number of people who have served, including people currently on active duty, completely disagree with him.

I repost this to call attention to a logical fallacy. Take a look at the Baloney Detection Kit (on youtube). This is a logical fallacy called statistics in small numbers. Since people who frequent this web forum tend to call themselves progressives it is no surprise where they stand.

And even if only one person has a particular opinion, that does not mean he is wrong. He might have worked things out and others have not.

 

[Cleon]

I repost this to call attention to a logical fallacy. Take a look at the Baloney Detection Kit (on youtube). This is a logical fallacy called statistics in small numbers.

Then stop using your three years of service as some sort of evidence for your position. Talk about statistics in small numbers...

 

[ponderingturtle]

What I find most amazing is why does Bill keep bringing back this thread every month or so with another post, it is like he wants everyone to know how common he thinks rape is among servicemen, based on his extensive personal experience.

 

[Ryokan]

I have statistics and clear evidence that a change might fail. It is simple. In most states in the USA gay marriage is not allowed. This shows the attitude of people in "middle America". This attitude is not shared in other countries where openly gay servicemen are accepted.

Homosexual acts were illegal in Norway until the 70's, and gay marriage was legalized only very recently.

Yet the Norwegian military has accepted gays since forever. They are a pair of boots and a gun just like everyone else.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Homosexual acts were illegal in Norway until the 70's, and gay marriage was legalized only very recently.

Yet the Norwegian military has accepted gays since forever. They are a pair of boots and a gun just like everyone else.

So in what 15 more years the US will be OK? Homosexual acts were only legalized rather recently.

 

[Toke]

So in what 15 more years the US will be OK? Homosexual acts were only legalized rather recently.

Possible, I an sure there have been rumours of the military wanting to change policies.

 

[Bill Thompson]

What I find most amazing is why does Bill keep bringing back this thread every month or so with another post, it is like he wants everyone to know how common he thinks rape is among servicemen, based on his extensive personal experience.

I never said I thought rape among servicemen was common based on my personal experience.

Homosexual acts were illegal in Norway until the 70's, and gay marriage was legalized only very recently.

Yet the Norwegian military has accepted gays since forever. They are a pair of boots and a gun just like everyone else.

That is an intersting fact and provides some hope that the American military can change. Does Norway have the same sort of fanatic religions such as the American Evangelists and The Mormons and even the Scientologists? These groups are larger and more extreme than I had once thought.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Has The Senate voted to strike down DADT?
When is this supposed to happen?
I googled it but so far I have not found out anything yet.

 

[indubitably.rick]

Has The Senate voted to strike down DADT?
When is this supposed to happen?
I googled it but so far I have not found out anything yet.

As far as I know, it has passed and will go into effect this coming October. I'd offer more details if I knew them; this is all I've heard from the guys upstairs.

 

[NobleXenon54]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jIWJ1V2EsAQ8O7sPsyfXG0OAQTBwD9I4ORLG5

In before activist judges.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It will be interesting to see the result of the ruling. I don't know how it will work, authority-wise.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It will be interesting to see the result of the ruling. I don't know how it will work, authority-wise.

My thought is that this ruling, essentially, is more show than go - but it does something important: allows the ruling to be kicked up to the Supreme Court where it can be reaffirmed, thus ending DADT.

 

[Bill Thompson]

As far as I know, it has passed and will go into effect this coming October. I'd offer more details if I knew them; this is all I've heard from the guys upstairs.

What? Nawwww. Do you have any links? No joke posts, please. If it was true, the activist judge ruling would not have made the news.

I faxed every Senator in the United States a letter showing that this would lead to law suits. In combat, the military could be sued if they thought favoritisim was given to someone who was gay or someone was not gay when someone would be picked to go to a dangerous mission in a squad or if someone was not picked etc. It is unavoidable. Ii also told them about my blog on arguemax.com where I challenge anyone to put their money where their mouth (no pun) is. No one has. No one has because when you require someone to first pay a buck, it requires them to pause and think if the opposing view is valid. It is not. I win. I win because no one has stood up to disagree with me and this is because I am right.

The Senate knows about my web site. They read it. If someone could post a convincing counter-argument, it would be read by the decision making party that could make a difference. No one does because I am correct.

I have the personal email address of some Senators now and I will email them this weekend. If a decison has REALLY been passed, I will find out. Still, it would have made headlines if it was passed the Senate. I think your buds "upstairs" are just guessing.

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

What? Nawwww. Do you have any links? No joke posts, please. If it was true, the activist judge ruling would not have made the news.

I agree, I doubt this would be making media rounds if the law was already changed by Congress.

I faxed every Senator in the United States a letter showing that this would lead to law suits. In combat, the military could be sued if they thought favoritisim was given to someone who was gay or someone was not gay when someone would be picked to go to a dangerous mission in a squad or if someone was not picked etc. It is unavoidable.

Is this unavoidable with respect to such decisions being made when there are multiple options of ethnicity, race, religion, gender, political affiliation and so on? If not, why is this unavoidable with sexual orientation but not these other traits?

Ii also told them about my blog on arguemax.com where I challenge anyone to put their money where their mouth (no pun) is. No one has. No one has because when you require someone to first pay a buck, it requires them to pause and think if the opposing view is valid. It is not. I win. I win because no one has stood up to disagree with me and this is because I am right.

I admit I have only scanned the blog post, where in the post is your challenge? I am curious about what it is.

The Senate knows about my web site. They read it. If someone could post a convincing counter-argument, it would be read by the decision making party that could make a difference. No one does because I am correct.

I have the personal email address of some Senators now and I will email them this weekend. If a decison has REALLY been passed, I will find out. Still, it would have made headlines if it was passed the Senate. I think your buds "upstairs" are just guessing.

Considering there is support for repealing the ban on openly gay service in the military, there is convincing support for it. Different people will disagree on what is convincing, so that there is no convincing counter-argument for you does not mean there is no convincing counter-argument for a majority of Senators.