Adam Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Whoa, wait a minute. I said Joe has knowledge. I never said he had a point. He has a point- I never said it was a good point
bartshan-83 Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Know what I love about this debate? Most of the tools who are pro- queer soldiers serving openly never served themselves. You rarely disappoint... As it appears you read my disclaimer, you then understand (hopefully) that I'm willing to give you bit of deference (God help me) because you did serve and have experienced this situation. I don't assume to fully comprehend things I have not seen. If I enlisted tomorrow, maybe something would happen during my service that would make me think gays shouldn't be in the military (or not have the option to be open). But I tend to think that it would likely be because of my then-reinforced experience that other people's inability to do their jobs due to their own weaknesses was the cause of the problem. You can save your "You don't understand" line as if it ends any debate. Your experience in this situation means very little if it is simply a trump card to flash when justifying your predetermined prejudiced views. Your attitude is a symptom of the disease that causes the problem in the first place. Morale wouldn't be an issue if people could maturely handle 'queers' as fellow soldiers without clenching their sphincters every time they got in the shower. If it boils down to something else beyond that, please enlighten me. I can see Tom's point about the military not being a good channel for social change, but that is just a sad commentary on society. I don't blame gay people for keeping their mouths shut in the military right now for the same reason they do in professional sports; it's not worth the personal risk.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 And how, precisely, am I supposed to be "openly bipolar". That's my point, genius...what does that mean when it's not even relevant? I don't need people to know I'm bipolar, they don't need to know I'm bipolar; I need to do my job, period. "Openness" doesn't begin to enter in to it. Maybe not for you. Maybe other people in your situation (whatever it is), would enjoy the ability to identify themselves to others as bipolar without fear of repercussion. So long as a person's condition does not negatively alter their ability to perform a job, or somehow put themself or others at unnecessary risk...why should their position be terminated?
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 So long as a person's condition does not negatively alter their ability to perform a job, or somehow put themself or others at unnecessary risk...why should their position be terminated? It shouldn't. That's why firing me for being bipolar is illegal. That's alse not what we're discussing. We're discussing the definition of being "openly <something>" in the context of a work environment. Or more specifically, I'm discussing what a retarded concept it is, and you're completely ignoring everything I say.
KD in CA Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I've never been in the military so I won't pretend to speak from any sort of experience on what sorts of issues an openly gay soldier might cause, but I think its a childish and self-centered approach to allow it to be a problem. You don't like that a fellow soldier is gay? So what. Grow up and do your job. I've never served either, so won't presume to put myself in that situation and judge how they react. But that's always been my understanding of the issue. And KD...we gotta do something about your signature, bud. I read it for the first time today and for a minute I started wondering when I said something so stupid. You're killin me... Sorry about that Bart, I didn't mean to impugn your rep! There actually is a poster with the ID 'Bart'; some dope who showed up during the Gailey hiring meltdown and offered up that bit of wisdom when Scott was closing a few of the tediously repetitive threads. Given the apparently short tenure of that poster (thankfully), I think we can retire that sig. But you own me a Dogfish Head.
IDBillzFan Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Meanwhile, in reality, the government has clearly decided to move swiftly with Obama's call for a 3-year spending freeze as evidenced today when the Senate approved raising the debt ceiling another $1.9 trillion before Brown takes his seat. Awesome. That's what I call a pivot.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Kid, someday when you're all growed up and have accomplished something with your life, you'll realize that experience, even without reasonable argument, carries more merit than a classroom gedankenexperiment. Joe may be a bigoted !@#$, but he also has an understanding of military organization and culture and how gays might (or might not) integrate into it. Your "reasonable argument" amounts to "but it's wrong". You completely lack the necessary perspective to make an informed judgement on it. And if you were even a quarter as smart as you think you are, you'd accept that as constructive criticism and go out and expand your knowledge on the subject. More likely you'll just insist you're right because "your collije edjumacated" to the point that you can't perceive the intellectual Skinnerian box you've put yourself in. You're not an idiot because you're wrong (point of fact: Joe's wrong, on several levels. I'd counter his "worked for centuries" BS with the buggery part of "rum, buggery, and the lash"). You're an idiot because you can't even bother to be completely informed. You know what? Maybe my "I'm young and therefore know everything" approach doesn't jive. I admit that I've been foolishly stubborn in the past, regarding issues on which I lack perspective. I try my best not to do this, but in my own stupidity I often come up short. But your "You're young and can't possibly understand this" opinion is equally ignorant. You make enormous assumptions about me. One might say you lack perspective.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 You mean like how my company would fire me if they knew I'm bipolar? So I can't be "openly bipolar", because I can't tell anyone something about myself that isn't germane to my job or theirs? That's quite simply retarded. It shouldn't. That's why firing me for being bipolar is illegal. That's alse not what we're discussing. We're discussing the definition of being "openly <something>" in the context of a work environment. Or more specifically, I'm discussing what a retarded concept it is, and you're completely ignoring everything I say. Ok I must have misunderstood this. I inferred that your company would fire you if you were to reveal your condition.
Adam Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Meanwhile, in reality, the government has clearly decided to move swiftly with Obama's call for a 3-year spending freeze as evidenced today when the Senate approved raising the debt ceiling another $1.9 trillion before Brown takes his seat. Awesome. That's what I call a pivot. People will complain, but then again, that's what people do. If it passes, it won't fix the problem, but as always, you have to start somewhere
IDBillzFan Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 People will complain, but then again, that's what people do. If it passes, it won't fix the problem, but as always, you have to start somewhere Maybe the "somewhere" you start is not giving yourself a nearly $2 TRILLION credit line increase just before you promise to stop spending. Meanwhile, people SHOULD complain about this. Why wouldn't you? We're ass-deep in debt, everyone agrees we need to stop spending...including the president...and the first thing they do is commit to spending more before they commit to spending less???? Not sure how anyone can be so passive about this.
Adam Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Maybe the "somewhere" you start is not giving yourself a nearly $2 TRILLION credit line increase just before you promise to stop spending. Meanwhile, people SHOULD complain about this. Why wouldn't you? We're ass-deep in debt, everyone agrees we need to stop spending...including the president...and the first thing they do is commit to spending more before they commit to spending less???? Not sure how anyone can be so passive about this. You are mistaking my meaning- no matter what is done, people will complain. I completely agree with you, by the way
KD in CA Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 You are mistaking my meaning- no matter what is done, people will complain. I completely agree with you, by the way That's a cop out. If he actually did the right thing, I wouldn't complain.
Adam Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 That's a cop out. If he actually did the right thing, I wouldn't complain. Not really- I just think people are that stupid. I hope it doesn't affect what is done. People are trained like dogs to go party line
bartshan-83 Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Sorry about that Bart, I didn't mean to impugn your rep! There actually is a poster with the ID 'Bart'; some dope who showed up during the Gailey hiring meltdown and offered up that bit of wisdom when Scott was closing a few of the tediously repetitive threads. Given the apparently short tenure of that poster (thankfully), I think we can retire that sig. But you own me a Dogfish Head. Too many Barts in these parts... Dogfish head for sure...no more excuses. The in-laws are getting a place in Bethany this summer so I'll be making an appearance. You comin down this way?
Nanker Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 There's no Constitutional right to serve in the American armed forces.
Adam Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 There's no Constitutional right to serve in the American armed forces. And their shouldn't be- it should be the best of the best, regardless of orientation or skin color
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Don't fall for that logical fallacy...experience has no merit if it doesn't manifest itself by reasonable argument. If Joe told you Irish Americans should be banned because they have the devil's red hair, how much weight would you put into that? WTF kind of horse-shat is that first sentence? Experience carries MORE merit than some half-baked "educational" knowledge. Try sharing a shelter half with someone sometime. Now imagine that dude is openly gay and known for making advances on fellow soldiers. Yeah, that's awesome.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 I agree with you that Joe has a point about the workings of the military, but there should be no type of sexual relations- homo or hetero going on during combat operations, so it should be a wash. If somebody can perform on the battlefield, we should be using them Nothing used to piss me off more than seeing pregnant female soldiers on post. WTF? They can get knocked up and get out of their enlistment? Terrible. I actually agree with your post. Fraternization has no place in the military, especially a modern volunteer force.
LeviF Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 WTF kind of horse-shat is that first sentence? Experience carries MORE merit than some half-baked "educational" knowledge. Try sharing a shelter half with someone sometime. Now imagine that dude is openly gay and known for making advances on fellow soldiers. Yeah, that's awesome. Bottom line is that the standards of behavior should make it clear that making romantic advances on any of your fellow soldiers is grounds for reprimand (I believe it is), gay or not. That's my stance on it. You can be gay or straight, but don't make your sexuality a problem.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 Bottom line is that the standards of behavior should make it clear that making romantic advances on any of your fellow soldiers is grounds for reprimand (I believe it is), gay or not. That's my stance on it. You can be gay or straight, but don't make your sexuality a problem. See my response to Adam. Nothing used to piss me off more than seeing pregnant female soldiers shamming during PT time while the rest of us were out exercising to the point of puking.
Recommended Posts