THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
They won't serve in segregated units because they believe that they shouldn't have to.
I believe that is incorrect. They want to serve with men. Women and homosexuals like the idea of all those macho types. If it was simply to serve, why do they find the surrounds of like minded people so repulsive ?

What makes you think gays find the company of other gays repulsive? If that's true, how are they finding each other?

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Does your mom know that you're using her computer?
No, she is busy having it off with your mum.

I'm pleased to see that my mom finally has a hobby.

Ionus wrote:

You have to know SOMETHING of a topic to be involved in it. Have you served in any armed forces ?

No, I've never served in the military. Do you think one has to belong to a group to comment intelligently on that group?

Ionus wrote:

Where do I begin to give you basic knowledge required to keep up with the concepts ? Do I care enough about your opinion to educate you ? Probably not.

And yet another opportunity to explain your position goes to waste.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
It's sweet of you to think only of my personal safety.
Yes. Yes it is. That is what we do in the army.

Quite right. I've seen the videos.

1 Reply

You all know that gays servicing openly in the US military will happen in the very near future and that nothing bad will then occur as a result.

So what others unfounded fears are you people then going to move on to?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

What makes you think gays find the company of other gays repulsive?

You do. What reason could they have for not serving together ?

Quote:

No, I've never served in the military. Do you think one has to belong to a group to comment intelligently on that group?

No, but it must help the comment reach the intelligent level.

Quote:

And yet another opportunity to explain your position goes to waste.

I have explained my position. It is educating you to understanding my position that I draw the line. There is too much you dont know. You know so little you think I can replace years of experience with a couple of sentences . Is that true of your job ? Could I replace years of experience with a couple of sentences ? Perhaps if you are an elevator operator...

Quote:

Quite right. I've seen the videos.

And is that your total knowledge of a subject where you want to change things ?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

You all know that gays servicing openly in the US military

Do you mean like a stallion servicing a mare, or a stallion servicing another stallion ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
What makes you think gays find the company of other gays repulsive?
You do.

What gave you that idea?

Ionus wrote:

What reason could they have for not serving together ?

They do serve together, along with many heterosexual service men and women. I'm sure some even served alongside you. What they don't want to do is serve in segregated units, for reasons that should be obvious and that I have already explained.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
No, I've never served in the military. Do you think one has to belong to a group to comment intelligently on that group?
No, but it must help the comment reach the intelligent level.

Ah, then I suppose it is a testament to your heterosexuality that your comments about gay people are so idiotic.

Ionus wrote:

I have explained my position. It is educating you to understanding my position that I draw the line. There is too much you dont know. You know so little you think I can replace years of experience with a couple of sentences . Is that true of your job ? Could I replace years of experience with a couple of sentences ? Perhaps if you are an elevator operator...

If your argument about "unit cohesion" can only be understood by someone with a comparable amount of service in the military as you, then why did you even bother to post it on this forum?

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Quite right. I've seen the videos.
And is that your total knowledge of a subject where you want to change things ?

No.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

What is it about the military that you think is a right ? Shouldnt all citizens be conscripted ? We cant have anyone without rights.

Really dumb, Ionus. Every citizen should have the right to attempt any position within the military. To sort some out on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender is bigotry, it's discrimination and civilized societies try to get rid of that.

Conscription is a red whale. No, everyone doesn't need to be conscripted in order to attempt positions within the military, IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

Quote:

Just because you call them idiots or bigots does not make it true. I know it is impossible, but what if...just if mind....you were wrong ?

Please, enough with the dumb. It's not me calling them bigots that makes them bigots, it's their behavior towards people based on their SP or gender that makes them bigots. The facts is the facts and you can bring in a whole school of red herrings and it won't change the facts.

Quote:

How is your bigotry any different from the Klu Klux Klan ? You see yourself as a champion just like they do. You see yourself as fighting the good fight just like they do. You are prepared to villify and condemn whilst ignoring the failings in your argument. All this without the slightest bit of experience or knowledge and insulting those who do.

Vacuous! You're suggesting that people who had experience with Blacks were justified in keeping them segregated because they had experience with them and could point up some problems that they thought would justify segregating them.

Quote:

Your opinion in this matter is hysterical not rational. Just like the Nazis who persecuted Jews, you have it in for the military and are blaming them for too much. I would be more amiable to your argument if you werent so bitter and emotional.

Was there a special on red herring today? I don't have it in for the military. I want to hold those in the military accountable for their idiotic ideas and behaviors. I don't have anything against folks in the military who don't subscribe to such inane ideas borne of bigotry.

To suggest that you would be more amiable to my argument if certain conditions were met is childish petulance. I thought you wanted to deal in facts.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

You all know that gays servicing[sic] openly in the US military will happen in the very near future and that nothing bad will then occur as a result.

I'm afraid that that's not the case. There will be some, I hope not a lot, of situations where bigots will take out their frustrations and ignorance on others, in both cases, SP and gender.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Do you mean like a stallion servicing a mare, or a stallion servicing another stallion ?

What does this say about you, Ionus, that you take the opportunity presented by a typo and try to turn it to disparage? Is that your intent?

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

you take the opportunity presented by a typo and try to turn it to disparage? Is that your intent?

yes it is. It is common to make jokes in the army. We think it takes the weight out of our work.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

joe said : What makes you think gays find the company of other gays repulsive?

Quote:

Ionus said : You do. What reason could they have for not serving together ?

Quote:

joe said : What gave you that idea?

Your avoidance of why they dont want to serve together, of why they have to serve with men.

Quote:

What they don't want to do is serve in segregated units, for reasons that should be obvious and that I have already explained.

I have read your explanations and they amount to they shouldnt serve in their own units because you dont like it. They still get to serve dont they ? They have their 'right' to serve satisifed.

Quote:

then I suppose it is a testament to your heterosexuality that your comments about gay people are so idiotic.

I will let others judge that as you have obvious bias. If you can recall this point was about the necessary level of experience required to know enough about the military to make an informed comment. You and JTT think the necessary qualification is to be a left whinger, demanding things be done your way and any problems can be sorted out by others. It is not your fault if your ideas have problems. They must be instigated anyway.

Quote:

If your argument about "unit cohesion" can only be understood by someone with a comparable amount of service in the military as you, then why did you even bother to post it on this forum?

Is it your assumption that you are the only person on this forum ?

1 Reply

Because hawkeye and Ionus still have yet to answer this question: What is there left to debate here?

- Homosexual are physically able to perform their duties.
- Homosexual already serve in the U.S. military right now, and have in every war we've ever had.
- Homosexuals already serve openly in almost every U.N. affiliated country, and has not had impaired their units from achieving their objectives.
- Military brass support the move.
- Citizens support the move.
- DADT has cost the US lots of money and resources.

So tell me, what is left to debate? There is no compelling argument left to ban homosexuals from open and integrated service.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

There is no compelling argument left to ban homosexuals from open and integrated service.

those are your conclusions....are you trying to decide for the rest of the human race what they should think and feel......again?

You sure are an arrogant son of a bitch.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Every citizen should have the right to attempt any position within the military.

Perhaps the mentally and physically handicapped, the aged....

Quote:

To sort some out on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender is bigotry, it's discrimination and civilized societies try to get rid of that.

I consider you the biggest bigot at A2K. You are totally intolerant of other points of view. You and joe seem to think you are the captain of the starship enterprise, all you have to do is say make it so. Is it possible there might be problems ? None ?

Quote:

Conscription is a red whale. No, everyone doesn't need to be conscripted in order to attempt positions within the military, IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

So we will continue to conscript men if we have to, but not women because they are equal. How can you put conscription and IF THEY SO CHOOSE in the one sentence and be completely unaware of how stupid your statement is.

Quote:

Conscription is a red whale.....whole school of red herrings...Was there a special on red herring today?

Can you smell fish from where you are ? You seem to be obsessing.

Quote:

You're suggesting that people who had experience with Blacks were justified in keeping them segregated because they had experience with them and could point up some problems that they thought would justify segregating them.

That is the most ludicrous tangent you could have gone off on. Sort out society first or it will cost lives in the military. It is that simple. I dont care if you were raped by the 101st. Get over it. Stop power tripping and think.

Quote:

I want to hold those in the military accountable for their idiotic ideas and behaviors.

Who is going to hold you accountable for your idiotic ideas and behaviour ?

Quote:

I don't have anything against folks in the military who don't subscribe to such inane ideas borne of bigotry.

You have a problem with power dont you ? You are frustrated that you are not important and have focused on the military. This is why you rage that people wont do what you tell them. But you are prepared to accept anyone in the military who does what you tell them...how generous from someone so powerful.

Quote:

To suggest that you would be more amiable to my argument if certain conditions were met is childish petulance.

Of course you think searching for common ground is childish petulance. You wrote the book on childish petulance.

Quote:

I thought you wanted to deal in facts.

The problem can be simply stated : you dont know any facts about service in the military. All you have is limited theory about social engineering.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
There is no compelling argument left to ban homosexuals from open and integrated service.

those are your conclusions....are you trying to decide for the rest of the human race what they should think and feel......again?

You sure are an arrogant son of a bitch.

He's an arrogant son of a bitch who is absolutely right that you have not provided any compelling argument in favor of retaining the current policy.

Try providing an argument instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
There is no compelling argument left to ban homosexuals from open and integrated service.

those are your conclusions....are you trying to decide for the rest of the human race what they should think and feel......again?

You sure are an arrogant son of a bitch.

When was the last time a new angle on this topic was introduced? This policy has been in place almost two decades. We can observe real world examples to address any concerns, so we don't have anything still loitering in the realm of the hypothetical here.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think or feel. I'm talking about correct policy. You're free to think and feel what ever you like about it. The facts remain here, and letting homosexuals serve openly is an idea that has been well covered.

What you're attempting here is a Loki's wager to posture like your only real concern is with making sure things have been thought through fully, but it's actually just an intellectual filibuster.

It doesn't matter if you're on board or not. The reasons why this is changing have been very well supported and justified.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Homosexual are physically able to perform their duties.

That is decided by passing a physical.

Quote:

Homosexual already serve in the U.S. military right now, and have in every war we've ever had.

Correct. And your point is ?

Quote:

Homosexuals already serve openly in almost every U.N. affiliated country

Bullshit. Dribble. Hysteria based on safety in numbers and it is totally incorrect.

Quote:

and has not had impaired their units from achieving their objectives.

Your knowledge in this matter exceeds the US general staff. How clever of you.

Quote:

Military brass support the move.

Try a secret ballot. Dont guess.

Quote:

Citizens support the move.

Try a referendum. Dont guess.

Quote:

DADT has cost the US lots of money and resources.

Define lots..is it a term like lovely ?

Quote:

So tell me, what is left to debate?

You didnt want to debate in the first place. There was nothing wrong with your way in your mind and you werent going to change.

Quote:

There is no compelling argument left to ban homosexuals from open and integrated service.

There have been many compelling arguments, you just dont know enough about the topic.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

There have been many compelling arguments, you just dont know enough about the topic.

I'm not sure you understand what a "compelling argument" is.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Can you find me one thing in that post that is not your opinion ? Who are you ?

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

It doesn't matter if you're on board or not. The reasons why this is changing have been very well supported and justified.

You get one vote on what we do about gays, you get no say in whether other people talk, or what they talk about, or on what they decide, or what they care about, our how they get to their decision.

If you are done thinking and talking about this subject then go away....dont stick around for our benefit, we will be fine,

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

is absolutely right that you have not provided any compelling argument

Thank you for your opinion. But what was the basis of your understanding of the military problems raised ?

0 Replies

THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know