THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

@DrewDad,

Quote:

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

I am all ears. Would you be so kind as to start with the points raised by those with military experience ?

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

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 ?

Currently, homosexuals serve in the military as long as they do not openly declare their sexuality.
The military is currently considered to be effective.
Therefore, the presence of homosexuals in the military does not cause the military to be ineffective.

Following so far?

So the debate is not whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military. That debate is done. Finished. Kaput.

The debate is whether homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly.

So please explain how knowing how many homosexuals are in a military unit, and who they are, is worse than being uncertain of how many homosexuals are in a military unit, and not knowing who they are.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

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,

Vote?

Did we vote to integrate blacks into the military? Because we didn't, did it make it any less the right thing to do?

Neither of our "votes" matter on this. The end result is going to be the product of rational thought. Perhaps that's what scares you?

T
K
O

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Well put.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The end result is going to be the product of rational thought.

THe war on drugs.....you are wrong...as usual.

I am not ready to agree that putting restrictions on gays and/or gay behavior is irrational, but even if it is we have the option to do it.

Ionus is the one here who thinks that gays should have restrictions in the military, if you have a problem with that take it up with him. My position is that we need to do it at the right time and in the right way, and I am not convinced that the current plan accomplishes that.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Therefore, the presence of homosexuals in the military does not cause the military to be ineffective.

You are wrong. What you mean to say is that homosexuals hidden in the military has no effect discernable by you.

Quote:

Following so far?

Do you think I dont have the intelligence to keep up with you? Or were you trying to belittle me ?

Quote:

So the debate is not whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military. That debate is done. Finished. Kaput.

Only because it is impossible to tell if someone is discreet about their sexuality. Not because their contribution is essential.

Quote:

being uncertain of how many homosexuals are in a military unit, and not knowing who they are.

It allows them to be an integral part of the group at a time when cohesion is most required...combat.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Did we vote to integrate blacks into the military? Because we didn't, did it make it any less the right thing to do?

You have assumed it was the right thing to do. Are there any other areas where you recommend you are able to over ride democracy because of your superior intellect ?

Quote:

The end result is going to be the product of rational thought.

Apparently not rational thought about combat. You do remember combat ? The whole reason for having a military and every other reason should be subservient to it ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Therefore, the presence of homosexuals in the military does not cause the military to be ineffective.
You are wrong. What you mean to say is that homosexuals hidden in the military has no effect discernable by you.

I'm pretty sure I know what I mean.

I mean: the presence of homosexuals in the military does not cause the military to be ineffective.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
Following so far?
Do you think I dont have the intelligence to keep up with you? Or were you trying to belittle me ?

I was trying to ascertain whether you were following the points that I made. You have made it clear that you are not following the points that I made.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
So the debate is not whether homosexuals should be allowed in the military. That debate is done. Finished. Kaput.
Only because it is impossible to tell if someone is discreet about their sexuality. Not because their contribution is essential.

You're arguing with yourself, sweetheart, because nobody else is claiming that homosexuals are essential to the military. We're just saying that they're a fact of life.

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
being uncertain of how many homosexuals are in a military unit, and not knowing who they are.
It allows them to be an integral part of the group at a time when cohesion is most required...combat.

Way to dodge the question, sweety. Care to try again?

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

the presence of homosexuals in the military does not cause the military to be ineffective.

Wrong. Whilst it is possible to fight no matter what the circumstances, men fight better where there is more identification with the man beside them. The more things the same, the better they fight.

Quote:

You have made it clear that you are not following the points that I made.

Following you and agreeing with you are two different things.

Quote:

We're just saying that they're a fact of life.

Surely you understand your own position better than that. You are saying they are a fact of life that must be obvious to everyone. Why are you obsessed with sex being obvious ? Does it excite you ? It would be more obvious if we didnt wear clothes. Then every one would know what sex we are...it would be a fact of life.

Quote:

Way to dodge the question, sweety. Care to try again?

No. Just because you say something doesnt make it true. This is the problem with you left whingers you think you have everything worked out and all the world has to do is what you say.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
the presence of homosexuals in the military does not cause the military to be ineffective.
Wrong. Whilst it is possible to fight no matter what the circumstances, men fight better where there is more identification with the man beside them. The more things the same, the better they fight.

That is demonstrably false. Or haven't you heard of "combined arms"?

The idea of a heterosexual-only military is not the topic at hand. Do you understand this? The question of whether the military would be "better" without homosexuals is a moot point. Homosexuals are already in the military. They are in the military to stay; that's the whole point of don't ask, don't tell. Are you trying to deny this basic fact?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

This is the problem with you left whingers you think you have everything worked out and all the world has to do is what you say.

Dumb dumb dumb, again. Rational thinking left wingers, like rational thinking right wingers and centrists and radical leftists and radical rightists, when they thinking know that this goes thru a political process called democracy where a decision is made by the whole bunch.

In this process, the military doesn't get a chance to participate as the military. People who think that the military should be making policy that would restrict the rights of individuals are not rational in their thinking.

They may think they have a reason, they may even have a reason, but those reasons have to be set aside/modified to ensure equality. The reasons you've laid out are merely examples of prejudice, thinly disguised prejudice.

I wonder if Hawkeye has counselled his wife to get out of the military. She obviously doesn't belong there, being a woman and all.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Quote:
I wrote : men fight better where there is more identification with the man beside them. The more things the same, the better they fight.
DD wrote : That is demonstrably false. Or haven't you heard of "combined arms"?

That is a fact of military history and only the completely ignorant would argue against it. Combined arms is based on weaponry, not identification between men.

Quote:

Are you trying to deny this basic fact?

Your basic facts are neither factual nor basic. They are a convoluted attempt to apply political correctness regardless of the cost. It seems you are saying who cares if people die for my ideas. It is only fair.

Quote:

The question of whether the military would be "better" without homosexuals is a moot point. Homosexuals are already in the military. They are in the military to stay; that's the whole point of don't ask, don't tell.

You are making no sense whatsoever. How is dont ask dont tell a result of homosexuals being in the military to stay ? It is a result of trying to get group identity by having them not be obvious with their sexuality. That is what dont ask dont tell is about. Homosexuals could voluntarily leave the military and dont ask dont tell would still be required to protect group identity. You are confusing homosexuals being in the military and open sexuality.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

a political process called democracy where a decision is made by the whole bunch.

That is your stupidest statement to date. Where was the plebiscite ? Women libbies and lesbians demanded women serve in the military, and they exercised enough political clout to make it happen. There were and still are large problems that need to be addressed. No one with any practical experience is convinced you fools are going to fix anything. You will simply walk away saying another job well done...there are no problems...it is impossible for political correctness to produce problems. And now you want to do it with homosexuality.

Quote:

People who think that the military should be making policy that would restrict the rights of individuals are not rational in their thinking.

I should have read this before saying the previous was your stupidest statement. The military will take away your right to life. Is that a restriction in your lefty terminology ?

Quote:

The reasons you've laid out are merely examples of prejudice, thinly disguised prejudice.

The reasons I have laid out will save lives. 105's do not have any prejudice. I am prejudiced to getting the job done with the minimum casualties. I care about human life, not being seen to be a lovely politically correct hippie. The reasons you have laid out are political correctness regardless of the cost. Isnt there a gay whale wanting a land treaty you can go force to be a senator for equal employment opportunities ?

Quote:

She obviously doesn't belong there, being a woman and all.

She most certainly doesnt belong in combat unless in an all female unit. When will you be joining and putting your mouth where your political correctness is ? You are nothing but a PC thug looking for power. You dont care about people or you would have more respect for human life. You care about yourself being seen as a lovely person.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Let's try to see if we're operating off of the same reality:

Please agree/disagree with the following statements:

There are currently homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces.

The U.S. armed forces are effective.

The don't ask/don't tell policy allows homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

That is your stupidest statement to date. Where was the plebiscite ? Women libbies and lesbians demanded women serve in the military, and they exercised enough political clout to make it happen. There were and still are large problems that need to be addressed. No one with any practical experience is convinced you fools are going to fix anything. You will simply walk away saying another job well done...there are no problems...it is impossible for political correctness to produce problems. And now you want to do it with homosexuality.

There doesn't have to be any plebiscite. Which do you know less about, the political process or the legal system? It's a done deal. It doesn't matter that there are problems. The legislation has been passed. It is not up to the military to change that legislation. It is up to the military to carry out the orders given it by its civilian bosses.

Most of those problems exist in the minds and hearts of bigots. Some bigots change, some die. Either way will work.

Quote:

The military will take away your right to life.

I doubt that very much. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

Quote:

The reasons I have laid out will save lives. 105's do not have any prejudice. I am prejudiced to getting the job done with the minimum casualties. I care about human life, not being seen to be a lovely politically correct hippie.

There's zero indication that that is the case. You have not given anything, that's nothing but anecdotal dimwitted opinions backed up by bigotry in support of this fiction. Programs backed by bigotry aren't going to win you much favor with any sensible person.

What are 105's?

Quote:

You dont care about people or you would have more respect for human life.

Yeah, I'm impressed by the numerous threads you've started decrying the HUGE loss of life in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, ... .

Have you finished your count yet? Why the evasion? Why haven't you posted it? Concerned about people, Jesus!

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

There are currently homosexuals in the U.S. armed forces.

Agreed.

Quote:

The U.S. armed forces are effective.

This can not answered by a yes or no. There are degrees of effectiveness.

Quote:

The don't ask/don't tell policy allows homosexuals to serve in the U.S. military.

Agreed.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

There doesn't have to be any plebiscite.

Would you listen to yourself ? You are quite the little dictator arent you ?

Quote:

It doesn't matter that there are problems.

This is exactly the problem. You have done good regardless of the bad. How happy you must be.

Quote:

Most of those problems exist in the minds and hearts of bigots. Some bigots change, some die. Either way will work.

There certainly are no problems existing in the minds and hearts of bigots like you. Fools never change but they do die.

Quote:

Quote:
The military will take away your right to life.
I doubt that very much. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

Damn that is tupid. You take that as a personal threat ? I was referring to combat but you know so little you cant even remember what the military is all about. Your expertise is staggeringly pathetic.

Quote:

There's zero indication that that is the case.

You are basing this on your extensive experience. When will you be joining ? Of course you know of zero indications. You know zero about the military.

Quote:

You have not given anything, that's nothing but anecdotal dimwitted opinions backed up by bigotry in support of this fiction.

You have not given anything that is nothing but pigheaded PC thuggery backed up by bigotry in support of yourself. Programs backed by bigotry aren't going to win you much favor with any sensible person.

Quote:

Yeah, I'm impressed by the numerous threads you've started decrying the HUGE loss of life in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, ... . Have you finished your count yet? Why the evasion? Why haven't you posted it? Concerned about people, Jesus!

You have started threads ? WOW ! That is the greatest sign of committment in the PC thuggery world next to a protest march ! You must be the envy of all the other PC Thuggees. I am impresssed ! You have never approached a prosecutor about all these war crimes and evils and I suspect that is because you need them to feel important. Never mind being wrong, that doesnt stop you, just dont stop the crusade it is exhilarating ! Weeeeeeeeeee! How important you are ! You dont care if more people than necessary die in a war, just so long as they do what you say . You sicken me with your hypocracy and bigotry.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

If a gay never lets his buddies figure out that he is gay, is he gay so far as the Army is concerned?

Is it possible that DADT is still the correct policy to balance the right of gays to serve and the nations need for a strong military?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I would guess we both have served with homosexuals and they were regarded as good soldiers. Problems arise when they wear their homosexuality openly.

Quote:

Is it possible that DADT is still the correct policy to balance the right of gays to serve and the nations need for a strong military?

I am reluctant to comment on a system I have no experience with, but I know from before and after homosexuals were allowed to be openly homosexual. It was nothing short of a disaster...

An officer writes one of his soldiers a bad report...the soldier claims the report is bad because he knocked him back for sex. Once upon a time the report would be taken as accurate. Now a simple thing like report writing has an investigation. It is an absolute mess. Not as bad as women in the military, but almost.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I am reluctant to comment on a system I have no experience with, but I know from before and after homosexuals were allowed to be openly homosexual. It was nothing short of a disaster...

an analysis I read stated that until very recently almost all services that allowed gays were for all intents and purposes DADT. Gays in theory could be open, but in practice they were punished for doing so thus almost all ( and all of the smart) stayed quiet and discrete. This is changing with time, as gays demand the right to be openly gay. I see no reason they must be allowed to do so, and certainly not while we Americans have a burned up over used force. Maybe in ten years allowing gays to serve openly will make sense, right now it seems like a almost certain cause of degradation of the force. I think that was the point of pointing out what happened to the dutch. We are exhausted, between family problems, PTSD, and rampant prescription drug abuse in the Army we have enough problems right now....we sure as **** dont need to be dealing with this right now.

BTW, I was never in, my wife is career humint intel

0 Replies

THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know