THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

@DrewDad,

Quote:

One chronic problem with the military is that it attracts a large percentage of antisocial personalities. (There's data to back this up. It's also true of the police force.)

I dont think that is true, and even if so it is not the main problem. THe problem is that in the military individuals get a lot of power, and often fast, and many individuals have never been trained in power so they cant handle it. We are not allowed to talk about power, so we are not allowed to get people ready to have power.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Civilian bean counters removed leadership as a subject from soldier promotion courses. They couldnt understand why the Australian Army needed it and they needed to cut costs. Civilian do-gooders want women and homosexuals in combat units. They cant understand any objections and they need to feel they are right and doing good.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

They cant understand that objections might be valid .

don't know or don't care??? The jury is still out so far as I can see.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

Explain to me the role of combat troops . Explain to me the military definition of unit cohesion. Explain to me the brotherhood that exists betwen men in dangerous situations and how we can maitain a hunter attitude with women an homosexuals. You dont understand such terminolgy.

Explain to me how a person can be so brainwashed. You should have gotten out long before your 24 years, Ionus. Luckily though, you are out so you can do no more harm. And all that "expertize" is just gonna go to waste. What a shame.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Explain to me how a person can be so brainwashed.

The poster child for PC Thuggery wants to know how someone can be so brainwashed ? Good grief charlie brown.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

The poster child for PC Thuggery wants to know how someone can be so brainwashed ? Good grief charlie brown.

Stop your whining, Ionus. Once more, for the I don't know how many times, this isn't about me. Civil societies have made a choice, people aren't going to be treated as second class citizens because of the bigotry of the ignorantia in the military or anywhere else.

Your bigotry shines through in your postings and you've shown your "expertize" to be nothing but a repetition of this same bigotry. You think that you're going to prevail because you make a few statements on an internet site; you're done lad.

It ain't hardly perfect yet, but again, as within the civil rights era, ignorance has to be met face on.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I would love to continue this mutually enjoyable, albeit juvenile, spitballing with you, but I'll reluctantly take on the role of the adult here and bring us back to the issues. If you could, please address the following three questions:

(1) Exactly how does the presence of homosexuals in a military unit adversely affect "unit cohesion?"

(2) Where do you get your evidence for your answer to Question (1) above?

(3) What evidence, if any, would convince you that the presence of homosexuals in a military unit does not adversely affect "unit cohesion?"

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Exactly how does the presence of homosexuals in a military unit adversely affect "unit cohesion?"

which part do you need proven...that social conflict weakens group effort, or that allowing openly gay individuals to be where they are not wanted will cause social conflict?

really, you are a smart guy at least some of the time, one would hope we could stipulate that allowing openly gays individuals to serve is a burden on the military. We could then move to the real debate, about whether this is a price that the military can afford, and if they can afford it should incur the cost.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

The RAND study suggests that although the presence of a known homosexual may affect social cohesion, it is unlikely to undermine task cohesion, provided that the individual demonstrates competence and a commitment to the unit's mission. Therefore, researchers conclude that the presence of known homosexuals on the force is not likely to undermine military performance.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Frankly dealing with these people is pointless and the same silliness of unit cohesion had been used for blacks in mixed units also.

Losing key people because they was found out to be gay is not helping the military or having members in units that have a sword hanging over them that they and other members of the unit know can be swung at any time for any reason is not helpful on it face for so call unit cohesion either.

They are just right wing bigots trying to justifly being so and doing a damn poor job of it.

I would suggest just letting them talk to each other as only they deserve the company of the other.

Hell being in a unit with either of them would be far worst on a military unit ability to preform then any effects of having open gays in the unit would be.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

Frankly dealing with these people is pointless

So, the guy who would deny gays marriage now casts himself as the champion of the gays......thanks for the humor bill, it is a welcome break from the serious subject being discussed.

Quote:

They are just right wing bigots trying to justify being so and doing a damn poor job of it.

for a spit second I thought you might be talking about me, but since I am a self described socialist who's position is that integrating openly gays soldiers into the force is a worthy goal, that it should be able to be done, but only question when the right time is and am disgusted with how we have decided to do it before we made even minimal attempts to figure out what the right thing to do is....you cant be talking about me. My position is the most reasonable, rational, and practical one is this thread.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Exactly how does the presence of homosexuals in a military unit adversely affect "unit cohesion?"

which part do you need proven...that social conflict weakens group effort, or that allowing openly gay individuals to be where they are not wanted will cause social conflict?

Well, I'd appreciate some definition of "unit cohesion" to start with. I have no idea what that means in practical terms, and I doubt that ionus does either.

As for the rest of it, I'm not convinced that social conflict weakens group effort. I've seen no evidence for it, and I'm not willing to accept that assertion on the basis of your say-so. There have been plenty of instances where groups have performed quite well despite the fact that its members hated each others' guts, and there have been plenty of instances where groups have performed disastrously despite the fact that its members were on the best of terms with each other.

Furthermore, even if social conflict adversely affects unit performance, I have yet to see any evidence that the military would be incapable of effectively dealing with that problem. As I mentioned before, there was certainly resistance to racially integrating the military in the 1940s, but that doesn't seem to have hurt unit performance in the Korean War. So either the fears of a breakdown in "unit cohesion" were exaggerated, or else the military found some means of negating its effects.

hawkeye10 wrote:

really, you are a smart guy at least some of the time, one would hope we could stipulate that allowing openly gays individuals to serve is a burden on the military. We could then move to the real debate, about whether this is a price that the military can afford, and if they can afford it should incur the cost.

I won't stipulate that allowing openly gay individuals to serve is a burden on the military. Why should I? I have seen absolutely no evidence to that effect. Indeed, given that openly gay individuals are currently serving in the US armed forces (as well as in the armed forces of many other countries) I'm persuaded that such fears are simply unwarranted.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Are you really going to pretend you would change your mind and that you are open to facts ? You dont know your own artful dodges . You expect to side track this issue into one where you attack all manner of principles of combat which you admit to not knowing about.

What evidence, if any, would convince you that the presence of homosexuals in a military unit does adversely affect "unit cohesion?"

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

In a logistics unit safely in the rear echelon, the Rand study concluded that psychologists conducting surveys were bigotted and published exactly what it was demanded they find. They dont want to make waves, they want to feed the opinion of other bigots like drewdud, et al.

0 Replies

@JTT,

Quote:

Stop your whining,

Stop being a bigot and listen to another opinion apart from your own preciousness.

Quote:

this isn't about me

But apparently it is about me.

Quote:

Civil societies have made a choice

You are totlally unaware of your own posts that say it wasnt society (is there really safety in numbers for you ?) it was politicians making a political decision and if you are not aware of how that has all gone horribly wrong before than I suggest you play catch up.

Quote:

Your bigotry shines through in your postings

Your definition of bigotry is anyone not PC. But you fail to realise you are the living definition of bigotry.

Quote:

you've shown your "expertize"

And your expertise is what ? Accusing the military of war crimes that only you know about and can not prove ? Whilst knowing nothing of the military.

Quote:

You think that you're going to prevail because you make a few statements on an internet site; you're done lad.

Oh dear ! Whatever shall I do !

Quote:

ignorance has to be met face on.

Cue sound of trumpets ! Enter jtt on back of white horse declaring in a tough manly voice, I will destroy the 101st for raping me ! You are full of your own ****. Take a laxative and lie down. This isnt about you remember ?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

My position is the most reasonable, rational, and practical one is this thread.

And this places you in direct conflict with the PC crowd who dont even realise they meet every criteria for being bigots.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Would you listen to the dribble you have come up with that you think qualifies you to have an expert opinion :

Quote:

I'd appreciate some definition of "unit cohesion"....I have no idea what that means .....I have yet to see any evidence that the military would be incapable ....I have seen absolutely no evidence.

You know nothing about the military and think people are interested in your opinion. You havent seen any evidence and you know nothing because you have no idea of what a military is...but still you claim to know. You are driven by being PC not what is right for the military.

Quote:

Why should I?

You dont care ....so why should you ?

Quote:

I'm persuaded that such fears are simply unwarranted.

If you had a brain you would know there are shades of grey even in a two sided contest.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

That was pretty much the answer I expected.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Yup. Ianus is full of bluster, but provides nothing besides his say-so.

Quote:

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

full of bluster, but provides nothing besides his say-so.

And you are so bigotted you cant see how this applies to you ? You want to change the world prove it will do no harm...you remeber the doctors creed ? Do no harm ? Well it applies to PC thugs too.

You are dismissive of any evidence that doesnt agree with you. You are either a bigot, emotionally damaged (like jtt), arrogant, a fool or some combination of the previous.

Care to threaten me ? That might work....

2 Replies

THe PC Police Again Shut Down Truth Seaking

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know