Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ImGod · 12-23-2002, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Monkeybot:
...but I just want to say to these people, Welcome to the world of women!!

I guess that since I have managed to function in the workplace while enduring active sexual harassment (IOW, these people weren't just "thinking" about me in a sexual way, they were acting inappropriately on these thoughts), it is hard for me to sympathize with people who get offended that another man MIGHT be having sexual thoughts about them. I dealt with it, millions of women deal with it, it's time for the military to grow up and deal with it as well.

Monkeybot,

Have you ever been a man? Answer me. If you haven't you'll never be able to understand what it's like working with women.

What has allowing women in the workforce given us? No more strip joints for clients. Golf outings held at public golf courses. Sensitivity training. The added distraction of wondering if she might ever possibly be attracted to you in some way, maybe. A women's forum in the company newsletter. Female bosses. I could go on and on, but it's destroying all the cohesiveness that was found in the good old boy network.

Unless you are a man, there is no way you could ever understand.

Note: The use of bold can be highly effective in making your point. Sarcasm is another effective tool.

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: ImGod ]

Hubble head · 12-23-2002, 11:45 AM

Quote:

What I 'm trying to get across is that higher up the chain of command any form of discrimination against homosexuals is no longer seen as tenable (or lawful in the EU). I appreciate that some have strong feelings about such changes being imposed from on high, but since there is no argument on operational grounds to fall back on anymore and - as you say - the decisions about such changes are made at higher ranks, the days of excluding homosexuals from any organization are numbered. Those at the sharp end will either learn to change or face court martial. It really is that simple.

Well, I was trying to ad in the last post that they (the US) do, in times of peace, ask service members what they think about certain issues like gays or creamed beef at the chow hall. They don't ask them things often but when they do its because THEY don't know the answer and care what it may be. Here there are still operational grounds to fall back on. Different than yours, I'd guess, but still present.

If the higher-ups in the US are thinking of making an announcement that gays in the U.S. forces are allowed to come out and be "openly gay" while serving then they have a monumental re-education and PR campaign in front of them. As long as the right wingers control the US Govt that just won't happen here.

Europe is much more socially advanced than the US so I�d guess they do it long before we do.

Hugo Holbling · 12-23-2002, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Europe is much more socially advanced than the US so I�d guess they do it long before we do.

Unfortunately i can't argue with that.

Neo · 12-23-2002, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling:


Perhaps you should take your own advice?

I served 5 years in the US Army MP Corp (Airborne), so I'd say I have a better perspective (knowledge and personal experience) than Loren and those whom have not served!

Neo

Neo · 12-23-2002, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bree:
You make these statements and don't follow up with a "and this is why I feel this way" - since I'm (hopefully) assuming that not EVERYONE in the military has this closed-minded approach. (I know, I have big dreams, okay?)

I haven't followed up with that simply because I was not responding for myself. I was speaking in terms of the reality of the question 'Gays in the Military' as a whole (from a social and psychological perspective), not my own personal beliefs. And to answer your condescending question, yes, I am secure enough in my sexuality to accept gays in the military. If they can do their job just as good if not better than the other person, then so be it. Besides, we all bleed the same when it comes to the battlefield.

Quote:

Furthermore, you state that people should be "in the closet" because it protects the gay person.

Straw Man.

Quote:

I think we should work to change the people who want to beat the living shit out of gay people, not the innocent person.

I agree.

Quote:

Although I know it is part of military training - change the one person that's different, instead of the one million other people who are wrong.

Nice appeal to ridicule.

Neo

Neo · 12-23-2002, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur:
I wonder why Neo insists on people in the USA armed forces; I myself was in the armed forces, but not in the USA ones; I wonder if and how Neo would find my opinion unacceptable ?

I insisted on the US Armed Forces? No, I did not. Some posts I said US others I just said Armed Forces. Pardon my inconsistency...*sheesh*

Let me make it clear now, since you brought it up. I mean and meant to say any branch of the armed forces. "Are we clear!?!"

Neo

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Neo ]

Neo · 12-23-2002, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus:
Your argument itself is not an ad hominem. However, about half your comments while trying to state your point were ad hominem.

No, actually they weren't. If you would have noticed I used some of the same emotive language used in response to me back to the responder. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but it sometimes takes the same tone used towards you to those responding to you in order to get across to them.

Quote:

Do you understand the difference?

Perfectly well, thank you very much.

Quote:

Notice that you haven't once addressed the main points while stating that their opinions were worthless?

In a round about way, I was...but you're right. I was responding more to their 'commentary' directed at me more than the point. Pardon me.

Quote:

Say I rephrase and post everything Loren and Red Dave and others have posted here. I'm ex-military, and agree (for the most part) with them, so what do you say in response?

Cognitive dissonance.

Quote:

The reason I labelled your argument ad hoc is: The military has discriminatory procedures in place, and new rationalisations have been put up (e.g. morale, etc.) after the fact to try to justify their stance, although these arguments were not the reasons for the discriminatory procedures in the first place.

I disagree. Those were not 'new' rationalizations, just reworded old ones. Homosexuality isn't exactly a 'new' thing you know. It's been around for a very long time, both in the civilian sector and in the military. But you already knew that, didn't you

Quote:

Hence, the new arguments are ad hoc. Notice also that exactly the same arguments were used to defend segregation and barring women. Those arguments were as fallacious then as this one is fallacious now.

I disagree. The same arguments are not/were not used whereas women are concerned. Nor were they the same arguments for segregation. The bigotry of racism vs. homophobia are completely two different animals, in my opinion.

Quote:

Is this clearer?

"Crystal."

Quote:

P.S. Did you see any action? (Not a trap: let's talk about something more interesting)

I served in the Gulf War, compound and convoy security and EPW operations. After that, Investigations for 3 years and two tours at Gitmo, Cuba.

Neo

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Neo ]

Hubble head · 12-23-2002, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neo:


I served in the Gulf War, compound and convoy security and EPW operations. After that, Investigations for 3 years and two tours at Gitmo, Cuba.

Neo

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Neo ]

You must coax your ideas into your adversaries' head, grasshopper. One can never pound them in. That only works on boots and not all of them at that.

Autonemesis · 12-23-2002, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neo:
And I find myself asking you the same question I've asked Loren. Are you currently now or have you ever served in the Armed Forces?

I was. You can direct your questions to me.

Autonemesis · 12-23-2002, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just Another Infidel:
One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is the threat of physical harm to anybody identified as gay. Some of the military population come from extremely intolerant environments and would welcome an opportunity to seriously injure a homosexual. When an incident like this happens, it costs the military time and money not to mention bad press.

Here's why you haven't heard it. 50 years ago they were saying the same thing:

"One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread is the threat of physical harm to negroes. Some of the military population come from extremely intolerant environments and would welcome an opportunity to seriously injure a negro. When an incident like this happens, it costs the military time and money not to mention bad press."

Do I need to explain any further why this argument fails to persuade, whether its about blacks or gays? If it's a call to inaction, it's repugnant. If it's a call for patience, it's easy to mistake it for something else.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.