What's your opinion on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal? Personally, I'm in favor of it. I think anyone should be free to serve the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I agree. A shame Congress and the President don't seem to.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 12/10/10 02:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I agree. A shame Congress and the President don't seem to.
Pres is pushing hard for it, even launched a facebook email yer congressman campaign about it, but congress is being dicks about the whole tax deal thing.
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
At 12/10/10 02:49 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 12/10/10 02:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I agree. A shame Congress and the President don't seem to.Pres is pushing hard for it, even launched a facebook email yer congressman campaign about it, but congress is being dicks about the whole tax deal thing.
Yup, not even 9/11 responders are getting free healthcare like they should. Something congressmen and women have been pushing for for 8 years. All because they are playing politics. FANTASTIC YOU CROOKED BASTARDS!
It would have been repealed already if there wasn't an ideological battle over it. It should be a non-issue.
I don't understand how rational human beings can deny anyone (who's out of their minds) the right to pick up arms and defend the 'motherland'. Except for the ill or handicaped, obviously.
At 12/10/10 03:54 AM, Athlas wrote: I don't understand how rational human beings can deny anyone (who's out of their minds) the right to pick up arms and defend the 'motherland'. Except for the ill or handicaped, obviously.
I don't understand how rational human beings can still believe in the idea of picking up arms to defend the 'motherland.' Nationalism is a ridiculous farce, a lie devised to promote the idea of unity where there initially was none. It was the cause of both world wars and really deserves no merit except as a convenient means by which to motivate.
At 12/10/10 05:16 AM, KemCab wrote: I don't understand how rational human beings can still believe in the idea of picking up arms to defend the 'motherland.' Nationalism is a ridiculous farce, a lie devised to promote the idea of unity where there initially was none. It was the cause of both world wars and really deserves no merit except as a convenient means by which to motivate.
...which is why I suggested that they're out of their minds and used quotation marks when mentioning the 'motherland'. Guess I should have been clearer.
Nations are ideas/illusions that exist merely in the minds of their inhabitants. They're just an archaic point of view, in many ways. As long as we clinge on to concepts that are unbeneficial for us as a species, we will not evolve. Not in an idealogical, philosophical or spiritual way, at least.
At 12/10/10 02:49 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 12/10/10 02:37 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: I agree. A shame Congress and the President don't seem to.Pres is pushing hard for it, even launched a facebook email yer congressman campaign about it, but congress is being dicks about the whole tax deal thing.
Is he pushing hard for it?
How hard is it to have a staff member make a facebook post?
I know he wants to do this legislatively, but the courts had ruled DADT unconstitutional and he appealed it and asked for a stay. He had the opportunity, he clearly doesn't view this as an act of inhumanity, but as an inconvenience. And he's will to risk trying to pass it through the most hostile (see quantity of votes for cloture) congress in the history of the USA rather than take the free win he'd been handed by the courts.
At 12/9/10 11:40 PM, TwilightFox wrote: Personally, I'm in favor of it. I think anyone should be free to serve the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.
They are...they just can't be open about their homosexuality. Big difference.
Anyway, this is clearly an issue of GRAVE IMPORTANCE. Never mind a crumbling economy or you know, actual military decisions, soldiers being open about their sexuality is a priority and should be dealt with immediately!
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 12/10/10 06:45 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/9/10 11:40 PM, TwilightFox wrote: Personally, I'm in favor of it. I think anyone should be free to serve the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.They are...they just can't be open about their homosexuality. Big difference.
Anyway, this is clearly an issue of GRAVE IMPORTANCE. Never mind a crumbling economy or you know, actual military decisions, soldiers being open about their sexuality is a priority and should be dealt with immediately!
Last year 400 soldiers were sent home because they were gay. During the span of the Afghanistan war it was 14,000 soldiers. Try and tell me that doesn't affect military readiness when we are fighting 2 wars.
At 12/10/10 05:37 AM, Athlas wrote: ...which is why I suggested that they're out of their minds and used quotation marks when mentioning the 'motherland'. Guess I should have been clearer.
I wasn't sure what your position on nationalism was. I didn't necessarily believe that you thought nationalism was meaningful. Thanks for clarifying, however.
Nations are ideas/illusions that exist merely in the minds of their inhabitants. They're just an archaic point of view, in many ways. As long as we clinge on to concepts that are unbeneficial for us as a species, we will not evolve.
Of course, which is why I believe in the idea of a world government. (The actual implementation and structure of this hypothetical world government is an entirely different topic, of course.)
Not in an idealogical, philosophical or spiritual way, at least.
There is no 'ideological' way to evolve, simply because there is no such thing as a 'correct interpretation' of philosophy. If you're talking about political ideology, the only possible way to make any progress in it whatsoever is for people not to latch onto ideologies without understanding their philosophy behind it and attempt to conform to them and to a mainstream party line. In fact, the best political system that we could ever hope for is a society where government is completely unnecessary -- but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
The existence of nations didn't stop philosophers from accomplishing things, but maybe that's because they were largely above the idea of nationalism in the first place. However, there will be a long time before the vast majority of people grasp even the most basic modern philosophical concepts, one example being the idea of moral relativism , which most people who oppose gay marriage or repealing DADT don't seem to understand.
As far as 'spiritual' evolution is concerned, the only way people could ever make progress in that direction is if they abandoned religion and its ridiculous dogma, rhetoric, and pretentious moralizing, and made their own decisions as to whether or not God exists, why we are here, and so on. In some sense, religion is pretty much like nationalism, only broader and longer-lived.
At 12/10/10 06:52 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Last year 400 soldiers were sent home because they were gay. During the span of the Afghanistan war it was 14,000 soldiers. Try and tell me that doesn't affect military readiness when we are fighting 2 wars.
I'm assuming these individuals were discharged, which means less debt and less civilians killed. What's not to like?
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 12/10/10 07:04 AM, KemCab wrote:
Of course, which is why I believe in the idea of a world government. (The actual implementation and structure of this hypothetical world government is an entirely different topic, of course.)
Couldn't agree more.
There is no 'ideological' way to evolve, simply because there is no such thing as a 'correct interpretation' of philosophy. If you're talking about political ideology, the only possible way to make any progress in it whatsoever is for people not to latch onto ideologies without understanding their philosophy behind it and attempt to conform to them and to a mainstream party line. In fact, the best political system that we could ever hope for is a society where government is completely unnecessary -- but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
I wasn't talking about political idealogy. I left the 'idealogical' part open to personal interpretation.
The existence of nations didn't stop philosophers from accomplishing things, but maybe that's because they were largely above the idea of nationalism in the first place. However, there will be a long time before the vast majority of people grasp even the most basic modern philosophical concepts, one example being the idea of moral relativism , which most people who oppose gay marriage or repealing DADT don't seem to understand.
Everyone is chained to their own chair. Educate people on how to untie themselves, and everyone benefits. Don't teach them how to think, like religion and governments do, simply teach them to think for themselves. Acting out of prejudice and xenophobia will get us nowhere, nor will clinging on to tradition.
As far as 'spiritual' evolution is concerned, the only way people could ever make progress in that direction is if they abandoned religion and its ridiculous dogma, rhetoric, and pretentious moralizing, and made their own decisions as to whether or not God exists, why we are here, and so on. In some sense, religion is pretty much like nationalism, only broader and longer-lived.
Exactly! Religion is fundamentaly flawed. It is a tool of power, constricting thoughts and reasoning. The only thing it has accomplished in recent times is creating hatred and intolerance. People are bickering over whose prophet's penis is larger rather than trying to work together and solve the issues that affect all of us.
I never quite understood how anything or anyone can claim to have a monopoly on 'the truth', like religions do.
At 12/10/10 07:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/10/10 06:52 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Last year 400 soldiers were sent home because they were gay. During the span of the Afghanistan war it was 14,000 soldiers. Try and tell me that doesn't affect military readiness when we are fighting 2 wars.I'm assuming these individuals were discharged, which means less debt and less civilians killed. What's not to like?
Unless, less forces overseas means certain people don't have their backs covered at the planned level and there are more deaths... Its all assumption between me and you at this point. We clearly disagree. But if they are going to be over there, Gay people clearly should have the right to be over there too. And DADT doesn't really let them. Whether armed forces should be sent somewhere is a different issue.
If the U.S. army was a true defense force. You'd be against DADT?
At 12/10/10 07:40 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: If the U.S. army was a true defense force. You'd be against DADT?
In principle I'm entirely against it.
Consequentially, I believe its good because it means less soldiers, but sexuality-based discrimination is clearly silly for achieving this end, and ideally it would be because teh government decreased the military directly.
If a majority of soldiers were uncomfortable with gay soldiers to the extent they believed it would affect their performance, then I'd support it (though the soldiers would be morons). If you want to claim that people should "have a right to fight, regardless of their sexuality", or whatever, then fine, but just a moment ago you were talking about the effectiveness of a military ie the consequences, not the principle (of discrimination).
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 12/10/10 07:50 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 12/10/10 07:40 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: If the U.S. army was a true defense force. You'd be against DADT?In principle I'm entirely against it.
Then you and I don't have much of an issue.
If a majority of soldiers were uncomfortable with gay soldiers to the extent they believed it would affect their performance, then I'd support it (though the soldiers would be morons). If you want to claim that people should "have a right to fight, regardless of their sexuality", or whatever, then fine, but just a moment ago you were talking about the effectiveness of a military ie the consequences, not the principle (of discrimination).
Eh, just like you are anti-aggressive war. I'm anti-discrimination. One takes more priority for me over the other. You'd argue any point if it meant reducing the cost of War on this country. I'd argue any point to make sure people weren't discriminated against, especially on matters between 2 consenting adults or over uncontrollable conditions that do not adversely affect or impede the rights of others.
At 12/10/10 07:30 AM, Athlas wrote: I wasn't talking about political idealogy. I left the 'idealogical' part open to personal interpretation.
Well, then, in that case, that's a rather open and broad statement.
simply teach them to think for themselves.
This is always mentioned, but very few people actually seem to be able to do that. Of course, there is a difference between thinking for oneself and conformity; the inability to do one is unrelated to the other.
Acting out of prejudice and xenophobia will get us nowhere, nor will clinging on to tradition.
Which is why, as I said, repealing DADT should be a non-issue. The majority of people in this country seem to believe so, too.
Exactly! Religion is fundamentally flawed. It is a tool of power, constricting thoughts and reasoning.
I never quite understood how anything or anyone can claim to have a monopoly on 'the truth', like religions do.
Even when it is not used as a means to exact conformity (which is what has happened in Middle Eastern societies for the past three decades) the fundamental flaw with religion is that it resists the development of any line of thinking that forces it to reevaluate itself.
At 12/10/10 07:59 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I'd argue any point to make sure people weren't discriminated against, especially on matters between 2 consenting adults or over uncontrollable conditions that do not adversely affect or impede the rights of others.
Serving in the military is NOT simply a matter of consenting adults. I'm a libertarian so I clearly don't support that kind of intervention at all.
It is of courses still discrimination, but the military involves 1, coercive funding, and 2, individuals gaining the legal right to initiate lethal force against (certain) other individuals.
If you want to argue both of those things are necessary, cool, but my point is that this is an atypical example of discrimination and is not merely a matter of intervening in an individual's private life.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
At 12/10/10 08:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Hey, look! Over there! It's a Herring! A rare RED herring!
Perhaps you should focus less on the military aspect of this and more on the governmental aspect. The government claims that it is in dire need of a certain occupation, yet it turns around and gets rid of 14,000 people based on a quality that has ZERO effect on the position. Studies have shown that the goal of getting rid of these people, cohesivenesws, is actually harmed by this.
I am in favor of its repeal, because this is just another way for more people to have rights in this country and worldwide. There are plenty of other countries that have openly gay people serving in the military and nothing bad has happened from that. All this law did was encourage homophobia and bigotry. There is just no point for it and it does not affect anybody in any negative way to have it repealed, unless you are really anti-gay, and if so, get lost.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
I'm for it too. They say 70% of people in the military are for the DADT Repeal.
In 50 years, the people against repeal will be looked at the same way as people who didn't want segregation to end......as dickwads.
Writing Forum Reviewer.
PM me for preferential Writing Forum review treatment.
See my NG page for a regularly updated list of works I will review.
At 12/9/10 11:40 PM, TwilightFox wrote: What's your opinion on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal? Personally, I'm in favor of it. I think anyone should be free to serve the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Not everyone should be free to serve the military, there should be fitness requirements and maybe age limits etc. But since being gay doesn't make you a worse soldier then they shouldn't be throwing out gays.
At 12/10/10 07:29 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I'm assuming these individuals were discharged, which means less debt and less civilians killed. What's not to like?
But the program only causes the combat-readiness of units to be compromised which is the exact opposite of the intention of the DADT law. That's the frustrating bit when thinking about the military aspects of the law. They're discharging otherwise honorable, effective and highly trained officers over being gay. That is money lost on their education, training and pay (the government is basically paying them to be ready to fight in combat... In essence, for each member of the military discharged over it, we LOSE MONEY in the amount we put into that soldier and we LOSE IT AGAIN training somebody to replace him. The military isn't just discharging people without hiring new recruits, so trying to say that it's less money spent on benefits and pay is pretty worthless if not the opposite of what happens in the real world.
Then there are the other costs of losing somebody who may be an expert in specific unit. Why send home the only translator in your unit in the middle of Afghanistan? What use is that? You just lost a valuable member of the team, the one guy who was forming the co-dependent bonds between the locals and the troops, the hearts and minds mission. And in some places, you may fire somebody who is great at their job for no other reason than their sexuality which has almost nothing to do with their job performance. That's like you getting fired from data entry because you like blonde girls. How is your preference for a blonde affect how well you put data into a computer? How does it affect the job of any enlisted member of the armed services who is doing the exact same job as you are that he happens to like blonde dudes instead? Unit cohesion is broken when you take out a member of the unit when he hasn't had any previous bad behavior. If you are having girlfriend trouble Stateside and it makes you moody and forgetful, you get a reprimand or court martial. Same thing if you have boy trouble while on duty. Only difference is the gender of the tart back home making you moody. Yet, the policy allows you to be fired for simply being rather than punishing you for breaking any actual rules or ever hampering the combat-readiness of your unit.
At 12/10/10 06:34 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: I know he wants to do this legislatively, but the courts had ruled DADT unconstitutional and he appealed it and asked for a stay. He had the opportunity, he clearly doesn't view this as an act of inhumanity, but as an inconvenience. And he's will to risk trying to pass it through the most hostile (see quantity of votes for cloture) congress in the history of the USA rather than take the free win he'd been handed by the courts.
Which is where I got the idea that this isn't something he's all that committed to be the Pres to repeal it. Handing it back to Congress smells to me like a game of "hey, I just signed the thing in front of me" or even better "well, you see, it was in a defense bill that we really NEEDED. I wasn't exactly a fan of repealing DADT, but I couldn't let that other critical stuff go away". So again, I don't see how Obama is "pushing this". Also I can make facebook posts about stuff too, lots of people can...does that really prove that what I'm posting about is deeply important to me?
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 12/10/10 06:45 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: They are...they just can't be open about their homosexuality. Big difference.
They can serve, but by having to actively hide a big part of themselves. That shouldn't happen in a country like this.
Anyway, this is clearly an issue of GRAVE IMPORTANCE. Never mind a crumbling economy or you know, actual military decisions, soldiers being open about their sexuality is a priority and should be dealt with immediately!
Because those things are just so gosh darn easy to fix right now and are totally ignored am I right?! I mean, surely governments can only work on one thing at a time and not multi-task whatsoever...
DADT was already ruled unconstitutional as gum pointed out, just repeal it and move the fuck on. It's Obama who's making this more of an issue then it should be.
You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.
At 12/10/10 08:39 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which is where I got the idea that this isn't something he's all that committed to be the Pres to repeal it. Handing it back to Congress smells to me like a game of "hey, I just signed the thing in front of me" or even better "well, you see, it was in a defense bill that we really NEEDED. I wasn't exactly a fan of repealing DADT, but I couldn't let that other critical stuff go away". So again, I don't see how Obama is "pushing this". Also I can make facebook posts about stuff too, lots of people can...does that really prove that what I'm posting about is deeply important to me?
To me it smells of him wanting to make the repeal stronger. To have something knocked down by the SCotUS opens the door for a re-worded version that does the same thing, or an underground "social contract" type of thing in the military that allows for persecution/discharge as long as you're clever about it. By making it explicit that this shit don't fly in actual US law, that grants protections to the victims. Striking down one form of discrimination doesn't protect against others, by making it illegal to discriminate, the message, and the legal rotections granted to those harmed by that discrimination, is much greater.
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
At 12/9/10 11:40 PM, TwilightFox wrote: What's your opinion on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal? Personally, I'm in favor of it. I think anyone should be free to serve the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.
I agree with this so much. The military has not furnished satisfactory evidence in my opinion that DADT is effective in preserving military cohesion and effectiveness. lol
I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss
At 12/14/10 07:11 AM, MercatorMap wrote:At 12/10/10 10:34 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:The military will not. Because it is not responsible for it.At 12/9/10 11:40 PM, TwilightFox wrote: What's your opinion on the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal? Personally, I'm in favor of it. I think anyone should be free to serve the military, regardless of their sexual orientation.I agree with this so much. The military has not furnished satisfactory evidence in my opinion that DADT is effective in preserving military cohesion and effectiveness. lol
Wrong. The military has taken responsibility for furnishing such evidence, which they have failed to do recently.
Congress is responsible for DADT.
Indeed, but the military enforces it.
I was formerly known as "Jedi-Master."
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."--Dr. Seuss
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
