Crude
Android Expert
What part?
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" To repeal or not to repeal...
- Thread starter Familyguy1
- Start date
What part?
No; see what you've done here is state what I believe, even though I've not said that, in fact I've said the opposite; in other words, you've lied.
My stance is not hypocritical, another lie.
I don't think you really understand what you're talking about; you seem to have your panties in a bunch over gender equality, and are trying to make an argument fit your POV.
In the example I was making that there are more practical reasons to not having females in frontline infantry positions than homosexuals, I was talking about the fact that the average female soldier in less physically able than the average male(regardless of either's sexuality). The reason to not have females on the frontline is therefore not because you're not wanting to be equal, but because they're not the best person for the job. And it's not because it puts their life in danger, every soldier is aware they put themselves in harms way voluntarily, it's because they could be the weak link in the chain; when moving on foot, the team is slowed to the pace of the slowest member, you don't put a female in that team because it risks the whole team.
Absolutely all men aren't equal, but other than treating everybody with equality, until any meritorious difference is evaluated, how would you suggest applying discrimination? by colour? religion? cock girth?
You say 'we', but you certainly don't speak for me; I expect the same from both genders doing the same job for the same money. Of course that doesn't mean that all jobs would be available to all, because of the differences between the sexes.
I think you really need to think hard smacky about what is meant by equality; it doesn't mean exactly the same provision for all, only that there is discrimination based only on a gender difference; if there is an actual reason that a person can't do a job, it is not unequal to differentiate on those grounds.
Right; I can't think of any job where sexuality is an issue, can you?
Sure, in the Catholic church.
I know what equality means. It seems some people have polar views on to what extent it should be applied in the real world.
You didn't answer what I said about about the weakest man vs. strongest woman. Marginalizing everyone using an "average" is still unfair.
I know what equality means. It seems some people have polar views on to what extent it should be applied in the real world.
You didn't answer what I said about about the weakest man vs. strongest woman. Marginalizing everyone using an "average" is still unfair.
LOL, is that the best you could think of? You're still missing the point completely; there is nothing about working in the Catholic church that would preclude a gay person doing the job, except for discrimination! That's like thinking up an office job in a racially discriminating organisation, and then saying the preventing a black person doing the job(which they're more than capable of) because they're black isn't racially discriminatory; because black people can't do that job.
Such a shame that one of the few questions you've ever bothered to answer you get so, so wrong; maybe that's why you avoid answering so much, you know deep down how wrong your arguments generally are!
Okay, I will.
No I'm not saying the strongest woman is weaker than the weakest man; but the weakest men wouldn't be in the frontline infantry either, for the same reasons.
However I'm sure that there is a minority of women that would out perform the least capable of the men serving on the frontlines, and maybe they should be allowed to serve, but there has to be some realistic, practical real world limits on individualizing rules etc. No it's not fair on the indivduals at times, but it's the fairest practical way of doing things in society.
Take controlling a motor vehicle or voting; SOME children would be capable of both at 12years old, but the age limit (in certain places) is 16years old.
I doubt a man that considered "the love of his life" a woman on the internet and then was heartbroken when it didn't work...has the authority or grasp of reality to determine whether an idea or argument is "right" or "wrong."
The Catholic Church was a joke.
So because you feel women in general are weaker than men, a strong, capable woman should not be put into infantry and instead a weaker, less capable man should. And what is the standard for being able to serve in the infantry? If a woman can bench 300 lbs., run a mile in six minutes, a slower, weaker man gets the call? You say that's not what you're saying, but what if she can perform at the level that is required for a man to fight on the front lines?
You're essentially saying gender is the age limit in your analogy of a child being able to operate a motor vehicle. Too bad the age limit is a law. Where is there a law that says women can or can not serve?
WTF are you talking about?? Are you just looking to make nonsensical arguments for fun; or do you actually actually believe the utter drivel you post?I did think it was odd that you'd actually answer a question!
So, having established that you haven't answered the question, yet again, is that because you can't?
No smacky, that is not my opinion, and I've never said that. I believe in equality, and I believe in meritorious appointment; but I accept that large organisations must have rules and guidelines that adopt broader criteria at times to function efficiently and practically.
A willingness, and appropriate skills and competencies for the positions available regardless of race, age, gender, religion or sexuality.
If those are the only tests and criteria then no.
Your question is invalid because it presupposes the lie you tell within the question is a truth. Try basing your arguments on the truth rather than lies and maybe, just maybe you'll begin to regain some credibility.
Women's Armed Services Integration Act 1948 is one law that does both; it allows women to serve in the US armed services, and also prevents them from doing so in certain combat situations.
There is certainly more laws associated with the subject, but you can look them up yourself, as I have little interest in the legal detail.
I did think it was odd that you'd actually answer a question!
So, having established that you haven't answered the question, yet again, is that because you can't?
No smacky, that is not my opinion, and I've never said that. I believe in equality, and I believe in meritorious appointment; but I except that large organisations must have rules and guidelines that adopt broader criteria at times to function efficiently and practically.
A willingness, and appropriate skills and competencies for the positions available regardless of race, age, gender, religion or sexuality.
If those are the only tests and criteria then no.
Your question is invalid because it presupposes the lie you tell within the question is a truth. Try basing your arguments on the truth rather than lies and maybe, just maybe you'll begin to regain some credibility.
Women's Armed Services Integration Act 1948 is one law that does both; it allows women to serve in the US armed services, and also prevents them from doing so in certain combat situations.
There is certainly more laws associated with the subject, but you can look them up yourself, as I have little interest in the legal detail.
You posted it in a thread in the lounge. I don't make things up to put you down. You do it yourself in other threads.
You see the inequality or the exception to the rule and then you sit there and pretend it doesn't exist. It's not equal if it saves one person and puts another in its place.
You treat being a woman like being physically handicapped. You do not believe in equality. You say you do, but you're full of shit.
Another reason most of your questions don't get answered by me. You make assumptions and then ask why I believe in them. Then you cry when others do it to you.
I don't answer most of your questions because you ask too many.
Ironically, that answers everything you need to know.
Which IS really funny since women require a different (lower) standard for their physical fitness.
Women run the same distance, but aren't required to run as fast.
They aren't required to be able to do pull ups like a man.
Oh well... so much for equality.
Just for the record, that's the Declaration of Independence. This statement is NOT in the Constitution.
I still don't see how I lack 'the authority or grasp of reality' required to tell the difference between the right and wrong based on my personal relationships. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about; and while you may not have made up the fact that I've mentioned a failed relationship, I think you have totally misunderstood the context, and you have only brought it up to try and 'put me down'. So try making an argument that doesn't rely on your failed attempts at personal attack.
Again, you're wrong. Just repeating the some error won't put it right; try fleshing out your argument to give it more substance... if you can
They are, in general, when it comes to physical competition based on strength, in the same way a child would be; this is fact. In the same way a man would be physically handicapped compared to women, in general, when it comes to the task of breast feeding a newborn child.
You're stating as fact what I believe, and in doing so calling me a liar, as I've stated clearly I do believe in equality, and you dare to suggest I'm full of shit!?
Not only are you a liar and a hypocrite, but you're a nasty piece of work too smacky; I can back up my claims, can you? No you can't.
I accept that some assumption are require during debate, but I endeavour to keep mine to a minimum, and reasonable ones at that; others have a habit of making wild and unsubstantiated assumptions, they are the ones that bother me. It's just a matter of reasonableness.
Certainly everything I need to know about you
actually, if you follow that conversation it is a valid point. he isnt comparing gay men to women. he is saying that (taking into assumption that all parties are straight) men are not bunked with women because of the sexual implications. it doenst matter if there are recipricol feelings, eventually someone will be attracted to someone, another will be uncomfortable about it, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
what he is saying is, if openly gay men get to bunk with eye-candy, why shouldnt straight men as well? for those who say that is a homophobic assumption i would say you are an idiot. if anything it is simply acknowledging that homosexuals are just like heterosexuals in that regard. if surrounded by sexually attractive(that is to say the gender they are attracted to, not necesarrily that they are attracted to any particular individual) people then anyone, gay or straight, is going to be in a situation in which they have the oportunity to ogle the object of that attraction. putting aside the objects feelings and possible reactions to that situation. what he is saying is, "why cant he be bunked where he can get a peek at the lady soldiers?"
again, i know that rabid leftists hate-mongers will want to quash any valid debate and wrongly try to frame this as "homophobic rhetoric trying to portray all homosexuals as sex crazed perverts". sadly, many on the left are more interested in hurting people they percieve as being evil simply for not blindly swallowing anything they say. this argument simply acknowledges that homosexuals are people and as people they would react like people do when in a situation surrounded by people who they are (at least potentially) sexually attracted to.
Which is really interesting, because I don't think I met anyone in the Marines who wasn't a sex crazed pervert... but maybe that's just me... or just the Marines.
People in the military party like they would be in college (same age group for the most part). They drink hard, and are just as sexual. The same sexual situations/problems that go with hard college partying, go with hard military partying.
I'm always a little incredulous when people say that it won't be an issue. It's ALREADY an issue, and that's with men and women separated. I can't imagine that if we began housing 2 to a room (1 man and 1 woman) that all the sudden it would become LESS of an issue. The same will be true of housing homosexual men in a room with heterosexual men (in truth, it will be more of an issue among the women, since Lesbians have a higher incidence of sexual assault compared to gay men).
We owe it to our troops to take EVERY reasonable precaution when it comes to sexual assault. I believe we will have to room our soldiers 1 to a room, and that will eliminate the issue. However, it will take some time to make that happen. I'd say probably about 5 years. Although, Openly homosexual service members could start being assigned to the first units with renovated barracks as soon as the first set are done.
they're gonna have to start build MUCH bigger ships and subs for the Navy!!!
Wanting to be allowed to serve without discrimination because of sexuality is not about bunking with eye-candy, a gay soldier has that option already, only they're prevented from letting the eye-candy know. For straight people to suggest that it's only equal if they're allowed to bunk with eye-candy too, is missing the point (not to mention shallow)
A question to those straight people that have a problem with the abolition of the 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy;
In the interest of equal rights, would they support the bunking of military personel strictly by alphabet(or any other non-gender specific system); but then extend the equality of 'Don't ask, ask don't tell' to all. Any military personel making known their sexuality would be discharged from the military. Meaning no married military personel, no girlfriends, no pin-ups and no 'locker-room' banter?
If not, can you explain why not?
Because you're being bunked to rest, not for any sexual gratification?
I don't know if I'd go as far as to say the argument is homophobic rhetoric trying to portray all homosexuals as sex crazed perverts; but I do think it's a really weak, pathetic argument, that is both naive and insulting.
I still don't see how I lack 'the authority or grasp of reality' required to tell the difference between the right and wrong based on my personal relationships. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about; and while you may not have made up the fact that I've mentioned a failed relationship, I think you have totally misunderstood the context, and you have only brought it up to try and 'put me down'. So try making an argument that doesn't rely on your failed attempts at personal attack.
Again, you're wrong. Just repeating the some error won't put it right; try fleshing out your argument to give it more substance... if you can
They are, in general, when it comes to physical competition based on strength, in the same way a child would be; this is fact. In the same way a man would be physically handicapped compared to women, in general, when it comes to the task of breast feeding a newborn child.
You're stating as fact what I believe, and in doing so calling me a liar, as I've stated clearly I do believe in equality, and you dare to suggest I'm full of shit!?
Not only are you a liar and a hypocrite, but you're a nasty piece of work too smacky; I can back up my claims, can you? No you can't.
I accept that some assumption are require during debate, but I endeavour to keep mine to a minimum, and reasonable ones at that; others have a habit of making wild and unsubstantiated assumptions, they are the ones that bother me. It's just a matter of reasonableness.
Certainly everything I need to know about you
Backing up a delusional, unrealistic, and unfair belief doesn't make you right. You clearly indicate that because one woman may not be as strong as the other men in the infantry, no woman should be in the infantry because they too lack the physical fitness of their male counterparts...even though at the same time you acknowledge that there could be a woman stronger than a man, but they still shouldn't serve. Crock of shit.
So ok, not having breasts gives men a physical handicap if war was ever waged through breast feeding, what's the physical handicap of women? We've both established that women can be just as strong as men. What else could hold women back physically? Not having a dick?
Clearly state do I?
A few extracts from my posts, just a few, I haven't included those that are in reply to you or others that wouldn't make sense out of context:
Fail much??
No, being right makes me right.
Nope, I never said that smacky, your comprehension is just awful!
As has already been clearly stated (maybe too clear for your delusional reality!) the answer to your first two questions; as for not having a penis? I'm not going to bother answering such a ****ing stupid question.
Unlikely. Just MUCH smaller rooms (which is saying something for subs).
Umm... really? Where do you think Military members masturbate? The common room?
Where do you think they watch porn?
Where you bunk is where you LIVE. It's where you have sex, if you get lucky.
I know this isn't directed at me, but I'll answer anyway...
This question(?) is absolutely ridiculous. Just because we recognize that allowing openly homosexual service members raises issues that need to be addressed, doesn't mean we should intentionally put ALL our service members in a similar situation.
The real question is, how to address those issues. Those issues are real, and NEED to be addressed, and pretending that they don't, makes you seem more like an idealistic fanatic than someone who generally thinks about the consequences.
Lesbian-on-Lesbian Rape - Curve Magazine - Web Articles 2010
Lesbian organizations estimate that 1 in 3 lesbians has been "Raped" by another woman.
That's 1 in 3.
If we extrapolate that to the military, that means 1 in 3 lesbians openly serving in the military would face sexual assault by another woman.
Let me put this in light for you. The military will force one of these women into a living situation with an assailant. If this woman doesn't report it immediately (which is common among sexual assault victims), then this woman may be assaulted MANY times before it is reported. Some of these situations will happen no matter what we do. Some of them are preventable. Those that can be prevented should be.
It is not a matter of IF. It is a matter of WHEN. We know it is going to happen if we do things this way. We have a responsibility to not allow that to happen.
I think both the current situation AND what you are proposing are unacceptable.
First smacky, I think you need to put women on the SAME physical fitness standards as men before you can really even begin this conversation.
Secondly, women need to conform to the same military standards as men (i.e. haircuts).
Infantry have a lot less ability to shampoo your hair, that's why the men have the hair regulations that they do. Women aren't supposed to be on the front lines, which is one of the justifications for allowing their hair to be longer.
We cannot even get into this territory of whether or not women should serve in every role that men can in the military, without subjecting them to the same standards that men in the military face.
Of course, subjecting women to the same standards as men will be viewed as discriminatory, because it will mean that most women will not advance in rank as fast as the men in the military do.
But if we want these women to serve in the infantry, then they will HAVE to be held to the same standard.
That is EXACTLY what I am trying to say. Then, some people on here say "yes, keep them to the same standards, regardless of physical ability" and then seem to say that, at the same time, women should be protected. And then they say that they're for equality.
I'm not saying have the same amount of men and women in the military, I'm saying if a woman is able to be in the infantry, but is instead sent elsewhere, it's not right nor fair. The fact that women are not allowed in the infantry seems to be based upon a false notion that all women are physically weaker than men.
Am I wrong in saying that? Tell me, what are the other reasons?
I agree with just about everything you've posted, with the exception of this statement.
Women as a gender ARE weaker than Men as a gender.
That's not saying that a woman cannot be faster or stronger than any given man, but it IS saying that women in general are weaker than men in general.
I say that as a Marine with plenty of women in my unit. They were weaker. If they didn't have a completely different (and lower) physical fitness standard, they would have been poor performing Marines. Those that were poor performing under the current standards would not have been allowed to BE Marines.
Basically, if women were held to the same standard as men, there would be FAR fewer women in the Marines than there are now.
Now, I advocate holding women to the same standard, and opening up ALL specialties to both genders.
However, this is going to be a political nightmare, because of the sudden drop of women in the military. They just won't make it (on the current scale) if they are held to the same standard.
The careers of some women would be over. Women who intended to stay in the Marines for 20 years and retire, would suddenly be unable to stay in the Marines.
Again, it would be highly unpopular.
When it comes to women (in general) being weaker than men (in general), as a society we ACCEPT IT, we ACCOMMODATE IT, we just CANNOT SAY IT OUT LOUD.
Sorry for my soap box, I just hate how society forces us to be PC about topics like this.
It reminds me of when Larry Summers was demonized for making the statement that "the innate differences between men and women MIGHT be one reason fewer women succeed in science."
He mentioned it needed to be studied and determined if that could be a factor.
I mean, as a society we accept that women think and process information different than men do. We even write books about it, but to bring it up when discussing why women aren't succeeding as much as men in certain fields... the man is obviously a woman hater.
(NOTE: I'm not saying that this is the case, but women have a higher college graduation rate than men.. If they are graduating at a lower rate in certain field, then it is something to look into).
Have you ever thought your entire post could answer your last question?
The labor force would more than likely higher a "stronger" man over a woman, you don't need to go to college if you just want to make enough to get by. A lot of guys choose the military, more than women do. Construction, any kind of manual labor. Not saying women don't do so as well, but it seems men have the advantage because they're more physically able to perform those tasks than women.
I've noticed the same thing you have, and I attribute it to that. The engineering college in my school is mostly guys. Science, however, seems like a lot more girls are in the biology classes, either as nurses, physicians, PAs, pharmacy, veterinarians, etc.
The labor force would more than likely higher a "stronger" man over a woman, you don't need to go to college if you just want to make enough to get by. A lot of guys choose the military, more than women do. Construction, any kind of manual labor. Not saying women don't do so as well, but it seems men have the advantage because they're more physically able to perform those tasks than women.
I've noticed the same thing you have, and I attribute it to that. The engineering college in my school is mostly guys. Science, however, seems like a lot more girls are in the biology classes, either as nurses, physicians, PAs, pharmacy, veterinarians, etc.
It wasn't really MY question. It's a problem facing academia today.
Larry Summers tried to address it in much the same manner as my post above, and was crucified for it.
You may remember the faculty votes of "no confidence" following the incident.
Well quite; but my point was in reply to why heterosexual males weren't bunked where they could see their female colleagues, and in that context I think the examples you give above further support the argument to bunk the sexes separately.
Personally I'd prefer not to bunk with people of either gender or sexuality where they would partake in any of the above, without a mutual understanding of what was and was not reasonable behaviour.
It's interesting to note that the British Army, where homosexuals don't have to go clandestine to serve, house there soldier in single, en suite, rooms (although some accommodation is still 2/4 soldiers, but being phased out).
Anyway, my point was to try and show the argument; that if homosexual soldiers were allowed to serve without secrecy, then hetero sexual soldiers should be allowed to ogle other soldier freely too; was just a bit silly.
That was kind of the point!
I'm not pretending the aren't issues at all; my point was that the way some people have reacted is missing the point entirely.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I don't think this would be as a direct result of removing the veil of secrecy over homosexuality from serving soldiers.
The reporting of crimes you describe needs to be drilled home to recruits as an absolute necessity and duty.