Page 26 of 59 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 590

Thread: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

  1. #251
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    There's a huge difference between best friends and lovers. That is the reason that the IDF abolished coed combat units in 1950.



    That's a complete misinterpretation of the information. Yes, males and females share the same building, but their quarters and their latrines are completely seperate. i.e. males and females are housed in a three story building. The different floors are designated male and female. The male areas are off limits to females and vice versa.

    I believe everyone can attest to that.
    When is the last time there was a major battle inside the latrine where one lover was wounded, and the other lover stopped fighting to attend to them? It is my understanding that most battles take place outside.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-03-09 at 06:21 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #252
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Actually, since 1983, but, just because it works in Israel doesn't mean it's going to work in the US military.
    Why not? What makes you think that Israeli soldiers are more likely than American soldiers to remain professional in a battle, or refrain from sexual harassment, or whatever other stupid reasons you have? Why don't you trust American soldiers?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #253
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    The intensity is NOT the same because it is happening to two totally DIFFERENT (key word, hint-hint) people. I care for my lover more than my best friend. I feel differently about my lover than my best friend. It is not the same and your obtuse insistence to the contrary will do nothing to change that.
    And your inability to understand human relationships does not change the fact that context is as important as intensity and vice versa. One who sees their best friend fall in battle would have an intense reaction to that. The context might be different, but not the intensity.

    No, you must accept, as a fact, that you know little, if anything, about the methods and composition of an infantry unit. That is a fact, as such, it inhibits your ability to speak intelligently about how a policy change would affect its operational efficiency.
    And again, I will tell you that is irrelevant. Your claims in this are meaningless. People who do not experience specific situations can speak intelligently about that situation if they understand context and have experienced general situations that relate. Your dismissals mean nothing.

    We are also discussing the effects a policy change would have on specific units within the military, specific units which you know little, if anything, about.
    See above. Completely irrelevant. Understanding the complexities of human interactions in a variety of scenarios and situations, and how those interactions affect behavior is what I do. You have little knowledge on this. Experience is meaningless without understanding.

    That's only one scenario which we are talking about. I'm also (and primarily) talking about the overall scenario e.g., the reaction of straight Marines and Soldiers to a policy of integration and the possible effects it can have on unit cohesiveness and discipline. As a straight man who served in a Marine infantry unit I am in perfect position to speak intelligently to the possible reactions within such a unit.
    The basis of this discussion is how a gay man would react if his lover was injured in a combat situation. You are not gay and therefore would not know how a gay man would react. You cannot speak intelligently on this scenario. Your experience is different so your thoughts are without context nor understanding.

    I think there has been a miscommunication. You seem to be hung up on this lover/best friend thing. Although it is conceivable that such a scenario could present problems, and that such a scenario could arise more often as a consequence of abolishing DADT, it is not my primary concern, nor is the only scenario I've been attempting to discuss with you.
    You do not seem to be attempting to discuss anything with me. You seem to be dismissing my comments; and yet in the same context, I see no value in yours. What is it you want to discuss?
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #254
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And your inability to understand human relationships...
    Right. I disagree, so that means I don't understand human relationships. I guess you need a degree is head-shrinking to understand the subtle and nuanced differences between a lover and a best friend. Last time I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong, I am a human who's had numerous relationships in life, which means I understand human relationships perfectly well.

    ...does not change the fact that context is as important as intensity and vice versa. One who sees their best friend fall in battle would have an intense reaction to that. The context might be different, but not the intensity.
    Of course you would have an intense reaction to seeing your best friend fall in battle, but you would not have the same reaction of the same intensity were your lover to fall in battle. I cannot believe you refuse to concede this point. It's so glaringly and painfully obvious that watching one's lover die in combat would be far more disturbing than seeing your best buddy die.

    This should be evident to anyone who's had both a best friend and lover i.e. almost everyone. The woman I love is far more important to me than my best friend. The woman I love is the person I care most about in this world. The woman I love is the one person I cannot live without.

    And again, I will tell you that is irrelevant. Your claims in this are meaningless. People who do not experience specific situations can speak intelligently about that situation if they understand context and have experienced general situations that relate. Your dismissals mean nothing.
    There‘s been a miscommunication, perhaps it is my fault, but when you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Since I see little or no difference between the two issues...the one being presented and the alternate that I am presenting, I see no risk. In fact, since my scenario already exists, the risk is already there.
    I assumed the emboldened portion of your statement was a generalized statement regarding the abolition of DADT. The ensuing exchange was, in my mind, a discussion concerning the overall risk presented by abolishing DADT in regards to unit cohesiveness and discipline, which I tried to validate with my experience in a Marine infantry platoon.

    I wasn't trying to imply you're incapable of speaking intelligently about the lover/best friend scenario, I was trying to communicate your inability to understand the specific effects it could have on an infantry unit in regards to cohesiveness and discipline.


    See above. Completely irrelevant. Understanding the complexities of human interactions in a variety of scenarios and situations, and how those interactions affect behavior is what I do. You have little knowledge on this. Experience is meaningless without understanding.


    Yea, only a psychologist can understand the complexities of human emotion.

    The basis of this discussion is how a gay man would react if his lover was injured in a combat situation. You are not gay and therefore would not know how a gay man would react. You cannot speak intelligently on this scenario. Your experience is different so your thoughts are without context nor understanding.
    This is preposterous, for reasons YOU have already stated:

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Irrelevant, and don't pull the "holier than thou, you didn't serve" bs on me. I can speak intelligently on things that I have not experienced.
    ...

    You do not seem to be attempting to discuss anything with me. You seem to be dismissing my comments; and yet in the same context, I see no value in yours. What is it you want to discuss?
    The effect the abolition of DADT would have on specific units within the military, namely infantry units. I believe it would negatively affect unit cohesiveness and discipline because of the unique social makeup of most infantry units.
    Last edited by Ethereal; 07-04-09 at 04:20 PM.

  5. #255
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Right. I disagree, so that means I don't understand human relationships. I guess you need a degree is head-shrinking to understand the subtle and nuanced differences between a lover and a best friend. Last time I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong, I am a human who's had numerous relationships in life, which means I understand human relationships perfectly well.
    Wait, so you are saying that even if one is not in a precise situation, they can transpose a bit and understand what is being discussed? Interesting concept...



    Of course you would have an intense reaction to seeing your best friend fall in battle, but you would not have the same reaction of the same intensity were your lover to fall in battle. I cannot believe you refuse to concede this point. It's so glaringly and painfully obvious that watching one's lover die in combat would be far more disturbing than seeing your best buddy die.
    Differently disturbing. That does not mean that the reaction would not create a problem with the person continuing to perform their duties. I cannot believe that you are unwilling to concede THIS point.

    This should be evident to anyone who's had both a best friend and lover i.e. almost everyone. The woman I love is far more important to me than my best friend. The woman I love is the person I care most about in this world. The woman I love is the one person I cannot live without.
    OK. See above.


    There‘s been a miscommunication, perhaps it is my fault, but when you said:

    I assumed the emboldened portion of your statement was a generalized statement regarding the abolition of DADT. The ensuing exchange was, in my mind, a discussion concerning the overall risk presented by abolishing DADT in regards to unit cohesiveness and discipline, which I tried to validate with my experience in a Marine infantry platoon.
    No, I think you got my point, correctly. I am saying that abolishing DADT would have minimal effect because the issue already exists.

    I wasn't trying to imply you're incapable of speaking intelligently about the lover/best friend scenario, I was trying to communicate your inability to understand the specific effects it could have on an infantry unit in regards to cohesiveness and discipline.
    And I am saying that though your experience counts for something, my non-experience does not preclude me from discussing the situation intelligently. Your presumption of that is obtuse. If you want to go that route, then any argument you make that you do not have specific experience with, you cannot discuss intelligently. That is what I have been illustrating to you and will continue to do so. You and I are both intelligent people and can speak intelligently on a wide array of topics, this being one of them. You have far more experience in the military than I. I have far more experience in group dynamics than you. So, instead of dismissing my position, based on some false perception of my ability to discuss this...quite a weak debating tactic, as you can see, try discussing the issues.

    Or we can keep doing this.




    Yea, only a psychologist can understand the complexities of human emotion.
    Wait...so you are saying that someone who is not experienced in studying these things, but may have a layman's perspective, can discuss them intelligently? Interesting concept...



    This is preposterous, for reasons YOU have already stated:
    Wait...so you are saying that it is preposterous to conclude that someone cannot speak intelligently on something that they have not specifically experienced? Interesting concept...

    Are you getting the point, yet?

    The effect the abolition of DADT would have on specific units within the military, namely infantry units. I believe it would negatively affect unit cohesiveness and discipline because of the unique social makeup of most infantry units.
    Hmmm...so you want to discuss this with me? Am I worthy? Yeah, I think I am. Please explain why you think it would affect cohesion negatively. And be sure to drop the "discussing intelligently" crap. I think we both know that you erred on that point.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  6. #256
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Wait, so you are saying that even if one is not in a precise situation, they can transpose a bit and understand what is being discussed? Interesting concept...





    Differently disturbing. That does not mean that the reaction would not create a problem with the person continuing to perform their duties. I cannot believe that you are unwilling to concede THIS point.



    OK. See above.




    No, I think you got my point, correctly. I am saying that abolishing DADT would have minimal effect because the issue already exists.



    And I am saying that though your experience counts for something, my non-experience does not preclude me from discussing the situation intelligently. Your presumption of that is obtuse. If you want to go that route, then any argument you make that you do not have specific experience with, you cannot discuss intelligently. That is what I have been illustrating to you and will continue to do so. You and I are both intelligent people and can speak intelligently on a wide array of topics, this being one of them. You have far more experience in the military than I. I have far more experience in group dynamics than you. So, instead of dismissing my position, based on some false perception of my ability to discuss this...quite a weak debating tactic, as you can see, try discussing the issues.

    Or we can keep doing this.




    Wait...so you are saying that someone who is not experienced in studying these things, but may have a layman's perspective, can discuss them intelligently? Interesting concept...





    Wait...so you are saying that it is preposterous to conclude that someone cannot speak intelligently on something that they have not specifically experienced? Interesting concept...

    Are you getting the point, yet?



    Hmmm...so you want to discuss this with me? Am I worthy? Yeah, I think I am. Please explain why you think it would affect cohesion negatively. And be sure to drop the "discussing intelligently" crap. I think we both know that you erred on that point.
    Let me try and clarify something, that way we can have a more constructive dialouge.

    The main point of contention, in my opinion, stems from the following statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Since I see little or no difference between the two issues...the one being presented and the alternate that I am presenting, I see no risk. In fact, since my scenario already exists, the risk is already there.
    I believe the reason you "see no risk" in the abolition of DADT as it concerns the cohesiveness and discipline of infantry units is because you lack an understanding of their unique social and psychological makeup. If you had the requisite information then I wouldn't doubt your ability to speak intelligently about the effects such a policy change would have on infantry units in particular.

    I'm not trying to imply you lack the ability to speak intelligently about something you haven't directly experienced, I'm questioning your ability to arrive at informed conclusions when you lack crucial pieces of information that inform upon the issue at hand.

    In a general context you are more than capable of speaking intelligently about group dynamics, but within a specific context you are limited because you do not have a good understanding of the group in question e.g., infantry units.

    You can diagnose a patient with something but you can only do so when you know the patient. In this case the patient (infantry units) is largely unknown to you, so it stands to reason that you cannot render a proper diagnosis, despite your general ability to do so.

    I'm willing to drop the best friend/lover scenario because it's not my primary concern. I was never worried that gay lovers would severely undermine the cohesiveness and discipline of an infantry unit (even though it COULD present a problem, albeit a minor one) enough to oppose the abolition of DADT on those grounds alone.

    I'm concerned that openly gay Marines and Soldiers who operate within an infantry unit will jeopardize unit cohesiveness and discipline. It has nothing to do with the gay person per se, but more to do with the overall reaction the Marines and Soldiers would have to an openly gay member within their unit.

    A Marine or Army infantry platoon has a unique social dynamic and makeup which is fundamentally recalcitrant to such a prospect - i.e. living and training in close quarters with an avowed homosexual.

    This is the requisite knowledge you lack in regards to an infantry unit, knowledge that, if you were aware of it, would leave you more predisposed to arrive at an informed conclusion. You say you see no risk in abolishing DADT, I say that is because you do not know infantry platoons as well as I do. Does this make things more clear?

  7. #257
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,626

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    Let me try and clarify something, that way we can have a more constructive dialouge.

    The main point of contention, in my opinion, stems from the following statement:



    I believe the reason you "see no risk" in the abolition of DADT as it concerns the cohesiveness and discipline of infantry units is because you lack an understanding of their unique social and psychological makeup. If you had the requisite information then I wouldn't doubt your ability to speak intelligently about the effects such a policy change would have on infantry units in particular.

    I'm not trying to imply you lack the ability to speak intelligently about something you haven't directly experienced, I'm questioning your ability to arrive at informed conclusions when you lack crucial pieces of information that inform upon the issue at hand.

    In a general context you are more than capable of speaking intelligently about group dynamics, but within a specific context you are limited because you do not have a good understanding of the group in question e.g., infantry units.

    You can diagnose a patient with something but you can only do so when you know the patient. In this case the patient (infantry units) is largely unknown to you, so it stands to reason that you cannot render a proper diagnosis, despite your general ability to do so.

    I'm willing to drop the best friend/lover scenario because it's not my primary concern. I was never worried that gay lovers would severely undermine the cohesiveness and discipline of an infantry unit (even though it COULD present a problem, albeit a minor one) enough to oppose the abolition of DADT on those grounds alone.

    I'm concerned that openly gay Marines and Soldiers who operate within an infantry unit will jeopardize unit cohesiveness and discipline. It has nothing to do with the gay person per se, but more to do with the overall reaction the Marines and Soldiers would have to an openly gay member within their unit.

    A Marine or Army infantry platoon has a unique social dynamic and makeup which is fundamentally recalcitrant to such a prospect - i.e. living and training in close quarters with an avowed homosexual.

    This is the requisite knowledge you lack in regards to an infantry unit, knowledge that, if you were aware of it, would leave you more predisposed to arrive at an informed conclusion. You say you see no risk in abolishing DADT, I say that is because you do not know infantry platoons as well as I do. Does this make things more clear?
    Much better explanation. And I agree in dropping the lover/best friend scenario. My only point in presenting the best friend scenario was as a rebuttal to the lover scenario. Relationship intensity can affect those in combat, those in the workplace, those in any situation where choices must be made. It is a red herring to the issue of DADT.

    So, please explain how you see an openly gay person affecting the cohesiveness of a small unit. Part of my expertise lies in small group dynamics (not only am I certified, but I provide trainings). Your explanation would help me to see if my training does apply in either a general way (I suspect it does) and/or in a specific way (not sure it does). I believe that I would have no problem speaking intelligently on this issue. I'm not sure if I can speak specifically on this issue. With the parameters that I just set in the last two sentences, I would be happy to hear your experience and perceptions and consider how they apply to what I know.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #258
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex View Post
    Showers in dorms can be shared because they are more private. You are talking about shower bays here, which I have no experience with after BT. I knew couples that lived as such in the same dorm room. Females stayed in men's rooms, and vice versa. The bottom line is that there is gender integration in the military, verified by 3 people in this thread.
    Verified by anacdotal evidence, which, according to Redress, is a lie. Care to post something in the form of documentation supporting your claim?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #259
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Verified by anacdotal evidence, which, according to Redress, is a lie. Care to post something in the form of documentation supporting your claim?
    It's funny that you are asking for proof, when there is no actual proof that gays WOULD hinder the military since gays haven't been allowed to openly serve.

    All the evidence you have against gays serving in the military IS anecdotal.

  10. #260
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,246

    Re: Gay West Point grad testifies before Army

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    It's funny that you are asking for proof, when there is no actual proof that gays WOULD hinder the military since gays haven't been allowed to openly serve.

    All the evidence you have against gays serving in the military IS anecdotal.

    As is the evidence that you've provided that abolishing DADT will be an asset to the military. In reality, our side of the argument has provided more evidence and common sense than your's has.

    Do you have a list of over one thousand officers that claim that abolishing DADT will be a plus for the military? Didn't think so.
    Last edited by apdst; 07-05-09 at 09:35 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 26 of 59 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •