User Tag List

First 11192021222331 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 387

  1. #201
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Logical processing error.

    Your pride and joy while preaching your cause, not the pride and joy of gays within the military.
    I am not prideful. You have misunderstood me. I visit this forum for discussion of ideas. In fact, this is one of the only places I even discuss gay issues at all.

    I'm am not sure why you have been questioning my personal motivation for discussing this topic since the beginning of this thread. Or why you couldn't handle it being done in return. It's irrelevant on both sides.

    What is important is empirical evidence, facts, and logic.

  2. #202
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    I am not prideful. You have misunderstood me. I visit this forum for discussion of ideas. In fact, this is one of the only places I even discuss gay issues at all.
    Why would you not take pride in your cause? IIRC, you've started at least a few threads about this sort of thing.

    I'm am not sure why you have been questioning my personal motivation for discussing this topic since the beginning of this thread. Or why you couldn't handle it being done in return. It's irrelevant on both sides.
    Because your idealism is so very apparent, as is your lack of concern for anything but it.

    What is important is empirical evidence, facts, and logic.
    All inconsequential when we're discussing the subjective reactions of individuals and groups.

  3. #203
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Why would you not take pride in your cause? IIRC, you've started at least a few threads about this sort of thing.


    Because your idealism is so very apparent, as is your lack of concern for anything but it.
    Neither matter. Address the argument, not the arguer. (I did address you a moment ago, but it really was advice, not an attempt to alter the arguments being made).

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    All inconsequential when we're discussing the subjective reactions of individuals and groups.
    And this statement is preposterous. Subjective values must be factored. They must be factored in conjunction with empirical evidence, facts, and logic. There is no discussion of pertinence to mankind that makes those things inconsequential.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    It's not pride. It's relevant to what is happening right now. This is the current events thread. My personal reason is equality. Nothing more. If the anti-gay side was able to come up with a solid reason, I am open enough to consider it and even accept it. If it has empirical value. Yet, I do not believe in tradition or rituals, for the sake of.

    If you'd like to get even more specific, you have attacked my personal stake in this thread like 10 times. While I only asked about yours once. The fact that you Fe'd all over me, erased me from your friend's list, and told me to never speak to you again, means I must have uncovered your bias in this discussion. Did I bring it up again after that? No. What it means to you, has no bearing on whether or not you can give a logical response.

    To be honest, I never once got upset. This is debate. I actually had fun. I'm not being sarcastic. This is the best discussion I've had on gay rights so far. Why? Because of you. Your the only person that has brought anything even remotely legitimate to the opposing side. Yet, you can't ignore facts or evidence. It seems irrational. You should also keep in mind that I am not, nor have I ever, ignored the negativity that will be inevitable if DADT is repealed. If I was blinded by idealistic fervor, I wouldn't be open to the arguments presented or acutely aware of the reality of the situation. I admitted you have a point. I also understand it will be an uncomfortable change for some, but the evidence over the years suggests the majority is fine. It is time to follow the lead of many other nations.

    Empirical evidence is relevant, because it shows what happens when subjective opinions and reactions are tested in real time.

  5. #205
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    There's great evidence to suggest it will be fine, in time. The majority allows it, and has for quite some time.
    Yeah ok.....
    Troops oppose repeal of ‘don’t ask’

    But most troops would stay in if ban ends
    By Brendan McGarry
    Posted : Monday Dec 29, 2008 9:37:59 EST

    Most active-duty service members continue to oppose President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy to allow gays to serve openly in the military, a Military Times survey shows.

    Moreover, if the policy was repealed, nearly 10 percent of respondents said they would not re-enlist or extend their service, and 14 percent said they would consider terminating their careers after serving their obligated tours.
    Troops oppose repeal of ‘don’t ask’ - Military News - Military Times


    And as for your Zogby poll, here's a nice examination of that here:
    Center for Military Readiness

    Interesting excerpt here:
    In the most recent poll announced by the Military Times newspapers, in answer to the question “Do you think openly homosexual people should be allowed to serve in the military?” 30% of the active duty military subscriber respondents said Yes, but 59% said No, 10% having No Opinion. The same percentage, 59% in opposition, was reported by the Military Times survey in 2006 (Army Times, Jan. 8, 2007).

  6. #206
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 01011010 View Post
    My personal reason is equality. Nothing more.
    In other words, ideology.

    Yet, I do not believe in tradition or rituals, for the sake of.
    Then you really should not be commenting on military affairs, where tradition and rituals play an important role in its practical functioning. One important aspect of these is to tame the viciousness of warfare. That's why militaries had to rely on codes of honour to keep men's violent impulses in check; whether it be called chivalry as it was in the Christian West or Bushido in Japanese culture. Shaolin monks, who practiced Kung-fu, prayed everynight after martial arts training about how one who enjoys killing can never achieve enlightenment.

    Traditions and rituals are actually in place for a reason, and they have endured for countless generations for a reason - they're the result of the experiences of many across time. As GK Chesterton stated, tradition largely means the democracy of the dead. My original link even stated that the policies towards homosexuals were in place as the result of experience.

  7. #207
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    SLDN Highlights Flaws in Military Times’ “Poll”


    Latest News
    01-08-09
    SLDN Highlights Flaws in Military Times’ “Poll”


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    CONTACT: Paul DeMiglio
    (202) 621-5408
    pdemiglio@sldn.org

    January 8, 2009

    Servicemembers Legal Defense Network Criticizes Flawed Polling Methodology
    Military Times' Survey Results Rely on Discredited Data

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - The results of a Military Times' "poll" cited in the Dec. 29, 2008 Army Times article ("Troops oppose repeal of ‘don't ask,' " by Brendan McGarry) relies on flawed polling methodology that lacks any basis in credible, empirical data. Further, the article overlooks the growing support across all levels and branches of the armed forces for repeal of the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) law, which prohibits open service for lesbians and gays.

    Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, writes in a recent blog that the Military Times' survey was more of "a woefully incomplete census" of the publication's readers than a true poll. In fact, Langer compares the reliability of the poll's methodology to a "rusted carbine," further noting: "And in terms of their political and ideological leanings, the participants look nothing at all like what good data have found."

    Reliable and scientifically based polls, on the other hand, consistently reveal a profound and undeniable shift in attitudes among service members, who now support open service regardless of sexual orientation. For example, a December 2006 Zogby poll of service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan showed that 73 percent are comfortable with lesbians and gays. Similarly, the 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey reported that 50 percent of junior enlisted personnel believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly. This dramatic change represents a three-fold increase in support for open service among junior enlisted personnel, up from just 16 percent in 1992. The same survey also found that service members "believe sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance."

    Since implementation in 1994, DADT has resulted in the discharge of over 12,500 qualified military personnel and has wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Each day it becomes more obvious that this discriminatory law erodes military readiness and unit cohesion at a time when attracting and retaining qualified service members, regardless of sexual orientation, is more critical than ever. The time to ensure that all our brave men and women in uniform can serve the country they love, free from discrimination, is long overdue.

    SLDN Highlights Flaws in Military Times

    Shooting Blanks


    January 05, 2009 2:31 PM

    When it comes to survey research, the Military Times is shooting blanks.

    The publisher released an alleged poll last week purporting to show that most U.S. service members are uneasy with the prospect of an Obama presidency: “Six out of 10 active-duty service members say they are uncertain or pessimistic" about their new commander-in-chief.

    Sad to say, the methodology behind this piece of work is about as reliable as a rusted carbine; FUBAR, you might say. It’s not even a survey at all, but a woefully incomplete census of Military Times readers. And in terms of their political and ideological leanings, the participants look nothing at all like what good data have found.

    Per the Military Times summary: "In keeping with previous surveys, nearly half of the respondents described their political views as conservative or very conservative. Slightly more than half said they consider themselves Republicans, 22 percent independents and 13 percent Democrats."

    That is radically out of line with a high-quality, representative sample of active-duty members of the U.S. Army conducted in 2004, which I discussed this past July. Thirty-eight percent in that survey identified themselves as conservatives, vs. "nearly half" here. Twenty-nine percent were Republicans, vs. "more than half." The Military Times itself allows that its respondents are older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the military population at large. It did not attempt to adjust its results to account for these differences.

    To be fair, the newspaper's own report notes, “The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.” Nonetheless, it goes on to say that the results represent “a snapshot of the professional corps” that highlights skepticism Obama faces among military careerists. And its caveat – “not representative” – shows up in the 13th paragraph of its article on the results.

    The question is whether these kinds of numbers reliably support any conclusion about anything. Look at how it was done: Military Times publications have about 250,000 subscribers. About 15 percent of them, when subscribing, provided e-mail addresses. The publisher sent survey invitations to that non-random subset. Those roughly 36,000 come-ons produced about 5,200 completed surveys. And about 1,900 of those participants said they were on active duty – just over three-quarters of one percent of all subscribers.

    Still it’s not the number of respondents, but the lack of representative, random sampling, that knocks the treads off this tank.

    We do know from that reliable Army survey in 2004 that officers are disproportionately conservative and Republican – but that enlisted service members, who account for the bulk of the population, are not. Relatedly, as I reported in my last posting, we know from the exit poll that veteran voters in 2008 were less Republican than is widely assumed.

    The Military Times, though, tells a different story – one unsupported by good-quality empirical data. It's a shame, because there is much of value to know about the attitudes of the men and women wearing the uniform of the United States Armed Forces. So much so that they – and we – deserve real data in our attempts to know it.

    1/9 follow-up:

    1) The Military Times called to correct a number it gave us earlier; participants were drawn from its 125,000 subscribers, not 250,000.

    2) A colleague notes that Army personnel accounted for 1,062 of the 1,947 respondents, and that 48 percent were officers and warrant officers, far above their actual proportion in the Army, 16 percent.

    3) By e-mail I invited the editors of Military Times to reply to this post. I’ve not heard back.


    The Numbers

  8. #208
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yeah ok.....
    The majority is correct.


    Almost 30 nations—including most countries of the European Union—have no problems with anyone’s sexual orientation. The United Kingdom, whose soldiers serve with Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, is even “actively recruiting” gays and lesbians, says Meyer. Of the 26 NATO nations, only the United States, Portugal, and Turkey don’t allow gays to openly serve in the military. And Turkey, says Meyer, “is close to allowing gays to serve.”

  9. #209
    Senior Member Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    426

    Default

    I never got why the government didn't allow it in the first place. I have a friend who came out of the closet only a year and a half ago. He's considering joining the military, and has to go back into the closet if he chooses to do so.

    He could die for this country, and yet he has to go into the closet and be someone he's not because "society" and "tradition" dictate it. Fuck society, and fuck tradition. What a slap in the face to someone who is willing to take that path. Society sickens me sometimes, least of all the military.

    It's time this tired old policy was changed. Break down that wall, Obama.
    "Can you set me free from this dark inner world? Save me now, last beats in the soul.."

    Fonewearl and proud of it!

    I (85%) - N (80%) - F (35%) - P (90%)
    O: 94% C: 18% E: 21% A: 94% N: 38%
    9w1 (SP, SX, SO)
    (9, 5, 4)
    RCUAI (Primary Calm)

  10. #210
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Concise restatement: It's a cost-benefit issue, something idealists know nothing about.

    cost: persecution, infighting, loss of morale and cohesiveness.

    benefit: being able to say "I'm gay" without being fired.

    Being that the military isn't supposed to be a free society by any means, this is an easy decision at this point in time.

    1) I think you have missed quite a few of the benefits. Esp. in regards to the implications of 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. They do not ask, you do not tell. Simply? Hardly.

    However.....legally, if suspicions arise, the military can lead an investigation and if found 'guilty', you're fired. You didn't tell. You just *were*. So, obviously, this is not as simple as 'don't ask, don't tell'....and, even more to the point, all this stuggle and milestones with human rights gets eradicated within moments, as soon as an investigation occurs, because it equates, ONCE AGAIN, homosexuality with *something deviant/wrong*.

    2) And, I want to ask, why not make the 'don't ask, don't tell' an universal military policy? One that applies to EVERYONE. Heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals?

    Do not ask their orientation, do not tell your orientation.

    I wonder if people will find preposterous if one day a soldier man is seen kissing a girl, and an investigation is led to the crime of his heterosexuality which gets him then fired from his job, cuz,...well....

    don't ask.

    don't tell.

    (but, really, to sum it up. HIDE ALL. And, HIDE WELL.)


    I think, in this way, the cost-benefit equation gets the best deal, as it applies to everyone (not just a select few, leaving less chance for confounders to be added).

Similar Threads

  1. Deafies to Hearies: "We don't need no stinking implants!!!!"
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 09-01-2012, 06:02 PM
  2. Dont Ask Don't Tell--Homophobia or Sexual Repression?
    By kyuuei in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-23-2010, 12:28 AM
  3. I don't want to end up with a guy who's just like my dad...
    By Queen Kat in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 10:49 PM
  5. What they don't tell you about eating boogers...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-13-2007, 10:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO