Jump to content

Fish Dynasty

Members
  • Posts

    3,258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fish Dynasty

  • Birthday 08/03/1983

Fish Dynasty's Achievements

Team MVP

Team MVP (10/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. If it turns out this guy is a follower of Palin, she should be charged as an accomplice. This is dumb. RIP. I'd say more scary than dumb.
  2. I knew forcing TO's would be the only way we could have won that game, and we did just that. 10 wins in Jimbo's first season makes the future look bright.
  3. [1. Soldiers would not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. You left out the most important word in the 4th amendment. 2. If the right to freedom of speech (in this case, criticizing commanders) hampered their performance or anyone else's performance, they would not be allowed to. Seeing as though this would nearly be guaranteed, I highly doubt that soldiers would ever get away with doing that. 3. That is a very vague statement. I would like to know of a specific example relating to your statement that would be harmful to military performance. 4. Speaking of a colossal stretch. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that a soldier would enlist in the military and then as soon as there is an emergency, he would leave? 5. Obviously this would not be true, as a disabled person would not have the ability to perform up to military standards. 6. I don't see what the problem in this would be. Sensitivity? 7. First, you are assuming that there would be wrongdoing present within the military. Second, I don't think that worked out too well for Bradley Manning. 1. Certainly, unreasonable. I am searching your quarters for contraband, right now, you have to ability to prevent it, and if I find contraband, you are facing sanction. In civilian society that would be prohibited, in military society it is commonplace. It needs to be. 2. Talking back to you boss in civilian life, at most, causes an end to employment. In the military it could be jail time. 3. Lt. Bob, you owe me $75, I don't want to be assigned any duty I don't like, make Private Tim do it. Or even worse: Petty Officer Suzie is blowing the XO, everyone else has to do her work and she gets first dibs on leave and plush assignments. 4. AWOL would not be a crime. Missed transit would not be a crime. Desertion would not be a crime. At most, you would be expelled from the service. 5. Except, in civilian life, jobs would have to accommodate the disabled, I used warship as an example. A person that is paralyzed could be an excellent radar technician or a dynamite Predator pilot. 6. Full dress uniform appearance at a clan meeting, telling all who listen how the "real" military appreciates and agrees with their position 7. Bradley Manning can't have that protection because he is in the military 1. No, unreasonable searches and seizures do not need to be commonplace in the military in order for it to function properly. I don't know why you have come to this conclusion. 2. Yes, that is indeed a fact. But why should they be jailed? While it is true that such an action (however uncommon) could hamper the overall infrastructure of the military, there are plenty of other institutions where direct cooperation is just as necessary and important for survival where this occurs. 3. It's called extortion, which is a crime. 4. Absolutely not. If a soldier signed a contract stating that they would serve in the military for a specific amount of time, and they broke that contract, that would definitely be against the law. 5. If there is a specific area in which a disabled person can serve in the military, then yes, there would need to be accommodations for the disabled troops. I don't see what the huge problem in doing so would be though. 6. While the situation wouldn't be ideal, the first amendment is designed to protect all forms of speech, even the most heinous types. 7. I don't completely understand your point here.
  4. It was getting easier and easier because you essentially defeated yourself by resorting to logical fallacy. And it wouldn’t be the first time. I don’t see anything wrong with what I said. All things considered, it’s a pretty fair account of your conduct in this thread and past threads. And it certainly seems like you are using the above quote as an excuse to bail out of this discussion, which was rapidly slipping away from you, considering that the quote is no more inflammatory than anything I or you have already said thus far. I admit that I don’t always behave as civilly as I would like to, but you are kidding yourself if you think your behavior is any more respectable. You are being just as stubborn, arrogant, and dismissive as you think I am. From your very first post in this thread you came off as belligerently confrontational. That pretty much set the tone for the debate. Try living up to your own standards. I invite anyone else who has a lot of free time to browse through the “Helen Thomas� thread to see more evidence of what I described above. That is another example of a debate that went on longer than it should have because you resorted to false “contradictions� when your argument had deteriorated. You still don't get it. You honestly think I couldn't respond to all of your comments? That I am "using" your words as a way to escape from your arguments? Why would I make any more comments if you and I both know that I would be repeating the same exact thing as I have said before? Nothing but pointless. It's a circular discussion that I am getting tired of participating in. If I state argument A and you state argument B as your response, and I keep on saying A over and over again while you do the same thing with B, how the heck does that mean my argument is "slipping away" from me if I am using the exact same words? And I'm sorry if I got so used to your type of rhetoric that I was sucked into thinking that the language I used was proper etiquette.
  5. Looks like you are up to your old tactics again. When you have been proven wrong you grasp at straws by “finding� logical contradictions that don’t exist. It’s really juvenile. Show some maturity and concede the issues that Eric and I have discussed, because at this point your argument has had all four wheels come off. I stopped reading after that. Do you try to be as cocky and ignorant as possible, or is it just your nature? Have you ever asked yourself why seemingly no one (besides stupid me of course) on this site ever wants to get into an argument with you? I'm sure you think it's because you're such a hot-shot know-it-all, but that wouldn't be factual, along with the rest of the crap that comes out of your mouth. Your tactics resemble none other than those of a stubborn seven-year-old when someone tells him Santa doesn't exist, and for that you have my deepest sympathy for your intellectual misfortunes. I look at it this way. I could pointlessly respond to everything you just wrote and hope that you might be able to see the light. However, that would only waste another part of my life. I know you're as stubborn as could be, so what the heck is the point of me doing so? Everything you just wrote was repetition of some of your earlier posts. Everything I have written in the past couple of posts has also been forced to be repetition. It's as if this is a durability test to see who can post the same exact statements over and over again until eventually one of us gets tired enough not post anymore, leaving the other person the ability to proclaim "victory" and say how "easy" it was. And it appears that you have defeated me in this little game of yours. For that, congratulations champ.
  6. Also, here is a good quote from the provided link: Scope of the congressional and executive authority to prescribe the rules for the governance of the military is broad and subject to great deference by the judiciary. The Court recognizes “that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society,� that “[t]he military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian,� and that “Congress is permitted to legislate both with greater breadth and with greater flexibility when prescribing the rules by which [military society] shall be governed than it is when prescribing rules for [civilian society].� This is also something else I've already mentioned. I've discussed the "deference" to the legislative and executive in establishing these regulations that have been mostly unchallenged in the courts over the broad history of this country. It has been generally understood since the time of the writing of the Constitution that military standards are set by Congress and do not directly parallel those of civilian life. Amazing how you have the ability to leave out the most important parts of a statement and still pretend as though your argument was proven correct. From the same page: "Denying that Congress or military authorities are free to disregard the Constitution when acting in this area,1453 the Court nonetheless operates with “a healthy deference to legislative and executive judgments� with respect to military affairs,1454 so that, while constitutional guarantees apply, “the different character of the military community and of the military mission requires a different application of those protections.� It has been understood that military standards are set by the federal government so long as they are not unconstitutional.
  7. Imagine if the US military was subject to the standards of civilian civil rights case law, it would be a disaster. Soldiers would not be subject to search by superiors they would be allowed to openly criticize their chain of command - even in combat situations they would not face criminal charges for things like personal and business relationships between officers and enlisted, even if prejudicial to the chain of command they would be able to depart, at will, even during times of war or emergency with no consequence greater than loss of employment the navy would have to alter warships to permit access by disabled persons they would be able to attend offensive functions in their military uniforms, and identify themselves as service members at such they would be able to disclose information and claim whistle-blower protections 1. Soldiers would not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. You left out the most important word in the 4th amendment. 2. If the right to freedom of speech (in this case, criticizing commanders) hampered their performance or anyone else's performance, they would not be allowed to. Seeing as though this would nearly be guaranteed, I highly doubt that soldiers would ever get away with doing that. 3. That is a very vague statement. I would like to know of a specific example relating to your statement that would be harmful to military performance. 4. Speaking of a colossal stretch. Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that a soldier would enlist in the military and then as soon as there is an emergency, he would leave? 5. Obviously this would not be true, as a disabled person would not have the ability to perform up to military standards. 6. I don't see what the problem in this would be. Sensitivity? 7. First, you are assuming that there would be wrongdoing present within the military. Second, I don't think that worked out too well for Bradley Manning.
  8. From the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Notice they never state that only heterosexuals are citizens. The Constitution never states specifics in terms of sexual orientation, leaving us only to assume that everyone is equal under the law. Wow. This is such a colossal stretch I don’t even know where to begin. Don’t you see the logical problems in going from A to B to C here? This is talking about citizenship. There is no need to make any statements with regard to sexual orientation or gender because it is understood that all human beings meeting the above criteria are citizens. Nowhere does this imply that any other variations of personhood are protected. I mean, this is just comically uninformed. And finally from the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." This means that Christianity (or any other religion that doesn't agree with homosexuality) is not the official religion of the United States, meaning that we don't live by what the bible says. This also states that we have the freedom of speech, which nonetheless includes displays of various sexual orientations. I don’t know why you keep going back to Christianity. The reluctance to allow gays to openly serve has never been explicitly tied to Christianity. Part of the “discomfort� might be the result of there being Christian members of the military, but the policy itself is not in place to explicitly fulfill some sort of religious mandate. It’s not uniting church and state. Even in a completely secular environment, open disclosure of homosexuality might be met with concern. Using these, I see no evidence as to show that your statement about how the federal government has the right to choose whomever they want to serve in the military is in fact constitutional. This is why I compared DADT to the TSA searches, since we have a constitutional amendment that protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. And, for the record, I stated that the military has the right to turn away an obese person only if his/her obesity affected his/her performance. First of all, I don’t see any logical coherency in anything you just wrote. None whatsoever. And I’m not just being stubborn; it just isn’t there. I’ve stated just some of the reasons. Notice that we have a Constitutional amendment explicitly challenging TSA searches, whereas you need to resort to a loosely connected series of assumptions to challenge gender discrimination in the military (and those assumptions still prove nothing). This fact alone should be tipping you off. And you still haven’t explained where in the Constitution the military is “granted� (under your logic) the ability to turn away the disabled and obese. It’s great that you acknowledge that those with lower performance standards should be turned away. However, you still need to explain how under your logic (the Constitutional assumptions you are making), how it is acceptable for the military to turn away these disabled/obese enlistees. In other words, if the Constitution (according to you) says that the military cannot discriminate against women on account of all people being equal, what gives them the ability to turn away the disabled. So what I want you to explain to me explicitly what gives the military the power to deny enlistment to an overweight person. A Constitutional provision would be useful here. Really? Stating that homosexuals are citizens and are entailed with all of the rights that come with that is a "colossal stretch?" I'm not sure what you are even arguing in the first part of your post. Are you agreeing with me that all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, have the same rights under the law as everyone else in the country, because it is kind of hard to tell? The reluctance to accept non-heterosexuals in all aspects of society has without a single doubt been heavily influenced by the presence of Christianity in this country. I don't even see how you could argue that it hasn't. You happen to just think it is a coincidence that as religion is becoming less popular throughout the nation, gay marriage and letting gays serve in the military is becoming more popular? What world are you living in? I find it hard to believe that you would be taking this stance. I can assure you that if everyone is this country was an atheist, there wouldn't be any laws discriminating against gays, since there would be no spiritual book condemning it. Since you can't understand the TSA example, I will explain it in more detail. For each example, there is a reason for the policy, and a constitutional amendment (or for DADT several amendments, but to simplify it I will only use one example of why it is unconstitutional) that protects us from this law. For the TSA searches, the reason why we have them is to improve safety. However, the 4th amendment states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. For DADT, the reason why we have it is to (apparently) improve military performance. However, the first amendment gives us the freedom of speech, which includes different sexual orientations. See where the connection is? Each of the policies deny our civil liberties and freedoms granted to us, as citizens, by the Constitution.
  9. Take another example. Lets say that instead of the MLB we had a professional baseball league run by the federal government. The league is made up entirely of males, but then a woman who is an unbelievable player has the ability to even be better than many of the male players in the league. Does the federal government have the authority to deny her the right to play in the league because women are genetically inferior to men? Of course not. See above. The prevailing scholarly opinion appears to be that this would only be barred under the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment. You are acting like the provisions of the ERA are already in place, as if its failure to be ratified doesn’t change anything. As already stated, I think your reading is a bit too simplistic. The 14th amendment doesn’t really have much relevance here. After all, the 19th amendment was needed decades later simply to allow women the ability to vote. In the case of a “federal MLB� I think most of the legal barriers would stem from federal law and not Constitutional amendments. Congress has the ability to adjust gender discrimination laws at its own discretion. This is why terms of military service can be written as they are (with little challenge) and would not have fully integrated women unless an ERA were to be passed. Conceivably such an amendment would even prohibit gender discriminatory (segregated) bathrooms. I believe that all citizens, under the Constitution, have the right to do anything they want that does not harm the lives, liberty, or property of anyone else. By serving in the military as a homosexual, they are not violating any of those clauses. You have the right to certain liberties, such as life, liberty, property, as long as they don’t infringe upon someone else’s but this does not mean that anyone wants a job in the military is entitled to it. By your logic, anyone who wants to enlist is entitled indirectly to the taxpayer funds to support his service. That doesn’t make an ounce of logical sense. The military has every ability to turn away people and it doesn’t trample upon anyone’s human “essence� in doing so. To clarify my point, I draw my conclusion from these statements from the Constitution: From the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Meaning that the federal government does not have any authority to differentiate among persons of uncommon sexual orientations, since that power is not delegated to them specifically. This is mostly referring to the enumerated powers of Congress. It is a stretch to say that this addresses sexual orientations. It refers to delegated powers. If certain rights are to be “protected,� they must be stated in the Constitution. Again, this is why there is a need for an Equal Rights Amendment. In other words, you are making a poor reading of the Constitution. You see, I think that problem here is that you, for some reason, seem to think that this nation has always abided by the Constitution, which is so ridiculous it isn't even laughable. The 19th amendment technically was never needed if this country actually did follow the rules of the Constitution, since we already had the 14th amendment. "Congress has the ability to adjust gender discrimination laws at its own discretion." That is exactly the type of opinion you come up with if you don't interpret the Constitution literally. The rest of your post has already been addressed several times previously.
  10. First of all, you completely misunderstood what I said. I don’t have an issue with the occasionally qualified woman serving on the front line. However, since the average woman is not equal to the average man in terms of combat ability, I feel it would be detrimental to allow all women equal ability to serve at the front lines with men. The point is even if you permit some women to “prove themselves� just to be equal with men, you are still discriminating because you are still providing them with an additional barrier. In other words, the only way to meet the logical criteria of “equal rights� you are putting forward in this thread, all men and women must be united with no questions asked. Again, instead of American citizens needing a constitutional provision in order to protect their civil liberties, it is the other way around. The federal government must have a power designated to them by the Constitution in order to assume that specific power. The 14th amendment states that all citizens (and it doesn't differentiate between males and females) are equal under the law. There is no other part of the Constitution that discriminates between the sexes, save the 19th. Therefore, the federal government can't single out an entire gender as unable to perform a task for the federal government. I’ve already addressed this but you don’t seem to comprehend any of it. The issue is that there is no inalienable right to be serving in the military. Furthermore, the “powers� of the US military are deferred to Congress and the commander in chief, who set the standards. Consequently, the military can use discretion in selecting its employees. This is why the prospect of females serving in combat brigades and being subject to conscription never rose until the “Equal Rights Amendment� gained momentum before ultimately not being ratified. The controversy behind this is that it would have ultimately forced gender “equality� in the military, whereas right now there is no such mandate. And you still haven’t told me [according to your logic that I don’t agree with] what part of the Constitution permits the military to reject the handicapped, pregnant, and obese. Under your logic, rejecting these types of “equal� people would be Constitutionally prohibited because it is not directly “granted.� In other words, I fully understand what you are trying to say, but the pieces don’t fit together. Not to mention that technically the 14th amendment doesn’t even apply to the federal government, but instead to the states. That is just one misstep of your reading, though. All you are doing is changing what you stated earlier. You previously stated that since it would be rather rare that a women would be physically superior enough to serve on the front line, it would be beneficial if no women were to do so. And to prove it, here is a quote from one of your last posts: "Not all women are less qualified than every man is, but I believe that the average woman is far less physically capable than the average man is (at least of those passing the initial qualifications in entry to the US military). In light of this, I have no problem with women being designated to combat support." Notice that you said women should be designated to combat support, not physically inferior women who would still have at least the qualifications to serve in the role of combat support, but a generalization of an entire gender. This is where you are misconstruing what I have stated; I have repeatedly noted that those who perform the best, regardless of their gender, should in the top roles in the military. That doesn't mean that if men make up 80% of the military's composition and women make up 20%, 20% of troops serving on the front line have to be women, which seems to be what you have thought my statements have meant. If only a small percentage of the actual amount of women in the military are physically superior enough to serve on the front line, then let the front line composition be made up of 95% males and just 5% females. Heck, if no females are physically superior enough to do so (which isn't likely, but for the sake of the hypothetical), then let the front line be composed of 100% males. The point is that gender should not be a factor at all when considering military performance. As long as the federal government is the one running the military, there should be absolutely no discrepancy between the genders. This way there would be zero discrimination. And for the last damn time, I never said that there was a right to serve in the military. If you think I did, why don't you show me a quote where I did or even when I inferred it? The powers of the military are absolutely deferred to Congress and the commander in chief, which I never denied. However, using your logic, that means that the federal government can do whatever they want with it, meaning that it is completely legal for them to kick out whomever they want to for whatever reason, punish whomever they want to for whatever reason, heck maybe even kill whomever they want to for whatever reason. The Constitution? Who gives a sh*t? The federal government has unlimited power over this specific federal program, right? The only reason why you and many others are failing to comprehend this is because until very recently, groups such as women weren't allowed to serve, which makes the stance of not wanting to let any women serve at all not seem out of the ordinary. If women and gays and everyone else had been allowed to serve since this nation's founding, people would think the idea of not letting gays/women serve in the military was crazy. Up until the last few decades though (although a lot of it still lasts today), this nation was a racist, sexist, homophobic partial theocracy. And in a few decades, when this nation becomes even more libertarian on social issues, very few people are ever going to be taking the stance that you are taking right now that infers that the federal government has the right to discriminate against certain groups of citizens. Notice that a few decades after blacks were integrated into the military, no one is currently saying any more that constitutionally, since the federal government has the power to control the military, they can legally deny blacks the right to serve. As for you last paragraph, which I know I addressed in an earlier post, if a person is physically unfit to serve in the military because of a pregnancy or obesity, than unquestionably the military has the right to kick them out because they are unable to perform. If someone is obese yet still somehow has the ability to perform well, heck, good for them and let him stay there. I would assume you meant though that the pregnancy or obesity would be detrimental to the troop(s) enough so that they were unable to serve.
  11. (To EricWiener) ----------------------- So what is your justification in denying them the right to serve? Better yet, explain how/why the federal government is allowed to do so? What gives it that authority?
  12. (Responding to Penguino's second post since for some reason it didn't allow me to quote.) ----------------------------------- I believe that all citizens, under the Constitution, have the right to do anything they want that does not harm the lives, liberty, or property of anyone else. By serving in the military as a homosexual, they are not violating any of those clauses. To clarify my point, I draw my conclusion from these statements from the Constitution: From the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Meaning that the federal government does not have any authority to differentiate among persons of uncommon sexual orientations, since that power is not delegated to them specifically. From the 14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Notice they never state that only heterosexuals are citizens. The Constitution never states specifics in terms of sexual orientation, leaving us only to assume that everyone is equal under the law. And finally from the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." This means that Christianity (or any other religion that doesn't agree with homosexuality) is not the official religion of the United States, meaning that we don't live by what the bible says. This also states that we have the freedom of speech, which nonetheless includes displays of various sexual orientations. Using these, I see no evidence as to show that your statement about how the federal government has the right to choose whomever they want to serve in the military is in fact constitutional. This is why I compared DADT to the TSA searches, since we have a constitutional amendment that protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. And, for the record, I stated that the military has the right to turn away an obese person only if his/her obesity affected his/her performance.
  13. So now you are saying that the military can discriminate on physical ability? Before you said that women should be serving at the front lines because the Constitution did not grant the military to do otherwise. Are you retracting this point? Women are reduced to support roles because of physical shortcomings. You are agreeing with me that it is acceptable to only permit their service in combat support, right? Furthermore, physical ability is only one component of performance. It's the most important, which is why the military was integrated in 1951 and why DADT was repealed (in part), but if issues related to sexual orientation did arise and appeared to be largely detrimental (unlikely), I suspect that open disclosure of sexual orientation would be reconsidered. In other words, the key here is "function properly." It is extremely hard to prove that racial and sexual identity integration/disclosure are capable of inhibiting the functioning of the military. In the extremely unlikely possibility that it should arise, the potential consequences must be considered, just as the physical shortcomings of women were evaluated and regulated. So what you are implying is that all women are automatically less qualified to serve in the military because they are physically inferior to men? I am not retracting anything because I haven't contradicted any of my previous statements as you have claimed. My only statement on the subject was that the Constitution does not allow the military to discriminate against women solely because of their gender. However, if a specific male soldier was performing better than a specific female soldier, then the make soldier should receive the higher role. There are plenty of female soldiers that perform better than certain male soldiers though. The key is functioning to the best of the military's ability without infringing on the rights of any citizen. The number one goal of the federal government is to protect and defend the rights and liberties of all of its citizens, even if that comes with consequences. No. Not all women are less qualified than every man is, but I believe that the average woman is far less physically capable than the average man is (at least of those passing the initial qualifications in entry to the US military). In light of this, I have no problem with women being designated to combat support. If you unilaterally allow women equal opportunity, I suspect that combat effectiveness of front line units would be diluted. What I'm asking you to clarify is your position is whether you think all women must be given the same chance to serve on the front lines. If you say that only the "best" ones equal to men should be allowed to serve there, then you are still discriminating. And, as I argued previously, I don't see any tangible Consitutional protection for women that says they must be placed at the front lines equally with men. It has been understood throughout this country's entire military history that such decisions are deferred to Congress and the commander in chief. This is why there has been very little Constitutional objection, regardless of epcoh or political climate of the time. Most importantly, such discrimination against women seems reasonable on account of obvious physical inferiority (on average) and the much smaller percentage of women in the military than men. In other words, this isn't a position coming from bigotry, but rather from practical necessity. That's why I have no problem with it. And I absolutely believe that there would be consequences in combat effectiveness if women were openly given assignment in the front lines. It's a reasonable policy, and not an entirely unjust one when you consider that there is absolutely no right to be in the military. And there is a difference between making a decision out of an ignorant prejudice (bigotry) and reason. The physical limitations of women (on average) are virtually inarguable. And just why would you think combat effectiveness would be harmed if a women who was just as qualified or even more qualified than a man were to serve on the front line? You think the male soldiers would be afraid they would catch the cooties? I believe that all women must be given the same opportunity to prove how well they can perform as men. Obviously, because of genetics, the average male soldier will have an advantage and I would assume that there would be an over-representation of males on the front line. However, not all men can out-perform all women, meaning that there would certainly be at least a few female soldiers on the front line, whether the male soldiers like it or not. Again, instead of American citizens needing a constitutional provision in order to protect their civil liberties, it is the other way around. The federal government must have a power designated to them by the Constitution in order to assume that specific power. The 14th amendment states that all citizens (and it doesn't differentiate between males and females) are equal under the law. There is no other part of the Constitution that discriminates between the sexes, save the 19th. Therefore, the federal government can't single out an entire gender as unable to perform a task for the federal government. Take another example. Lets say that instead of the MLB we had a professional baseball league run by the federal government. The league is made up entirely of males, but then a woman who is an unbelievable player has the ability to even be better than many of the male players in the league. Does the federal government have the authority to deny her the right to play in the league because women are genetically inferior to men? Of course not.
  14. You are correct in the fact that no one has a right to serve in the military. It's not as if I ever stated that, but we will pretend as if you are actually making a legitimate point. Every citizen, however, does have the right of not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation by a public institution. Yes, the military can discgharge because of obesity, a pregnancy, etc. But you know what? Those things actually hinder performance, unlike simply being gay. If the discrimination was as pure as you're making it out to be in this paragraph, gays wouldn't be allowed to serve. Period. DADT allowed gays to serve as long as their sexuality was kept a secret. It didn't go out of its way to look for gays. Just thought I'd make that distinction. Take that as you may. Just keep in mind that the military didn't care whether or not gays served in the military; the problem seemed to be with other members' awareness of a soldier's homosexuality. Less soldiers (meaning gays being barred entirely) would probably be as hurtful to numbers as openly gay people are to 'military readiness.' That doesn't make any sense. How do you infer that gays would not be allowed to serve based off of my statements? And I don't know what you mean when you say that the military didn't care if gays served in the military if they had a policy that didn't allow member to be gay...
  15. You seem to have avoided my question yet again. If there was evidence to suggest that the integration of black troops would have hindered troop performance, would you have supported segregation? If you say yes to that question, which is what I could somewhat infer from the statements in your first paragraph, then we might as well just end this debate. The fact is, is that this IS a civil rights issue. Since it is gays and lesbians we are talking about here instead of the usual minorities such as blacks or hispanics, we seem to forget that though. Actually I thought I was pretty explicit. If at the time of integration, it was believed that something outrageous like 80% of all enlisted men would wait for their term to finish and then leave on account of the policy (not re-enlist...and those numbers would have to be certain), I would absolutely be hesitant to integrate. So, yes, under an extremely unlikely hypothetical scenario where the military would potentially be unable to defend this country (hence it would no longer function properly), I would oppose integration. That is more or less my position on DADT. However, this is complicated by the fact that conscription wasn't taboo in the late 40s to the extent it is today, so the government would simply draft to make up the difference. So under the circumstances it would be virtually impossible to oppose integration in a practical sense. I guess that since you would support discrimination against some groups of citizens in the military if it hurt troop performance, you would also support the scannings and gropings by the TSA at airports? Of course, the acts completely ignore the fact that each citizen is enshrined with civil liberties, but the policies do make us safer, right? It's the same exact thing. How in the hell do you go from point A to B here? I see absolutely no connection. Again, there is no right to serve in the military. If you aren't granted permission to enlist, you aren't losing your rights. That's not the same as unwarranted and excessive searches. This is an ill-conceived comparison. You are correct in the fact that no one has a right to serve in the military. It's not as if I ever stated that, but we will pretend as if you are actually making a legitimate point. Every citizen, however, does have the right of not being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation by a public institution. Yes, the military can discgharge because of obesity, a pregnancy, etc. But you know what? Those things actually hinder performance, unlike simply being gay. Well as we established, the military does discriminate against things that it believes to potentially hinder performance. The potential argument that I reject (however, it must be considered), is that "simply being gay" would cause straight members to be uncomfortable and would discourage them from re-enlisting. If this were to happen at a large scale (again, unlikely), it would disrupt the functional capacity of the US military. That is why there must be a debate on this topic. Please, though, don't pretend as if the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, actually holds up the Constitution as it is. The fact that we actually still regard the piece of paper as important when creating policies is a joke. Why do you think gay marriage is still illegal in most states? Why do you think drugs are illegal? Heck, why do you think we had prohibition in this country? If you can tell me how any one of those policies are constitutional, I will give you a million dollars. It is impossible, however. We don't have a separation of Church and State, and we probably won't for a long time. The combination of Church and State is undoubtedly what is behind DADT in the first place, not the fact that it could hurt troop performance if gays were in the military. Well, I agree with the overall sentiment here regarding the lack of respect for the Constitution, but I don't think that the Christian background of many military personnel is the only reason for DADT being implemented. I do suspect that there was a genuine fear that there would be social turmoil between gays and straights that could result in incidents or possible drops in enlistments. Accord (a member here), before being shipped off to Afghanistan, used to express concern over this due to the living conditions in the USMC. I don't expect this to be the majority viewpoint but I sense that it is held by some. And I wouldn't just brush it off as homophobia. Your first response shows me that you could honestly care less about civil liberties, as you have always seemed so proud to proclaim in the past. Whether or not the hypothetical I provided would have been likely to occur or not, the fact that more and more people seem to keep on taking this stance is troubling. This only further proves my point about how irrelevant the Constitution has become in our society. To further explain my point about the TSA scannings, both the scannings and DADT are policies that infringe upon the rights of individuals. The scannings are meant to try to further protect the safety of American citizens, while repealing DADT could possibly hinder the performance of some of the troops. If you were to support keeping DADT if repealing it could hurt troop performance, you would also likely support the TSA scannings since they both could have positive effects on the safety of American citizens. It wasn't the Christian background of military personnel that created DADT, it was the Christian background of the American people as a whole. If the founding fathers of this country were atheist instead of Christian, gay marriage would have always been legal. Feeling uncomfortable because you have to be near gays is called homophobia. I don't know what else you would possibly refer to it as, as I'm sure if I said that I didn't like being around black people you would call it racism.
×
×
  • Create New...