brianeyci wrote:I don't even have a problem with a military serviceman saying women should not serve in elite combat units, or that integrated commands are too much trouble, or that DADT might be beneficial. America is really not the rest of the world,
What's so unique about the USA that the far from disastrous experiences the rest of the west had of dropping bans on homosexuals serving in the forces can simply be dismissed out of hand?
I don't know. I'm not in the military and I'm not American so I have to guess. If I was making the argument, it'd probably be something along the lines of Americans are so ass backwards as to be not prepared to repeal DADT yet. I'd probably throw in ancedotal evidence of mistreatment of gays in the military, mistreatment of women, and argue it'd be a lot worse with gays. I'd also throw in a whole bunch of numbers about recruiting shortages. In short I'd emphasize the practical realities of repealing DADT. I'd be prepared to accept it if it was phrased properly.
After what you said Flagg, fine. I can think of instances around the world where the military is acting as a vehicle for social change, most notably in places like Turkey. So oh well, maybe I would've lost the debate anyway, but I wouldn't have lost so badly .
You don't have to look at Turkey for examples of the army leading the way in terms of social changes. Just look at how the US Army integrated blacks long before the rest of society did.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
How would getting rid of DADT count as the US armed forces 'leading social change'? Are homosexuals legally barred from other sectors of employment in the US?
Plekhanov wrote:How would getting rid of DADT count as the US armed forces 'leading social change'? Are homosexuals legally barred from other sectors of employment in the US?
Not a bit. They are, however, de facto barred or at least discouraged from teacher jobs or other jobs that involve children due to the extremely bigoted and dangerous 'gay=pedo' myth. Apples to oranges comparison due to no law on the books, but still interesting for the purpose of comparison and discussion.
Surlethe wrote:Play a little word game here: substitute "black" for "gay", "racist" for "homophobe", and "segregation" for "DADT". Would you support the conclusions of your logic then?
No, because I would not be suckered into making the initial claim. I would make sure that whoever opened his mouth first said he wanted to get rid of DADT. No doubt the person would come back with international precedent, and then I'd come back, if I was a military serviceman, about the large number of gay men who experience severe problems, and the crux of my argument would be, attempt social change outside the military first before attempting it inside. And then I would argue that in an ideal world, DADT would be toast, but the American military was not prepared for it yet. So right now it looks like they lost, because they are bad debators and because one of their members said a lot of stupid things.
Regardless of who makes this argument, the logic can be applied equally well to racism and segregation. If you accept it in one context, you'd be forced to accept it in another context.
Even if he doesn't provide any argument for it and relies on his own authority? You apparently don't seem to grasp why the appeal to authority is appropriate in some instances and fallacious in others, and why this occasion is one of the latter.
If the argument was phrased that way, I would be prepared to accept it, yes. Because: I know relatively nothing about the military at all and I don't assume to understand its inner workings. Just like I know relatively nothing about science and math, so when a teacher explains it without explaining the underlying principle, I just accept it. Things like morale, social acceptance, unit cohesion are intangible factors that I do not think can be easily articulated and rely on instinct and feeling. But again to reinterate it wasn't phrased this way, it sounded like some of the mess was defending "don't look at your penis har har."
Of course it wasn't articulated the way you wanted it. The point here (which you seem to be missing) is that Lonestar or someone like him coming out and saying, "In my opinion as a sailor/soldier/marine/pilot, DADT is the best thing since sliced bread to happen to the US military" is in fact a fallacious appeal to authority because he provided no argument to support it. In the same manner, if I said, "In my opinion as a math student, the Cauchy Integral Formula is true", and left it at that, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority. Appeals to relevant authorities are not fallacious because they have the expertise to provide arguments to back up their points which may not be available elsewhere.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
There is a great catch22 in that the only way to get the opinion of DADT from homosexuals in the military is for them to resign...
To me the whole issue is absurd. There is no question about the fact that there are homosexuals serving in the armed forces right now. So if homosexuals would be prone to sexually harass their comrades it would be a fact of life already, but it isn't. So they are already there and they are not drooling too much in the shower, so what is the big fucking deal?
Also what is up whith the incredibly stupid idea to segragate openly homosexuals to their own barracks/showers? Should the military actually have to handle their soldiers based on potential sexual preference? Hell no. Then the only way to be sure that the bisexuals never are placed with their objects of desire would be to have them seperated 1 by 1.
Surlethe wrote:Regardless of who makes this argument, the logic can be applied equally well to racism and segregation. If you accept it in one context, you'd be forced to accept it in another context.
You're missing my point. If I was debating this I would not be suckered into making the claim that DADT should stay the same, but I'd ask someone for the benefits of scrapping DADT. Whoever makes the claim has the burden of proof. In short it looks like bad debate tactics made them lose badly, though now that Plekanov and others have weighed in, looks like if they were good debators they would've still lost, just not as badly.
Of course it wasn't articulated the way you wanted it. The point here (which you seem to be missing) is that Lonestar or someone like him coming out and saying, "In my opinion as a sailor/soldier/marine/pilot, DADT is the best thing since sliced bread to happen to the US military" is in fact a fallacious appeal to authority because he provided no argument to support it. In the same manner, if I said, "In my opinion as a math student, the Cauchy Integral Formula is true", and left it at that, that would be a fallacious appeal to authority. Appeals to relevant authorities are not fallacious because they have the expertise to provide arguments to back up their points which may not be available elsewhere.
I don't know anything about the comradrie and bonding that goes in on the military. I don't know anything about a small group of men, depending on each other for their very lives. If a soldier tells me that a woman is a distraction in such an environment and lowers their maximum combat efficiency, I will not argue with him. Who in your opinion is a relevant authority to provide information about morale, bonding, and comradeship in the military. Certainly not the brass. I'd take a grunt's opinion anyday. Spending years in university is not the only way to be a relevant authority. If a baker tells me, trust me put this in bread, I'd take him at face value since I know nothing about baking.
brianeyci wrote:I don't know anything about the comradrie and bonding that goes in on the military. I don't know anything about a small group of men, depending on each other for their very lives. If a soldier tells me that a woman is a distraction in such an environment and lowers their maximum combat efficiency, I will not argue with him. Who in your opinion is a relevant authority to provide information about morale, bonding, and comradeship in the military. Certainly not the brass. I'd take a grunt's opinion anyday. Spending years in university is not the only way to be a relevant authority. If a baker tells me, trust me put this in bread, I'd take him at face value since I know nothing about baking.
Then why are you discussing this at all? Give me a day and I could get testimonies from people who have served in the military. The only problem being that depending on who I asked I would get different answers.
For some with the traditionalist views that would be that openly homosexuals would be bad for morale while with the progressive it would be good for morale.
So your reasoning is totally moot and adds nothing to the discussion.
You see with all changes like this one, there is a short-term backlash, but a long-term gain. Just like we had with different skin colors and different genders.
We should not settle with a disfunctional system/society, we are here to create a better one.
Spoonist wrote:Then why are you discussing this at all? Give me a day and I could get testimonies from people who have served in the military. The only problem being that depending on who I asked I would get different answers.
For some with the traditionalist views that would be that openly homosexuals would be bad for morale while with the progressive it would be good for morale.
So your reasoning is totally moot and adds nothing to the discussion.
You see with all changes like this one, there is a short-term backlash, but a long-term gain. Just like we had with different skin colors and different genders.
We should not settle with a disfunctional system/society, we are here to create a better one.
The train's left you're too late. If you haven't already noticed, all the antognists have withdrawn from the debate to lick their wounds. What I add is the idea that you don't have to necessarily be a homophobe or bigot or a prude to support DADT. And you need testimony from military people to participate in the discussion? Well then maybe only the mess should discuss this. I don't think that a grunt's opinion is the be all end all, but I don't think it can be entirely ignored either. The debate is over, we're just messing around in the ashes, trying to figure out why certain people would have certain positions.
In theory --in theory-- the DADT policy is supposed to also protect gays from witchunts and questioning. If a soldier suspects a fellow soldier and asks him "are you gay?", then it is the asking soldier who gets in trouble.
Now, many feel that is a very thin veneer of "acceptance paint" spread over what amounts to a "zip it or ship it" policy, but given some of the problems that our society (unfortunately) seems to have with the whole issue, this was seen as the best compromise-- and yes, it is a "sweep under the rug" maneuver. To be honest, I sometimes feel that it is a rathe ropen-minded policy when you consider how the social deck is stacked.
I will say that most soldiers I know, and deployed with, for th emost part don't care. I also notice that this is so among the younger and more urbane troops. The older and less sophisticated tend to reflect an older, less sophisticated time in our history which was, sadly, all too recent.
I've said before and reiterate here-- the entire spectrum of American politics is to the right of pretty much everyone else on the planet. Our "open minded liberals" are more like everyone else's center-left moderates. At best.
This is the hand we have to play. I learned at an early age that gays are not scary or evil, in that I'm fortunate despite being older than most of the guys I lead. I don't think we'll notice any sea change in the hierarchy until-- quite frankly-- the fossils currently at the top of the food chain drop off and the younger generation grows in their stead.
A times I wish we'd return to our traditionally isolationist ways until growing a little as a society, but in truth that will slow down the growth by allowing a retreat into comfortable insularity. Only by confronting things head on (sigh) can we confront what needs confronting and grow beyond it.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
"Don't ask, don't tell" doesn't sound quite so onerous until you realize that it's actually abbreviated. The full version is "Don't ask, don't tell because if we find out, you're history".
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Another part of this was that when the Hetero male on female sexual harrassment scandles broke (tailhook, army training rapes etc), the Air force dismissed a large number of highly skilled, very highly qualified top of their field officers. Why? Because they came out of the closet about being lebians and about sexual harrassment they were recieving from males in the military structure.
The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin
Rye wrote:Yes, homosexuality is immoral and we can't have people hired to shoot at and kill other human beings being immoral.
"We train our young boys to drop bombs on women and children but we won't let them write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's "immoral"..."
—Col. Kurtz, Apocalypse Now
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
.
