Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Other countries haven't asked these questions? How would you know if they wouldn't reach a different conclusion?Kamakazie Sith wrote:Obviously, other countries haven't asked these questions. If they had I'm sure they'd conclude that placing homosexual men in with heterosexual men is a violation of privacy for both.
As Degan pointed out: "Rum, Sodomy, and the Lash!"jegs2 wrote: Happened to me on a Navy base (go figure), while I was enlisted in the USCG about a decade and a half ago.
You see the public service announcement by Sulu about Tim Hardaway?Kamakazie Sith wrote:Obviously, other countries haven't asked these questions. If they had I'm sure they'd conclude that placing homosexual men in with heterosexual men is a violation of privacy for both.
That's you. That's what you and Ein sound like.ono something or other wrote: waaaa! I haven't a Goddamn clue about what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs does! I assume that every service member instantly knows who every General is, even those in another service and way the Hell outside of my chain of command
Correct. There does, however, seem to be one homophobe apologist, and as far as I can tell, his argument boils down to the idea that we're not allowed to attack the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he doesn't have the official authority to actually implement his homophobe agenda, nor are we allowed to criticize the military or the Bush Administration for the fact that nothing is apparently being done to punish this guy for voicing his opinions in this manner. I guess you only get punished in the US Army if you speak out in the manner that Shinseki did.Knife wrote:As far as I see, there are no homophobes here arguing against the casue...
I'd be curious as to how high up in the military you have to be before a military official should be derided for making bigoted public statements myself. You'd figure anyone who was concerned about equal treatment would see any negative publicity in that regard as a bad thing.Darth Wong wrote:Correct. There does, however, seem to be one homophobe apologist, and as far as I can tell, his argument boils down to the idea that we're not allowed to attack the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he doesn't have the official authority to actually implement his homophobe agenda, nor are we allowed to criticize the military or the Bush Administration for the fact that nothing is apparently being done to punish this guy for voicing his opinions in this manner. I guess you only get punished in the US Army if you speak out in the manner that Shinseki did.Knife wrote:As far as I see, there are no homophobes here arguing against the casue...
When I was watching the documentary "Occupation Dreamland", absolutely none of the soldiers in the barracks in Falluja were permitted to criticize the Bush Administration, but of course they could rag on Clinton all they liked. Yet I guess it's ok to have some kind of "rank cutoff" for your homophobic privelages in the armed forces where everyone below that rank can be as bigoted as they like.General Zod wrote:I'd be curious as to how high up in the military you have to be before a military official should be derided for making bigoted public statements myself. You'd figure anyone who was concerned about equal treatment would see any negative publicity in that regard as a bad thing.
I don't know about the US Military but in the Canadian Forces your not allowed to criticise the government or goverment policy where it pertains to the military. So I couldn't say that the Afghan mission was a load of shit and that PM Harper was trying to get us all killed. Because that is present policy. But I could say that Oka was a clusterfuck because that happened under a previous government.TithonusSyndrome wrote:
When I was watching the documentary "Occupation Dreamland", absolutely none of the soldiers in the barracks in Falluja were permitted to criticize the Bush Administration, but of course they could rag on Clinton all they liked. Yet I guess it's ok to have some kind of "rank cutoff" for your homophobic privelages in the armed forces where everyone below that rank can be as bigoted as they like.
You know, Lonestar, you can put the shovel away and stop digging the hole deeper. No one is claiming the Chairman of the Chiefs has more power than he has. We're just calling him a fucking bigot. And those two? They're calling you a borderline Troll because instead of answering a single fucking point, you go instead to Ad Hominems without any arguments to back it up.Lonestar wrote:Incidently:
That's you. That's what you and Ein sound like.ono something or other wrote: waaaa! I haven't a Goddamn clue about what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs does! I assume that every service member instantly knows who every General is, even those in another service and way the Hell outside of my chain of command
Meh, sure. How ever the asshat really can't change the policy so screaming 'shithead' won't cure anything. That's all I thought Lonestar was saying before Eni went coco puffs on him and then a small dog pile.Darth Wong wrote:Correct. There does, however, seem to be one homophobe apologist, and as far as I can tell, his argument boils down to the idea that we're not allowed to attack the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he doesn't have the official authority to actually implement his homophobe agenda, nor are we allowed to criticize the military or the Bush Administration for the fact that nothing is apparently being done to punish this guy for voicing his opinions in this manner. I guess you only get punished in the US Army if you speak out in the manner that Shinseki did.Knife wrote:As far as I see, there are no homophobes here arguing against the casue...
Knife wrote:Meh, sure. How ever the asshat really can't change the policy so screaming 'shithead' won't cure anything. That's all I thought Lonestar was saying before Eni went coco puffs on him and then a small dog pile.
'Cause internet boards like SDN are changing policy when we call the people who make the deicisions idiots. Right. Oh come on, The Pope is the closest thing to God for a lot of 2nd and 3rd worlders, General Pace's comments aren't going to inspire anyone that isn't already a homophobe to act any differently.General Zod wrote:Incidentally, "He doesn't make policy" or "He doesn't change the opinion of the little guy" is precisely the same type of apologetics you see whenever, say, The Pope or some other high ranking church official makes similar remarks.
Yet that has all of jack to do with my point that people will use that defense every single time someone complains about officials like the Pope being douchebags for making public bigoted remarks.SPC Brungardt wrote:Oh come on, The Pope is the closest thing to God for a lot of 2nd and 3rd worlders, General Pace's comments aren't going to inspire anyone that isn't already a homophobe to act any differently.General Zod wrote:Incidentally, "He doesn't make policy" or "He doesn't change the opinion of the little guy" is precisely the same type of apologetics you see whenever, say, The Pope or some other high ranking church official makes similar remarks.
Yeah, but the big difference is that the Pope makes policy, for his organization and country. the Chairman of the JCS doesn't.General Zod wrote: Yet that has all of jack to do with my point that people will use that defense every single time someone complains about officials like the Pope being douchebags for making public bigoted remarks.
You're still missing the fucking point. But perhaps you can explain why we shouldn't call someone a douchebag for being a bigoted fuckhead simply because they don't set policy. Which iirc is what started this shitstorm in the first place.Lonestar wrote:Yeah, but the big difference is that the Pope makes policy, for his organization and country. the Chairman of the JCS doesn'tl.General Zod wrote: Yet that has all of jack to do with my point that people will use that defense every single time someone complains about officials like the Pope being douchebags for making public bigoted remarks.
I'm not aware of any homophobic troll ever having any influence over policy of a popsicle stand, much less the largest Christian denomination in the world. Nor do they claim to represent the military of the world's biggest superpower (even if he doesn't 'set policy'). Look at Parting Shots; they've been banned, usually very swiftly, and their bones collect dust and carrion-eaters all the same.General Zod wrote:You're still missing the fucking point. But perhaps you can explain why we shouldn't call someone a douchebag for being a bigoted fuckhead simply because they don't set policy. Which iirc is what started this shitstorm in the first place.
Thank you. I considered asking for it to stop in my last post, but reconsidered. I think we would do well to put something before the Senate in regard to this happenstance.SirNitram wrote:Several posts have been oppressed, on the basis that the matters of a private usergroup have been getting aired in the general public. It will not continue. Behave yourselves, children, even if you can't bring yourself to be logical.
No. Private usergroup matters remain in their usergroups. If disciplinary action is merited, it is the discretion of those running those usergroups.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:Thank you. I considered asking for it to stop in my last post, but reconsidered. I think we would do well to put something before the Senate in regard to this happenstance.SirNitram wrote:Several posts have been oppressed, on the basis that the matters of a private usergroup have been getting aired in the general public. It will not continue. Behave yourselves, children, even if you can't bring yourself to be logical.