AD Army Corporal voices R. Paul support

[Alkaloid]

No, because no random woman will ever be the spokesmen for all women. The army, because it is an organisation, can have someone speak for all of the army, and when they do they will be wearing the uniform to make it look official. That's why this man has chosen to wear the uniform now, because it makes him look like he has the support and backing of the army, and why the army has to stop people doing this sort of thing, to ensure there is no confusion.

[Rogue 9]

Jesus fucking Christ, Destructionator. Do you seriously not understand why the military must maintain political neutrality in both appearance and actual fact?

[Alkaloid]

And the point everyone else is making is that a man, in uniform, on national television, saying 'I'm Corporal Joe Bloggs of the US Army and I support Ron Paul can easily be interpreted as or confused for the US Army actually supporting Ron Paul. It is therefore not unreasonable for the army, a body that needs to stay politically neutral, to not allow anyone but official spokesmen to speak to the media whilst in uniform, and for individual members of the army to follow this policy and not speak to the media in uniform.

[Lonestar]

I'm not saying the army should drop a large hammer on this corporal- the fact that he's one non-commissioned officer and didn't claim to speak for the whole army are extenuating circumstances. But where do we draw the line about when the military is allowed to express political opinions and when it isn't?

Not only should the hammer be dropped on this dumbass, but the precedents argue for it big time. I mentioned Gordon Klingenschmitt in the OP, he was a evangelical chaplain who pissed off everyone at his command, and after the Captain literally ordered the Chief Master-at-Arms to escort him off the ship because of what he said at a memorial service he decided to protest his "freedom of religion" being attacked in front of the White House. In Uniform.

That was cause for immediate dismissal(not the festering pile of shit that he was up until that point), and that was for something a lot more vague then "I am Corporal X and I support this political candidate."

You do not wear uniforms to rallies/protests or endorse candidates in uniform. All stop. Heck, I know people that seriously thought the Marines that gathered outside the White House wearing PT-gear when OBL was killed should have been taken to mast. This Corporal was wearing his uniform because he wanted to use the imagery of "The Army" to try increase Paul's chances. Corporal should be given a big chicken dinner.

[Alkaloid]

Yes, I do see soldiers in uniform around from time to time, no, I dont normally assume I'm being invaded if I do, that would be fucking stupid. The point is, you are entirely right, stupid and unreasonable people are the only people that might assume this guy represents the army as a whole, and stupid and unreasonable people are the only people that might be influenced by it. But stupid and unreasonable people are still people, still get to vote and participate in the political process, so the army needs to take steps to ensure that its members, either inadvertently or through malice, don't influence people through their status as soldiers in order to subvert the political process. (As appears to be the case here) One way of doing this is to ensure that no one looks like they might be representing the position of the whole goddam army when they are not, so no one that is not representing the whole army should give a personal opinion to the media while in uniform.

[bobalot]

Many private companies forbid what this guy did. I think most private companies of significant size forbid making overt political statements with their uniform on. I work for a government agency. In uniform, we are forbidden from all political statements to media (we actually forbidden to talk to the media altogether). This is the norm. It is important that the government service must be seen as completely politically neutral.

Jesus fucking Christ, Destructionator. Do you seriously not understand why the military must maintain political neutrality in both appearance and actual fact?

He understands perfectly well. He's just trolling like in the Ron Paul threads. It's the same deliberate misunderstandings, misrepresenting other peoples positions and plain old bullshit.

[Knife]

Jesus fucking Christ, Destructionator. Do you seriously not understand why the military must maintain political neutrality in both appearance and actual fact?

Oh he knows, which is why he's on a 'they're just clothes' bit.

[Knife]

This is the norm.

That doesn't make it right!

I mean, wow, this isn't hard stuff. If everybody was performing female circumcisions, it'd be the norm too. It'd just mean there's a lot of bad people out there, not that it's a good, ethical practice.

In other words, your point is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

It's not his fucking uniform, it's the governments. You don't get to use other peoples shit to make it seem like you're pissant opinion is more than it is.

[bobalot]

This is the norm.

That doesn't make it right!

You are really are a dishonest piece of shit. I noticed you cut off my explanation about why it is the norm.

I mean, wow, this isn't hard stuff. If everybody was performing female circumcisions, it'd be the norm too. It'd just mean there's a lot of bad people out there, not that it's a good, ethical practice.

Following your organisation's media guidelines (public or private) which you have agreed to is not equivalent to circumcision.

In other words, your point is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Actually, it is not. I clearly explained afterwards why it is the norm. You completely misrepresented my position (But I guess, that's what worthless trolls do).

He's just trolling like in the Ron Paul threads.

Oh, fuck off.

I like how you responded to my claim that you were trolling and misrepresenting people's positions....by misrepresenting my position.

[bobalot]

You mean the completely unjustifed assertion that " It is important that the government service must be seen as completely politically neutral."

Tip: a statement isn't an argument. There's no reasoning given there (and it doesn't even relate to half the shit you listed in your fallacy).

A statement without reasoning has no substance to refute or address.

The government service is supposed to serve everybody, which is why the people who work within it must not be seen to be favouring any particular political candidate or group when in uniform. This is obvious to anybody who is not retarded.

What makes Destructionator XIII's protestations hilarious, is that he's obviously a huge Ron Paul supporter. In Ron Paul's ideal land, it would be perfectly okay for the States to allow private companies to fire someone for being homosexual, athiest, etc .... but if a Ron Paul supporter breaks the rules that he agreed to (in an organisation he freely joined) in order to support Ron Paul, Destructionator XIII comes up with every excuse under the sun.

[Alkaloid]

You mean the completely unjustifed assertion that " It is important that the government service must be seen as completely politically neutral."

OK, so DXIII takes the position that it is fine for the NYPD to publicly support the republican party. Just so we are all clear.

[bobalot]

You mean the completely unjustifed assertion that " It is important that the government service must be seen as completely politically neutral."

OK, so DXIII takes the position that it is fine for the NYPD to publicly support the republican party. Just so we are all clear.

In fact in DXIII's world, there shouldn't be any sanctions if members of the police openly politic for a Nazi organisation. After all, it's just clothing right?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

You mean the completely unjustifed assertion that " It is important that the government service must be seen as completely politically neutral."

Tip: a statement isn't an argument. There's no reasoning given there (and it doesn't even relate to half the shit you listed in your fallacy).

A statement without reasoning has no substance to refute or address.

I'm sorry but you're either batshit fucking insane and retarded or you're trolling.

EDIT: For grammar.

[Alkaloid]

In fact, there shouldn't be any sanctions if members of the police openly politic for the American Nazi Party.

Openly and officially, with the full support of the entire police heirachy. All perfectly fine.

[Alkaloid]

BTW, you didn't provide an argument either.

No, I didn't. Because anyone over the age of 3 with a functioning brain cell should be able to work out the reason, so I'll quote bobalots in case you missed it.

The government service is supposed to serve everybody, which is why the people who work within it must not be seen to be favouring any particular political candidate or group when in uniform. This is obvious to anybody who is not retarded.

Happy?

[bobalot]

OK, so DXIII takes the position that it is fine for the NYPD to publicly support the republican party. Just so we are all clear.

Actually, that's not what I said. I simply said he didn't provide any reasoning at all; that there was no argument there to actually refute. He said "it is important". Why is it important?

That's what arguments are all about: explaining why something is that way, not just saying that it is.

BTW, you didn't provide an argument either.

Well, I have now provided an explanation (See above). Why didn't I provide a more detailed explanation the first time? Because for most people, it's fucking obvious.

It's like asking why a judge should be impartial when making their rulings. Sure, if someone made that statement "Judges should be impartial", a worthless troll could complain an explanation was not provided. But most people are not that retarded.

[Alkaloid]

If "the police" do, that's not the same thing, for the nth time. The individual members of an organization are, well, individuals. They aren't the same as the organization.

Yet apparently we have to justify to you why it is important for a government service to remain politically neutral?

[bobalot]

In fact in DXIII's world, there shouldn't be any sanctions if members of the police openly politic for a Nazi organisation. After all, it's just clothing right?

If members of the police do, yes. People have a right to free speech, regardless of employer.

Nice goalpost shifting, asshole. No one here has claimed that soldiers and police do not have the right to free speech. They have the right to free speech and the right to face the consequences of that. If they are statements in uniform, there are consequences.

If a MacDonald's worker expressed overt support for political party or candidate on Nation TV in uniform, that worker would most likely be disciplined. This is nothing different.

If "the police" do, that's not the same thing, for the nth time. The individual members of an organization are, well, individuals. They aren't the same as the organization.

So please confirm this, if an individual police officer in uniform expressed support of a Nazi organisation on national TV, you think it's unfair that he gets disciplined?

Though, at this point, you guys aren't actually making arguments. (Knife did, and I'm almost set with a response, but every time I hit preview, there's more trash to talk about!)

That's hilarious coming from you.

[Panzersharkcat]

Seriously, DXIII, quit trolling. Even though I was annoyed CNN cut him off, it's pretty much common sense he should not have been wearing his uniform to a political event. Back when I was in ROTC, the cadre would issue a reminder telling people not to say anything about it to the media or anybody, really, if there was a protest going on for reasons people in this thread have been stating. Yes, even when Westborough Baptist Church or a similarly crazy fundie cult showed up to protest. When you are in uniform, you are acting as a representative of the US Army or whatever service you are in and those words will, right or wrong, carry weight.

[Alkaloid]

This is obviously a crock of shit: what about the political candidates themselves? They work in government... are they not allowed to say "I think I would be better for the job"?

The fuck? They are the government. The police, the army, the courts are government services. They work for the government, whoever is elected, and have to do the same job for each, so they have to be impartial. Seriously, are you 12?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

It's late and unless someone answers you satisfactorily between now and tomorrow I'm going to bed. But I'll touch on a few gems before you go off on an even bigger tangent.

The government service is supposed to serve everybody, which is why the people who work within it must not be seen to be favouring any particular political candidate or group when in uniform.

This is obviously a crock of shit: what about the political candidates themselves? They work in government... are they not allowed to say "I think I would be better for the job"?

First off some members of elected office (congress specificially) can actually say fuck all to a certain group of people, those groups of people being anyone who's not their constituents.

Second the nature of their office is that they are elected by the public at large, not appointed. So they appeal to the people who get them their jobs. It's okay for them to do that because that's how the electoral process works in the united states. It would conversely be inappropriate for someone in an appointed position (ie everyone in the military esp commissioned officers) to attempt to curry the favor of the public at large to expedite promotion, or appointment to a position of favor because it would be side stepping the vetting process which necessarily screens individuals for positions in which they are not representing a particular group of people but instead requires them to have specific amounts of expertise or experience that the mob would not be qualified to make (thought technically they do make it through their elected representatives but that's for another time).

[Alkaloid]

When one individual government employee says something, that does not reflect "the government". It is just that one person.

A person, who is a member of government, can hold a position. A government, an entity made up of people, can also hold a position. This position can be different from some of the positions held by some of the individuals that make it up. For example, a government can hold the position that people are not allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. This will be reflected in the law, which the government employs a police force to enforce. However, some individuals that make up the government may believe that people of the same sex should be able to marry, and that is fine. It also does not change the governments position.

An individual can speak on behalf of the government. You may have notice this guy sometimes gets up on a stage, in front of a big seal, and makes an announcement to a room full of journalists. They sometimes ask questions, he answers them and the answers are considered to be from the government. Whats he called. The Pruz, the prissdont, I dunno, something like that.

[Alkaloid]

The problem with this is if you apply that logic to other groups, you get a nasty conclusion. Like I said before, women voting might inadvertently influence people to subvert the political process, but that doesn't justify silencing women.

Of course, you might come back "women aren't a hierarchy", and that's irrelevant - the analogy fallacy I can't remember the name to. It doesn't have to be exactly the same, just the same in the ways that matter.

In both cases, an unreasonable viewer might jump to conclusions about a group and be influenced by it. In neither case is it justified to silence the group over it. In utilitarian terms, the harm caused by restricting the group is not counterbalanced by the harm it prevents by sheltering the unreasonable people.

What about the fact that women can't help that they are women? Again, no real difference. The soldier is still a soldier if he takes his uniform off, and then he can speak. A woman could dress up like a man too, hiding some fact about herself to get into the process. That a restriction can be worked around can mitigate the restriction somewhat, but it doesn't justify it by itself.

What makes you think women/army is a good analogy? They are not the same in the ways that matter, because women are not a homogenous group the way the army is. The army has power and influence because it is the army, and there is a person in charge of the whole shebang who can grant authority to someone to speak on behalf of all of the army. There is no woman anywhere who can grant authority to speak on behalf of all women.

[eyl]

Destructionator, what you seem to be missing or ignoring is that the army, like e.g. the police, is especially required to be seen a completely apolitical, not just actually be so. We expect the military to stay far away from anything approaching politics (I trust I don't have to explain why this is necessary?). For that reason, there is no tolerance for servicemembers expressing political opinions - even if they are not seen as representatives of the army as an organization, they can be percieved (or portrayed) as representatives of widespread sentiment in the rank and file, which damages the military's appearance of impartiality.

BTW, are US servicemembers even allowed to be interviewed in uniform (on any subject) freely? Over here, at least, any interview of an active-duty soldier without prior approval is against regs (I know a guy who got four weeks in lockup for violating that). Come to think of it, an IDF reservist could face a numebr of additional charges for such a stunt if the army so desired (I'm not sure you're allowed to even wear your uniform if not on active duty, and for that matter given his rank he could be prosecuted for theft of a uniform if the army was feeling nasty)

[Oni Koneko Damien]

First off, is the dogpile really necessary? We've got about five people saying one thing.

Secondly, I'm confused, is this youtube-army-guy an devious creep who is blatantly fooling people into thinking he's the official voice of the armed forces... or is he a forgettable incompetent who should be laughed out of the service for only getting one major promotion in a decade? The two positions seem at odds to each other, and if the numbnuts here can immediately latch onto the latter and deride him for it, the argument that he can fool everyone else doesn't really hold water.