No wonder the rest if the world stopped respecting us. Our military policies have become a joke.

(08-27-2015 10:57 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 10:54 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I really don't value anyone's opinion who hasn't actually served in the military. Simply because they have no knowledge of anything.

I have served. In the last couple years now the Pentagon has increased regulations on having tattoos but is now lifting bans on so-called "transgendered" soldiers.

The Russians are quaking in their boots.

Yet you so willingly give your opinion on women's healthcare?

and by "women's healthcare", you mean the right to kill a baby, and the right to be given $5000 in contraceptives so that they can get through a semester at Georgetown.

In other words, nothing to do with healthcare.

(08-27-2015 12:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  No wonder the rest if the world stopped respecting us. Our military policies have become a joke.

This is a weird statement because while it is probably accurate, it's not at all accurate for the reasons you seem to think it is.

(08-27-2015 11:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Fine by me. I say we move it forward another step.

Platoon em all together (they'd be more comfy that way, right?), train em up and send them on over. They can lead the way in our assault in ISIS.

The look on the faces of the jihadist a-holes as they are descended upon by stiletto heels, terrible wigs and M16's would be worth the price of admission right there.

LOL. So Cpl. Klinger was ahead of his time.

Quote:This isn't just about allowing trans people to join, it is also about giving our current transgender service members access to proper healthcare.

How does being a transgender or not make a difference in the healthcare you have access too? Maybe mental health (these people are crazy), but if you get sick, you are covered either way, right?

Let's look at what this is really about. They want to be able to join so taxpayers can pay for sex change operations that they can't afford on their own. That ain't "health care" anymore than my wife wanting a boob job or a tummy tuck. That is cosmetic surgery.

(08-27-2015 10:50 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  http://thehill.com/policy/defense/251983...ops-by-may

One commenter:

Quote:I'm a transgender veteran and I have served alongside other people who have had to hide their gender from the military as I did.
This isn't just about allowing trans people to join, it is also about giving our current transgender service members access to proper healthcare. We already have transgender troops, nothing is going to change that, the best we can do is take care of them.
While I was serving, some people in my squad stole my phone and found pictures of me presenting as female (I'm mtf transgender, but was't out yet). I was rigorously sexually harassed by these individuals because of it and I wasn't able to report them because I was afraid of getting discharged. If I had been allowed to serve openly, I could have just told them to go **** themselves and report them for sexual harassment. I ended up having to switch my MOS/rate (job) and move to a different command to get away from it. I got lucky, there are transgender service members that have been raped or otherwise abused and they could do nothing about it without getting discharged. That's ******* terrible.
I've seen some people pursue the train of thought that it gives the enemy a way to blackmail or otherwise use someones transgender identity as a weakness. This is ridiculous, you can only use it as a way to blackmail or manipulate someone if it is a secret. If we make it okay to be openly transgender, then guess what? All of the trans service members with TS SCI clearances suddenly have nothing to hide anymore! Woahhhh, being inclusive will actually eliminate a fairly serious security risk! Whaaaaaat? crazy right?

While I don't have a problem with eliminating the ban, acting as if the discharge policy was implemented uniformly across all commands, let alone all branches of service is erroneous. One thing that helped at my command was the trans in question helped the leadership out by disclosing the situation so everyone would know how to relate to them. You can't simply except folks who are randomly thrown together to be mind readers.

(08-27-2015 12:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 12:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  No wonder the rest if the world stopped respecting us. Our military policies have become a joke.

This is a weird statement because while it is probably accurate, it's not at all accurate for the reasons you seem to think it is.

Alright Carnac, tell me what I'm thinking.

(08-27-2015 12:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

Quote:This isn't just about allowing trans people to join, it is also about giving our current transgender service members access to proper healthcare.

How does being a transgender or not make a difference in the healthcare you have access too? Maybe mental health (these people are crazy), but if you get sick, you are covered either way, right?

Let's look at what this is really about. They want to be able to join so taxpayers can pay for sex change operations that they can't afford on their own. That ain't "health care" anymore than my wife wanting a boob job or a tummy tuck. That is cosmetic surgery.

I don't know if that's a major consideration for most enlisted transgender and could be a potential issue. But would it be that much different than the 18 y.o male who joins because of the 17 y.o female back home?

How many people on this board will be personally affected by this?

Whatever the military wants to do is fine.

It isn't a place for social experimentation however.

(08-27-2015 03:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Whatever the military wants to do is fine.

It isn't a place for social experimentation however.

Apparently it is just that.

(08-27-2015 12:19 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 11:54 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Fine by me. I say we move it forward another step.

Platoon em all together (they'd be more comfy that way, right?), train em up and send them on over. They can lead the way in our assault in ISIS.

The look on the faces of the jihadist a-holes as they are descended upon by stiletto heels, terrible wigs and M16's would be worth the price of admission right there.

LOL. So Cpl. Klinger was ahead of his time.

Yea, funny and makes a point.

Just a generation or half generation ago it was making a mockery of all this, now it's freaking policy.

Good thing we've got all this other schit figured out so we can waste our time and energies on useless, senseless crap like this.

SJW's!!! UNITE!

(08-27-2015 03:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Whatever the military wants to do is fine.

It isn't a place for social experimentation however.

Apparently it is just that.

The brass is unhappy with this or they are happy with this?

(08-27-2015 03:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Whatever the military wants to do is fine.

It isn't a place for social experimentation however.

Apparently it is just that.

Yes it is, as evidenced by Executive Order 8802, which preceded the Civil Rights act by 23 years and . You going to argue that wasn't a good decision too?

(08-27-2015 05:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Whatever the military wants to do is fine.

It isn't a place for social experimentation however.

Apparently it is just that.

Yes it is, as evidenced by Executive Order 8802, which preceded the Civil Rights act by 23 years and . You going to argue that wasn't a good decision too?

The military wants people who can directly or indirectly send ordnance downrange. It would prefer to handle the integration issues outside of the media spotlight because the nature of the work doesn't lend itself to a great deal of accommodating.

Womens health? Where are these threads? Can't say as I've seen any. See lots of abortion and free contraception threads.

Who here has been discussing womens health? Occasionally someone will mention PP offers womens health services as a front to their Murder Inc. business.

(08-27-2015 05:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Whatever the military wants to do is fine.

It isn't a place for social experimentation however.

Apparently it is just that.

Yes it is, as evidenced by Executive Order 8802, which preceded the Civil Rights act by 23 years and . You going to argue that wasn't a good decision too?

HOLY STRAW MAN BATMAN

(08-28-2015 08:18 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Whatever the military wants to do is fine.

It isn't a place for social experimentation however.

Apparently it is just that.

Yes it is, as evidenced by Executive Order 8802, which preceded the Civil Rights act by 23 years and . You going to argue that wasn't a good decision too?

HOLY STRAW MAN BATMAN

I don't think you understand what a strawman is, because me citing the historical precedent of the US Military integrating long before much of US society, an act that was greatly opposed in many areas at the time as being social experimentation, is not a strawman in the discussion we're having. It's actually a very pertinent historical fact that both you and Shifty seem to have forgotten, and while I understand why you'd rather just dismiss it as a strawman than actually defend your statement, that doesn't make your claim that it is a strawman accurate. Because it's not.

(08-28-2015 08:25 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:18 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Whatever the military wants to do is fine.

It isn't a place for social experimentation however.

Apparently it is just that.

Yes it is, as evidenced by Executive Order 8802, which preceded the Civil Rights act by 23 years and . You going to argue that wasn't a good decision too?

HOLY STRAW MAN BATMAN

I don't think you understand what a strawman is, because me citing the historical precedent of the US Military integrating long before much of US society, an act that was greatly opposed in many areas at the time as being social experimentation, is not a strawman in the discussion we're having. It's actually a very pertinent historical fact that both you and Shifty seem to have forgotten, and while I understand why you'd rather just dismiss it as a strawman than actually defend your statement, that doesn't make your claim that it is a strawman accurate. Because it's not.

Sigh. Do we really have to do this? You're going to make me do this.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

No one said a thing about racial discrimination and no one said a thing about being against the end of segregation in the military. NO ONE. Yet....you brought it up anyway, which is typical. It's like a twisted form of Godwin's Law. You're somehow assuming that since I don't think transgendered folks in the the military is good for unit cohesion or integrity (believe it or not, the purpose of the military is to win wars), that I am also against the desegregation of the military.

........

I've already stated why I hold my position. Unlike you, I actually have experience in the area and know what I'm talking about. But go on spewing your baseless SJW nonsense because equality. I suggest to everyone....that if you are a strict proponent of egalitarianism....don't join the military.

(08-28-2015 08:31 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:25 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:18 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 05:35 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(08-27-2015 03:15 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Apparently it is just that.

Yes it is, as evidenced by Executive Order 8802, which preceded the Civil Rights act by 23 years and . You going to argue that wasn't a good decision too?

HOLY STRAW MAN BATMAN

I don't think you understand what a strawman is, because me citing the historical precedent of the US Military integrating long before much of US society, an act that was greatly opposed in many areas at the time as being social experimentation, is not a strawman in the discussion we're having. It's actually a very pertinent historical fact that both you and Shifty seem to have forgotten, and while I understand why you'd rather just dismiss it as a strawman than actually defend your statement, that doesn't make your claim that it is a strawman accurate. Because it's not.

Sigh. Do we really have to do this? You're going to make me do this.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

No one said a thing about racial discrimination and no one said a thing about being against the end of segregation in the military. NO ONE. Yet....you brought it up anyway, which is typical. It's like a twisted form of Godwin's Law. You're somehow assuming that since I don't think transgendered folks in the the military is good for unit cohesion or integrity (believe it or not, the purpose of the military is to win wars), that I am also against the desegregation of the military.

........

I've already stated why I hold my position. Unlike you, I actually have experience in the area and know what I'm talking about. But go on spewing your baseless SJW nonsense because equality. I suggest to everyone....that if you are a strict proponent of egalitarianism....don't join the military.

Shifty, in the past you've been fair enough to have a discussion with me in good faith, so I'm going to do so with you now and assume you truly think this is a strawman and instead aren't just throwing sh*t at the wall and hoping it sticks.

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent."

The argument that was being advanced is that the military is not the place for 'social experimentation', my counterargument was pointing out that historically, the military has shown to be a great place for such 'social experiments', like integrating long before the rest of society. If you don't find that to be a like comparison, I quote General Omar Bradley in regards to this desegregation "remarked that the Army "was no place for social experiments."". This sentiment is also backed up by an article written by Major Alan M. Osur which states

Quote:This point was succinctly stated by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall in 1940 in a letter to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Marshall believed that societal conditions made it necessary for the War Department to follow a policy of segregation, and the military should uphold the status quo without offering blacks any concessions beyond those they had in civilian life. Any change would have a destructive effect on military efficiency as the military was not the proper vehicle for critical social experiments. Segregation had been successful for a long time, and this success was interpreted from the perspective of white soldiers, who, he believed, performed better under this system. The following year he again maintained that "experiments within the Army in the solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline, or morale."6

That comes directly from George C. Marshall himself in a letter he wrote to the aforementioned Senators. Both stating explicitly that integration was a 'social experiment' and one that I would argue has allowed the military to be a far stronger organization because of it. Do you now concede that the progressive order signed by Truman to desegregate the military is in fact evidence that military has, in the past, been successfully used as a vehicle for social experimentation?