| Author | Message | ||
     Seanp |
Roger that, good idea. I think I'm out. It's Blake, playground, and there's no way I'm going to change his mind. | ||
| Blake |
>>> The only thing I'm fond of is having the best possible Soldiers I can have. If they're gay, or straight, swingers or gamblers, whatever they do on their spare time is fine with me. As long as they kick ass when they're doing their jobs, I couldn't care less what they do at home as long as it's legal. We agree on that, just not on the idea of the military and thus America accepting and thus condoning homosexuality and also forcing others to live with openly homosexual people. My question remains mostly unanswered, again which of those problem-plagued members of your unit who you mentioned ended up deploying? This is the third time I've asked. Why dodge the question. I guess my idea of front line combat troops wouldn't include the entire aviation squadron, the folks flying for sure, but not likely the support staff back at base. I could be wrong, just my understanding of what constitutes "front line" and "combat". >>> "There's little to be gained with wrestling a pig in the mud. You'll both get filthy, but the difference is the pig enjoys it" That is truth. We aim to maintain a much higher standard here than you imply. It's a pity you didn't contribute. I learn a lot, especially from folks like you. I just don't appreciate the personal insults/attacks. Yes, I give as good as I get in some instances. This is everyone's playground who honors the terms of use, namely behave honorably. | ||
| Blake |
Since when are females allowed to serve in front line combat units in the United States Military? | ||
| Hooaah |
Then SecDef Les Spin allowed women into combat aircraft in 1993 There have been multiple women piloting attack army aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=129707736 And if you think these are not "front-line combat" roles - that's just semantics Despite restrictions on women fighting on the front lines, female soldiers are now fully sharing "the risks of their male counterparts," according to a top military official. In a speech Thursday, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the reality of war in Afghanistan and Iraq is that "there is no longer a clear delineation between the front lines ... and the sidelines," just google it man - I'm not going to do all your work for you >>>I just don't appreciate the personal insults/attacks. Yes, I give as good as I get in some instances.<<< so that would be an admission of violating the badweb rules? out here too. going to follow my own advice (Message edited by hooaah on December 18, 2010) (Message edited by hooaah on December 18, 2010) | ||
| Hooaah |
well, well, well......... US Senate repeals DADT http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010 /12/dont_ask_dont_tell_senate_vote.html let the flames begin | ||
| Moxnix |
The Israeli Defense Forces took women out of combat units after it became clear that males had higher casualty rates when they "protected" women soldiers in battle. The road to perdition is paved with good intentions. (Message edited by moxnix on December 18, 2010) | ||
| Midnightrider |
I'm not gonna tell you "I told you so" because even I didn't think it would happen this time around. Anybody else surprised? Now we, in the military, will wait for Mr Gates et al to tell us his plan for implementation. Then that's what we'll do. I guess I know what we'll be talking about at work Monday | ||
| Cityxslicker |
want to clock the minutes until the first sexual harassment suit ? | ||
| Kenm123t |
Is fragging as a result of inappropriate advances being called a hate crime now instead of good old fashioned murder? | ||
| Jsracer |
>> <sigh> You've conceded the debate and exposed a weakness of character. How unfortunate. You can do better. So what are you saying, Blake? Are you dismissing the notion that you come across as uptight, pompous, arrogant, and narrow-minded? No possibility in your mind? Or are you saying that's the real you? I don't know you from Adam, but I sure know how you come across. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt though and believe this is all a show, that you're not really the way you seem. Are you saying I'm wrong? | ||
| Jsracer |
>> I despise idiots. >> When in a debate one side turns to commentary about the other rather than the issue, they are finished; their point is lost, the debate has ended. Can you really not see the hypocrisy in your own words? | ||
| Blake |
>>> Can you really not see the hypocrisy in your own words? I'm not debating the idiot congressman, only exposing the ludicrous nonsense of his statement. I've requested repeatedly for all here to cease personal commentary and to stick to thoughtful discussion of the topical issue. I've asked repeatedly that those who find themselves unable to limit contributions here to the topical issue to please simply avoid posting. Repeatedly ignoring the above polite requests will earn revocation of posting privileges. If anyone would rather open a discussion about me, please feel free to do so via a new separate topic. What disrespectful might think of me matters not a wit. I participate in these types of discussions to engage in logic-based contests of ideas, to learn and hopefully gain wisdom on issues of interest. Those who choose to turn discussion personal are choosing to cease meaningful contribution to the discussion in favor of petty miserableness. Such poor behavior is unacceptable here. Don't be a petty miserable troll. Stick to thoughtful logic-based discussion in a respectful contest of ideas. If one limits discussion to the debate of the issue, then nothing in the way of perceived presentation matters. Stick to the issues. If you cannot, then take your leave or be shown the door. Let this be the end of the personal commentary. Agreed? | ||
| Moxnix |
Despising idiots is: despising idiots. Was anyone labeled an idiot? I think not. Have some decided, by implication, that they have been called idiots? Apparently so. Are there idiots? Hmm, sure. Are idiots despised? Acts of idiocy are, so should someone act like an idiot, they could be thought to be an idiot and they and their actions deemed idiotic and, by implication, despised. The value of ad hominem elements entering argument is in stirring up the issue of ad hominem by the other sided as a bailing out point. Re: hypocrisy. The moderator is neither feigning to be what he is not, nor is he supporting belief in what he does not believe. Over the years I have seen no sign of him assuming an appearance of special virtue, only the expression of his standards. Seven years ago he invited me to leave the thread after I expressed a scathing opine of Hillary Clinton. The toning down of my rhetoric was sufficient to earn a second chance. Others have disappeared, sometimes on sabatical, some forever. Were I to speculate in words this vote will likely result in the formation of a fighting unit named the Rump Rangers, or a mobile support brigade called the Diesel Dykes, I'd understand that my words were conduct beyond the pale. Even if anal antics in Afghanistan are not. | ||
| Jsracer |
You're threatening to ban me for pointing out your hypocrisy and how you come across? Seriously? It's just my opinion Blake. But if my opinion offends you so much, and you're that intolerant of opinions that differ from your own, by all means, ban me! Your threat doesn't intimidate me in the slightest. You've proven my point, though, about your intolerance. | ||
| Moxnix |
I'm not Blake, I'm not banning, I wouldn't be surprised were I banned. But, the point being, civilization is rooted in the word "civil." I'm pretty intolerant of standards, fads, demands, politics, and a wide variety of "things" I hold to be uncivil. Why do some people have to be "tolerant" of those things which destroy ethics, morality, and civilized societies? Up with intolerance! And please don't give me the whole "hate" and "phobic" two part harmony with a carousel and a drum solo. Anti-Christian, anti-conservative, anti-this week's popular issues on the tube, that's hate. I love good. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Reality progressives and the groups that gravitate to that political social view typically are the most intolerant of any opinion save theirs or their current political ally. Personal attacks follow when the target does not immediately cave in to their position and beg forgiveness and pay a penance for being so offensive. Problem is no amount of penance by others can relieve the left's etc self induced guilt. Sin is Sin and man cannot deal with any ones sin but his own. Blake does my Slinky People outlook make more sense to you now? | ||
| Blake |
"Let this be the end of the personal commentary. Agreed?" >>> You're threatening to ban me for pointing out your hypocrisy and how you come across? Seriously? No, for choosing ad hominem in lieu of topical debate. >>> It's just my opinion Blake. But if my opinion offends you so much, and you're that intolerant of opinions that differ from your own, by all means, ban me! Your threat doesn't intimidate me in the slightest. Opinion on issues is fine, in fact welcome, valued, and encouraged. Ad hominem is not; any derisive commentary towards folks here, me included, is unwelcome. That has been made crystal clear to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension. Threats? No. Merely polite warning. Sorry to see such unwillingness to respect polite requests. >>> You've proven my point, though, about your intolerance. I've usually been intolerant of those who refuse to honor our terms of use here. I think an abundance of tolerance has been shown in response to your insistent refusal to honor an incredibly simple and polite request. So long. | ||
| Toronto_s3 |
HEY YOU GUYS!!! If you can't tolerate Blake's insipid rhetoric then you should just find another Buell forum to argue about anal sex amongst consenting gay guys in the military. This is Blake's board. He has every right to implement and fully exercise his totalitarian doctrine of neo-conservative dogma over your own personal, constitutional rights of free speech. This is a Buell forum. Not a democracy. Remember that next time you post here. (this has been a paid announcement by the far right field fellowship for the Betterment of Blake's Buell Board) | ||
| Danger_dave |
has anyone posted this yet? | ||
| Kc10_fe |
THis is turning out to be very..... Gay  | ||
| Drkside79 |
Blake, Although i too may be risking my BWB posting ability with this i feel i must gain clarification. At what point did he get out of hand? I didn't see anything (although i may have missed it) for him to be banned over? You have in the past made comments that are very questionable as well. So have I and so has almost every one on the quick board. Just saying i think perhaps you acted a bit rashly. However it's your site so you will do as you want(and rightly so.) However if you actually want people to have honest debate you shouldn't ban those with other opinions when things get hot. Political/religious debates will always escalate to heated arguments. Sometimes things will be said that cross the line. I believe that unless the line gets obliterated it should be viewed as a normal discussion and leeway should be allowed. Oh well just my two cents. Andy | ||
| Blake |
Andy, >>> At what point did he get out of hand? Please reread the thread Andy. Note that I repeatedly asked folks to cease personal commentary/attacks and stick to discussion of the topical issues. I cannot disagree more strongly with your view that debate, heated or no, ought to excuse derisive personal commentary as part of "normal discussion." The only person banned so far in this thread is Toronto_s3, who is obviously not looking to contribute thoughtfully to the board, but rather looking to stir up angst and badger me personally. I've decided to not accept that kind of nonsense anymore. Life is just too short, and when I can't enjoy visiting my own web forum, things need to change. The lack of respect is unacceptable. The internet makes for a lot of very rude, disrespectful, self-righteous critics and bitchy drive-by trolls. I have no use for them. People who repeatedly choose to turn a discussion personal when their ideas are challenged add nothing of value to a debate, they sow seeds of derision and ill-will throughout the forum, and generally tend to harm the overall demeanor of the forum. I've been doing this for over twelve years now and have learned a lot, grown a lot too. It's been a very informative experience. I'm VERY comfortable with our rules here and their enforcement. The fact that none of us are perfect is why we make numerous polite requests before taking action to uphold the integrity of the forum and its rules. People who refuse to honor polite and reasonable requests of any custodian here indicate that they are less interested in thoughtful discussion than they are in trolling. If anyone has a problem with the way any contributor here, including me or any other custodian, is behaving, then their one and only recourse per our terms of use is to make their grievance known to one of our custodians. Some folks seem to imagine BadWeB as their own personal playground on which to behave however they wish. >>> if you actually want people to have honest debate If we limited debate to that which is honest, a lot more people would be banned. It never ceases to astound me how some choose to twist and dishonestly characterize the plainly spoken points made by others, the sadly ubiquitous (from the left anyway) "homophobe" and "bigot" epithets for instance. I appreciate your thoughtful inquiry. (Message edited by Blake on December 20, 2010) | ||
| Blake |
Hooaah, Obviously women are at risk in the war. 2.4% (113) of the total fatalities were women, who make up 16% of the total DOD force. Men, who make up 84% of the total force experienced 97.6% (4,570) of the deaths in the two theaters of operation. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say how many of the female fatalities are due to combat versus accident. The service-wide ratio for the Afghan and Iraqi AORs combined is 79% combat to 21% accidental (drownings, vehicle accidents, suicide, illness). It's likely that ratio is much lower for the female contingent. In any case it is patently, demonstrably provably false that "female soldiers are now fully sharing the risks of their male counterparts". Some indeed are, most are not. | ||
| Moxnix |
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." ~ Theodor Seuss Geisel, aka Dr. Seuss | ||
| Blake |
It's well known that I don't matter.  | ||
| Liquorwhere |
>>> And again, if openly-serving homosexuals compromise unit cohesion, then it is up to the command team of that unit to fix it. There are some issues that cannot be overcome by even the best leaders. Pretending that command teams are somehow able to do so is not being honest. The issue is just too polarizing for some. Core deeply held views on morality, personal principles and values are in play. Sorry to comment so late in the game, but why is it up to the commander to fix a problem for a small minority of soldiers? Why should their lifestyle be forced on other soldiers and in turn, why should those soldiers be forced to accept it? I have been discharged for over 14 years so I don't have a dog in this fight, maybe attitudes have changed dramatically since my time in service. I see this as a form of politically correct behavior and I see that as a form of control not unlike that of a Stalinist or Leninist type of government. Meaning that if you do not conform to the political agenda and policies of a particular government or administration, you will be held in contempt, ridiculed, ostracized and possibly prosecuted until the example is made so that no others challenge that authority. Do some research on what was done to Galileo and see if that doesn't fit the mold we are seeing here. What happened to our ability to disagree with something in majority, yet a small minority is able to push that agenda due to the process of law, written and passed by those that do not represent again, the majority's views? Even as a representative republic we still have a majority rule. So the vote in the Senate to repeal this policy may be in line with political agenda, but does it really reflect the views of the majority of their constituents? We will find out when it comes to their re-election campaigns I think. I do think a certain amount of intolerance, exclusivity, and in fact out right defiance to a policy as acceptable. I guess it is related to how you were raised and what you believe, but I see this case as a micro-phenomenon of our society. Do I personally care what anyone does in their sex life? Hell no, but I don't advertise mine and I would appreciate them not advertising theirs, it is supposed to be private, that is why it is referred to as a private life. The "in your face" attitude of people that are on the fringe of what has been considered "main stream society" for the past 200 or so years, forcing people that disagree with that lifestyle to achieve a political end is sickening. I do not want anyone to suffer from a violation of their rights, yet smaller and smaller fringe groups seem to be ever vigilant about pushing their views down other's throats and then the extreme political pundits latch on to that and try to carry it forward. It may come to nothing in our military, it may be a non-issue, but I clearly remember working on a Sergeant in Korea beaten almost to death because of a sexual advance made to a straight soldier well below his rank. He was beaten by many soldiers that night. Left for dead. Fluids coming out his nose and ears that should not be coming out those places. I was sure he was a dead man, yet somehow he survived and is probably medically retired for quite some time. I think this may happen again. Just my two pennies, but I think this will lower our cohesion in the beginning, but it also says an awful lot about the deterioration of our society as a whole. EDIT: NO ONE WAS PROSECUTED FOR THAT BEATING. A formation was held that relayed information to the battalion that a sergeant had a bad accident and would sent back to the states for treatment. Nothing else. (Message edited by liquorwhere on December 20, 2010) | ||
| Moxnix |
>>>It's well known that I don't matter. Completely the opposite. Moderators are automatically exempt from my caterwalling via the keyboard. On the other hand, Mox Nix was in the pronunciation guide by post WW2 occupation GI's stationed in Germany for the term "macht nichts, the kraut idiom for "it doesn't matter." 40 years ago gays did not fare well in the service, and they weren't referred to as gays. Ever wonder why public parks and department stores and such have removed doors from stall in men's room? It's not just about junkies. Back in my service days, there were no doors on the terlets. Perhaps we'll see them installed so special interest groups have "tea rooms" a la the senator from Idaho popped at the airport in Minneapolis. Anyway, my take is that there is a lot of violence in the gay arena. Too bad. | ||
| Midnightrider |
Liquorwhere I disagree. I share the opinion it's very much about leadership. Everything that goes on in the unit is ultimately the commander's responsibility. With leadership goes followership. Part of serving in the military is agreeing (swearing, actually) to follow the lawful orders of one's superiors. Whether a GI personally agrees with such an order is irrelevant. It is, of course, acceptable to disobey an illegal order under the concept of "moral authority" but if you research "moral authority" in that context I think you may agree that it simply wouldn't wash if someone tries to use it in the future to discriminate/assault/whatever a gay GI once DADT is officially replaced as DoD policy. I served in Korea too - 25 years ago. If something like that happened in our unit I doubt it would have ended the same way. Which again makes me believe it is very much about leadership. As objectionable as some find homosexuality, a misplaced proposition hardly justifies a beating much less a gang assault. I see very little difference between that attack and the beatings/death threats etc reportedly carried out by members of "rogue" US Military squads in Iran and Afghanistan when another member blows them in for (allegedly) raping and murdering innocent civilians. But I do agree we will probably see gays beaten/shot/fragged/whatever in the future. And again, it will be very much about leadership and how the leadership handles it that will define the frequency of future occurrences and the disposition of the perpetrators. As I type this I just can't get the final courtroom scene of "A Few Good Men" out of my head. Draw your own conclusions. I've mentioned before in this thread that I think our perceptions are formed at least in part by our life experiences. Maybe my personal comfort in the presence of gay guys and girls is a product of my life experiences. I've known, worked with and been friends with lots of homosexuals in my life - but admittedly this has been before and/or outside my military career. I've never felt threatened or disgusted. Heck, once I went by Wal-Mart on my way home from the gym and got hit on by a guy (customer) while I was looking at lawnmowers but it didn't make me want to beat the snot out of the guy and leave him for dead in the grass seed aisle. A simple "no thanks, I'm straight" was sufficient. I can't say the same about the religious zealots I've met in my life. I remember in college we had an intramural flag football league and the team fielded by the School of Theology on campus. They'd start each game with a big theatrical prayer then play as the biggest bunch of liars and cheaters I've ever shared a football field with. Also had the audacity to name their team "The God Squad". That experience is probably one reason I'm often too quick to go for someone's throat when they pull out the Bible as "proof" that homosexuality is a sin or an abomination. But I've covered that ground before And just so you know, I don't still harbor ill will towards the zealots because they beat us in football - we beat them in the championship game! Anyway, we hit the road tomorrow to go back home for Christmas. So Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukkah, have a great Kwanza everyone I really hope when I get back this thread is dead. And Happy New Year (Message edited by midnightrider on December 20, 2010) | ||
| Moxnix |
Those pesky Christians. Stepping into a church and proclaiming myself a Christian compares to walking out into the garage and saying I'm a motorcycle. But that's just me and a lingering sense of the absurd. Now, religious zealotry, there's a whole new thread waiting to happen . . . | ||
| Midnightrider |
Yeah, I know But theology students and pastors-to-be ? (It was a Lutheran college - I think they're called pastors) When I walk into a church I cite the lack of a lightning bolt knocking me dead as proof my atheism is well-founded. Or if there is a God, at least he's got a sense of humor |
