Re: VOTE today
Peter Chisholm wrote:
> Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Johnny Sunset wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Peter Chisholm wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't ask, don't tell has worked well.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Not in my opinion. We discharge people who
> > > > > > > > > > > > we need for no good reason.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > England, Australia, Canada, and Israel have
> > > > > > > > > > > > gay personnel serving openly in their armed
> > > > > > > > > > > > forces, and it works well in each case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Don't ask don't tell" helps perpetuate the notion
> > > > > > > > > > > > that gay people are second class. It should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > done away with.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Ace
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can only speak for the USN, and I know of gay people that were
> > > > > > > > > > > murdered onboard the ship that I was on...mysteriously, they fell
> > > > > > > > > > > overboard. US attitudes toward gays is MUCH different than the
> > > > > > > > > > > countries you mentioned PLUS I doubt that the UK armed forces have
> > > > > > > > > > > openly gay people assigned to ships underway.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Peter,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you proud to have been a member of an organization that tolerates
> > > > > > > > > > the MURDER of homosexuals (or was an investigation with the full
> > > > > > > > > > resources available used to find and prosecute the MURDERERS)?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Who said anything about it being tolerated. The guys responsible were
> > > > > > > > > tried for murder.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is this universally the case? Does or does not the Navy tolerate a
> > > > > > > > homophobic culture (assuming the expression of that culture does not
> > > > > > > > violate any specific regulations)?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Do you believe that the greater homophobic attitudes in the US compared
> > > > > > > > > > to these other countries MORALLY justifies different treatment?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, you believe that to qualify for elective office, one
> > > > > > > > > > should have been a member of a service where discrimination against
> > > > > > > > > > homosexuals is official and violence against them is tolerated?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See above. Nothing was 'tolerated'.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reply does not address the official policy of discrimination.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Good order and discipline trumps all, period, on deployd ships. Women
> > > > > > > > > > > and gay people have caused scads of problems onboard ship. Women are
> > > > > > > > > > > there to stay(except for some ships, like submarines), but openly gay
> > > > > > > > > > > vs women are completely different. DO NOT imply anything about my
> > > > > > > > > > > personal feelings about what I am saying. Gays are a fact of life,
> > > > > > > > > > > protecting them aboard ship is important, being 'open' doesn't help any
> > > > > > > > > > > ship's war fighting skills and any more than a hetero being 'open'
> > > > > > > > > > > about his sexual preferences. It is private, and should remian so.
> > > > > > > > > > > Remember, all you civilians, the USN is NOT like Star Trek or
> > > > > > > > > > > Battlestar Gallactica. Onboard a real ship, you do NOT have the rights
> > > > > > > > > > > you have when not on the ship. NO 'right' to privacy. or assembly, or
> > > > > > > > > > > speech. When you are deployed you are on duty 24 hours per day, you
> > > > > > > > > > > cannot find a nice quiet place to cuddle with your favorite 'someone'.
> > > > > > > > > > > That is directed to NOT happen by the CO. It still happens, but is
> > > > > > > > > > > punished. NJP, that's non juditial(sp?) punishment, NOT based on 'law'
> > > > > > > > > > > persay, but UCMJ..where disrupting good order and discipline is a
> > > > > > > > > > > punishable offense.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is heterosexual behavior punished as severely as homosexual behavior in
> > > > > > > > > > these circumstances?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Absolutely, in the sense that if two hetero people are found to be
> > > > > > > > > screwing around, both are punished severely. If chain of command is
> > > > > > > > > violated, the senior is most often separated from the service, in some
> > > > > > > > > instances, court marshalled.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But in the case of homosexuals, they would be discharged solely on the
> > > > > > > > basis of being homosexual.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yep, I make no moral judgement on this. Just likie smoking
> > > > > > > marijuana..legal in some places, illegal in the USN, therefore
> > > > > > > punishable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Openly gay people in the USN is a bad idea. Gays are going to join,
> > > > > > > > > > > 'don't ask, don't tell' is a way to have them enjoy the full benefits
> > > > > > > > > > > of the military. If ya got a better idea, let's hear it, but actually
> > > > > > > > > > > being in the miltary(Navy) would help your credibility.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Should not ALL sexual contact between members of the same service,
> > > > > > > > > > regardless of gender, be prohibited, and equally punished? That would
> > > > > > > > > > be a non-discriminatory solution.
> > > > > > > > > That is exactly what happens in coed ships, Like I said, it isn't
> > > > > > > > > NCC-1701D. First day at sea, the CO makes the 'policy' clear. NO public
> > > > > > > > > or private displays of affection. NO boyfriend-girlfriend type stuff at
> > > > > > > > > any ime, in any circumstance. BUT relationships happen, as you would
> > > > > > > > > expect among a bunch of young, healthy people at sea for long periods,
> > > > > > > > > and it really screws up 'good order and discipline'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The USN is not a 'slice of society'. People that WANT to learn to kill
> > > > > > > > > > > people and break things are not the norm. Military life is hard, but
> > > > > > > > > > > very satisfying. Try not to characterize what the USN 'should be' by
> > > > > > > > > > > your civilian experiences in the 'office'.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Are you advocating that only people who "WANT to learn to kill people
> > > > > > > > > > and break things" are fit for elective office?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Having experience in the military, where you may be sent into harms
> > > > > > > > > way, would help immensely that person who may have to tell others to go
> > > > > > > > > into harms way. Anybody and most civilians who don't recognize what the
> > > > > > > > > military is there for, make mistaken assumptions about the military,
> > > > > > > > > like you are, or you are just arguing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The military also teaches that one obeys orders without question. While
> > > > > > > > that is generally considered necessary, intellectually curious,
> > > > > > > > thoughtful people do not function well in such a system. Should we bar
> > > > > > > > people with these characteristics from standing for elected office?
> > > > > > > > Similarly, should we ban people whose beliefs would make them
> > > > > > > > "conscientious objectors" from standing for elected office?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So Peter Chisholm believes only those who are willing to subject
> > > > > > themselves unquestioningly to arbitrary authority AND those who believe
> > > > > > in violence as a way to solve problems should be allowed to run for
> > > > > > president.
> > > > >
> > > > > yer a putz...
> > > >
> > > > Readers of rec.bicycles.tech:
> > > >
> > > > We have an example of excellent debating technique at hand.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Good start...I'll say it again, military experience for the president
> > > > > > > would be a good idea, and altho more 'left' than right, John McCain
> > > > > > > scores a lot of points with me even if he wasn't a POW.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Once we let the camels nose in the tent of these types of
> > > > > > > > qualifications for standing for elected office, what next? Can a
> > > > > > > > democracy be run this way?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above. Military experience is a huge benefit for anybody running
> > > > > > > for President.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm..., Franklin Roosevelt did not serve in the military, yet he led
> > > > > > the US to victory the last time its existence was truly threatened in
> > > > > > war.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Abraham Lincoln did not serve in the military, yet lead the US to
> > > > > > victory against the insurgency of southern succession.
> > > >
> > > > The two most important wars since the founding of the country were
> > > > successfully won by presidents without military service experience. Too
> > > > bad the record of presidents with military experience involves
> > > > attacking and/or interfering in smaller countries that posed no real
> > > > threat to the US.
> > > >
> > > > > > Too bad the people of the United States were so foolish to election Mr.
> > > > > > Lincoln and Mr. Roosevelt to the Office of President of the United
> > > > > > States, when individuals with military service were available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think everybody ought to serve, too bad you are too old to be in the
> > > > > military, I would love to have you working for me.
> > > >
> > > > So Peter Chisholm implies that he would like to use to arbitrary rule
> > > > of military command to carry out a personal grudge (since he has no
> > > > control over what I post to rec.bicycles.*)? I hope he did not behave
> > > > this way while an officer of the United States Navy!
> > > >
> > >
> > > tee hee...I don't need to justify to you how I behaved in the USN,
> > > flying fighters, putting my ass on the line even for people like you.
> >
> > Then why bring it up? Is it the old "I'm superior because I was in the
> > military schitck"?
> >
> > > It's easy to speculate what you would be like flying fighters for me
> > > but I don't think you would have made it past pre-flying ground school.
> >
> > Resorting to personal insults - typical behavior of someone who has
> > lost the argument?
> >
>
> I didn't say I was superior in my choice of career, I just said I
> doubted you would have been successful trying to be a Navy Pilot or
> Naval Officer. Some can and want to do it, most cannot.
As for being an officer, the education part of it would have been easy,
but I would never have had a successful career since I would not fit in
socially or be compatible with the authoritarian requirements.
I doubt the Navy selects persons with inherently poor coordination,
difficulty in processing visual information, poor balance and spatial
coordination, procedural memory etc. for pilot training. I doubt the
education based part of the ground school would have presented much of
a challenge.
--
Tom Sherman - Post Free or Die!
