|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 08/21/2002 : 03:05:55 [Permalink]
|
What?
quote:
Damn, just look how black that kettle is.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 04:25:49 [Permalink]
|
Just kidding Slater.
SOD:
NOUN: 1. Chiefly British Vulgar Slang A sodomite. 2. A person regarded as obnoxious or contemptible. 3. A fellow; a guy: “Poor sod, he almost got lucky for once” (Jack Higgins).
quote:
Now why did you say that? We all know you're gay as a three dollar bill. Are you just trying to prove his contention that sods, like yourself, lust after straights
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 08:10:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have news for you Solly: no matter how much you apparently don't want to believe it, gay guys checked your ass out in the shower when you were active duty. If, tomorrow, you change in the gym locker room, gay guys are checking your ass out. Sexuality runs a great continuum
--Exactly. You have just described sexual harrassment. I'm not personally all that torn up about who the hell sees my ass, but I am also not even slightly modest. Other people have stricter views about it, and you have to respect thier views. I'm arguing a point of equality for people, I'm not the one trivializing one groups rights to appease another. I'm against sexual harrassment entirely and think everyone should be protected under the same policy we already have. This isn't because I'm some touchy-feely EO representative; I believe our military should be focused on slaughter, not sex.
From Boron: quote:
The wives of servicemen would be very uncomfortable with an arrangement like this, but that could be dealt with
--How?
quote:
It would violate some right to privacy, as if it makes any difference who sees your naughties, they will be seen /quote]
--More than likely, your naked butt will be seen by people you'd prefer not see it. That is simply reality and I acknowledge that. But the idea is to avoid that if possible and the current policy reflects that effort. But the current policy is based on the total exclusion of gays from service- they are not even taken into account. So far the arguments against me have all seemed to support leaving the policy alone. Keeping the status quo.
I'm totally against the policy because it denies gays the right to serve thier country, unless they hide thier sexuality, which I think is an awful undignified position to be in, especially considering the sacrifices a soldier is already making. The policy violates it's own intent to protect people from sexual harrassment or invasions of privacy. With as little privacy as a soldier already has, it's just cruel to take away every last shred. Like I said, people who have never nor will they ever subject themselves to the military life find it real easy to toss about soldiers rights.
[quote]Also, you defend your position by calling anyone who questions it PC.
--I call it like I see it. There very much seems to be a set of protected groups on this BBS. Rednecks, religious people, British soccer fans, et al have been savaged on this BBS, usually with some level of tongue in cheek humor not meant to offend. But I never see anyone rise to thier defense, appalled at the stereotypes. Make a crack about dudes in tutus, and people can't type replies quickly enough. It wouldn't be so obnoxious if it weren't so predictable. Hell, I'm 'old fashioned' and a homophobe according to any number of posts in this thread, yet I'll lay odds I'm closer friends with a homosexual (and a flaming, oh-so-obvious lesbian at that) than most of the people who bothered to post a reply. In fact, not one admitted gay has posted a reply. Nor has one soldier. Which kind of puts into perspective the replies to my question.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 08:13:42 [Permalink]
|
If I protested every rude or stupid comment on these boards, I'd have to quit my job.
quote:
But I never see anyone rise to thier defense, appalled at the stereotypes. Make a crack about dudes in tutus, and people can't type replies quickly enough.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 10:27:07 [Permalink]
|
Start with your own. They pollute this entire BBS. They'll keep you busy enough to leave the grown ups to our discussions.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 14:27:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
From Boron: The wives of servicemen would be very uncomfortable with an arrangement like this, but that could be dealt with
--How?
Same way the military deals with wives' complaints about nearly everything: "deal with it." It's cruel and insensitive, but so is the military, eh? quote:
It would violate some right to privacy, as if it makes any difference who sees your naughties, they will be seen
--More than likely, your naked butt will be seen by people you'd prefer not see it. That is simply reality and I acknowledge that. But the idea is to avoid that if possible and the current policy reflects that effort. But the current policy is based on the total exclusion of gays from service- they are not even taken into account. So far the arguments against me have all seemed to support leaving the policy alone. Keeping the status quo.
I'm totally against the policy because it denies gays the right to serve thier country, unless they hide thier sexuality, which I think is an awful undignified position to be in, especially considering the sacrifices a soldier is already making. The policy violates it's own intent to protect people from sexual harrassment or invasions of privacy. With as little privacy as a soldier already has, it's just cruel to take away every last shred. Like I said, people who have never nor will they ever subject themselves to the military life find it real easy to toss about soldiers rights.
I am in favor of the Starship Troopers way to do it (as you also mentioned in another thread): put everybody together and quit bitching about it. Many people would be uncomfortable at first, but we'd all get over it.
Regarding your kvetch about no replies from soldiers: I recognize that I have no field experience as a Soldier or Marine, and hopefully I never will; however, as a Submariner, I believe I am somewhat qualified to address this issue.
-me. |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 14:41:33 [Permalink]
|
I haven't answered because I'm really not qualified to. To wit: I never really cared what other people were doing (or with whom they were doing it), as long as the job got done.
As far as sharing tents in the field, after a 16 hour day, I drop into my sleeping bag and hope like hell some butterbar with an inflated sense of importance didn't decide to pull another scenario. I can honestly say I really didn't care who my tentmates were.
So you see? I'm sort of outside this argument.
We have enough youth. We need a fountain of smart. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 14:54:57 [Permalink]
|
Submariners definetly qualify. Hell, even I could go outside to get away from someone in a barracks. Popping a hatch on a sub at cruise depth can make you unpopular.
I do disagree with the 'deal with it' idea for married people. The issue goes beyond the military to spouses, who are not military and shouldn't have to worry about it. In fact, that's not dealing with it at all. Which solves nothing. I dare say a poll of military spouses would agree more with me than you on it. If I wanted a bunch of guys seeing my wife naked, I'd tell her to be a stripper. She'd make a hell of alot more than a GI! Yes the military can be pretty cruel, but I think that'd be gratuitous.
I'm always for a single standard for everyone. But that's not the way the world works. We have these divisions and we must deal with them. The movie (Troopers) shows total equality, but it also shows an incredibly intensive physical demand put on the soldiers. If in real life everyone could actually do all that- there wouldn't be a need for a double PT standard (my other thread).
But the law says we have to be seperate because of these sexual attraction issues. Only, the law fails us because it doesn't take into account gay people- at all. So it allows for some skewed loopholes, like housing gays with straits in a military barracks.
So we should fix the laws and for once acknowledge gays. But how to fix the law is the question? How to formulate a policy that neither ignores one groups rights, nor violates it's own intent by creating a double standard.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 19:31:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Start with your own. They pollute this entire BBS. They'll keep you busy enough to leave the grown ups to our discussions.
This is uncalled for, Solly. If you don't have anything substantive to add, don't waste a post. If you want to chastise Gorgo, do it within a meaningful rebuttal. Otherwise, I'll edit or delete ad homs like this.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2002 : 19:41:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I have news for you Solly: no matter how much you apparently don't want to believe it, gay guys checked your ass out in the shower when you were active duty. If, tomorrow, you change in the gym locker room, gay guys are checking your ass out. Sexuality runs a great continuum
--Exactly. You have just described sexual harrassment.
Excuse me? How are you being harassed if someone of the same sex observes you silently? And you call others PC?!
quote:
I'm not personally all that torn up about who the hell sees my ass, but I am also not even slightly modest. Other people have stricter views about it, and you have to respect thier views.
What are you going to do, force men to take an "erection test" before they enter mutual showers or locker rooms? You know, that was my point that just went whizzing past your head.
quote:
I'm arguing a point of equality for people, I'm not the one trivializing one groups rights to appease another. I'm against sexual harrassment entirely and think everyone should be protected under the same policy we already have. This isn't because I'm some touchy-feely EO representative; I believe our military should be focused on slaughter, not sex.
If midde-of-the-road homosexuals or bisexuals want to silently ogle the same sex while they're changing or showering, there's not a whole hell of a lot you're going to be able to do about it. Your objection applies only to a very limited number of blatant or outgoing homosexuals.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2002 : 03:21:33 [Permalink]
|
My statement was also a gross exaggeration. Didn't mean to make it sound like most of the posts here are stupid. They are not. I was just saying that I don't jump on every fault that I see, and no one jumps on every mistake that I make.
quote:
Start with your own. They pollute this entire BBS. They'll keep you busy enough to leave the grown ups to our discussions.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 08/22/2002 03:22:40 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2002 : 09:26:30 [Permalink]
|
Excuse me? How are you being harassed if someone of the same sex observes you silently? And you call others PC?!
He's talking about in the military. Same sex, opposite sex; it's still sexual harassment.
In my day opposite sex could land you in the brig, same sex would get you discharged. In the military rules of conduct are strictly enforced, it is not just a matter of being rude it is a matter of being arrested.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2002 : 09:37:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ME: Excuse me? How are you being harassed if someone of the same sex observes you silently? And you call others PC?!
SLATER: He's talking about in the military. Same sex, opposite sex; it's still sexual harassment.
In my day opposite sex could land you in the brig, same sex would get you discharged. In the military rules of conduct are strictly enforced, it is not just a matter of being rude it is a matter of being arrested.
I'm still unclear as to how being observed by someone of any sex, without your or anyone else's knowledge, constitutes sexual harassment. This would seem to require the alledged offending party turning him- or herself in.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2002 : 13:46:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Excuse me? How are you being harassed if someone of the same sex observes you silently? And you call others PC?!
--I'm not arguing the point because I'm overly concerned about who sees my ass. But other people are much more conscious of it. It is NOT the social norm (which is that way because most people agree with it) to be observed while exposed for other people's sexual gratification unless you are a stripper. Plain reality- most women would find men showering with them at say, a Bally's gym very uncomfortable and unsafe. Even though the risk of actual rape would be slim. It's how they were raised, which is important because you are talking about a social norm accepted by the VAST majority of the planet.
Moreover, what you describe is ILLEGAL. Right now, about anywhere in the world---as long as it's someone of the other gender doing the looking. That's because there are no laws concerning gays. They are overlooked by the system as either non-existant or insignificant. But they do exist and it's not insignificant, especially in the context of the proximity soldiers are forced to live in together.
Either way, it's a crime. One that is enforced by perps of a different gender, but perps of the same gender, but homosexual, get a free ticket. As little as an arched eyebrow or even 'too long' of a look is considered sexual harrassment, which is a crime. Remember that under the UCMJ, what may be a minor infraction in the civilian world can be catastrophic to a soldier. Loss of rank, pay, promotion- all can be dished out at the company level, and has been done with very litle evidence, by over-zealous commanders. Even a Letter of Reprimand, which is nothing more than a piece of paper to a civilian, can spell death to a career.
So maybe you don't grasp how seriously the military takes EO.
Still, you seem to support criminalizing one group of offenders (straits) who commit an EO offense while not holding another group (gays) accountable FOR THE SAME CRIME!
So being gay is a get out of jail free card to violate someone's basic right to privacy from sexual harrassment? Even if what constitutes sexual harrassment is pretty vague and often silly, that doesn't make it right to ignore just to push a lobby.
My point of view is from total equality and enforcement of a policy that already exists. That policy excludes gays.
That leaves 2 options:
1) ignore them, which means continuing a ban on gays and chasing them down for expulsion.
2) fix the policy to account for gays. If you want to serve openly, then you should be subject to the rules like everyone else.
But this would entail alot more than just a policy change. My example was housing, because it is perhaps the most obvious and hard to get around, short of building a whole new housing system.
But I'm not PC for raising the issue. Anyone even a little critical of gays risks being labelled a good many things, but PC isn't among them. Prudish would be a better word. But I'm not that either. I'm only bringing up the point and defending a right already afforded us, but myopically doesn't consider gays exist.
And none of this has taken into account bisexuals, which throws an even bigger monkey wrench in the works. I've avoided it because the issue was complex enough already. What do you do with someone that'll hump anything?
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2002 : 14:23:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ME: Excuse me? How are you being harassed if someone of the same sex observes you silently
--So it's cool if I come over and watch your sister take a shower? Or wife or daughter? As long as I don't say anything, it's not an invasion of privacy.
Does that silence include whipping out your artillery and stroking off a few shells? Can I whack off silently in the corner of the shower with your girl and not be wrong? What's the difference if I get my eye full then go flog the general in my room or just attend to business right there. Where do you draw that line?
Going totally co-ed (to maintain that equality where everyone gets to do the window shopping instead of just giving that prize to gays as it is now) would make for an interesting social reversal. I would have LOVED that idea in high school or Jr high. Remember, the military is still part of the US society. You might want to consider that when you think things should be THAT different for soldiers than civilians. So any policy like that would have to be accepted by the whole population, not just the military.
A quick show of (electronic) hands: how many dads out there want their 13 year old daughter in a co-ed shower?
Co-ed doesn't really work in a society where children's sexuality is protected. Take the YMCA shower example, where people of all ages use the facilites.
Another show of hands that wouldn't mind adult men showering at the Y with thier daughters?
Of course this is also beating up men as predators, but stats kind of bear that out, so I'll go with it.
So Co-ed won't work. There are strong enough feelings about it now (considering our social norm) to keep us seperated.
There is not enough gay people (or powerful enough lobby) for it to have much affect on the social norm, thus they are discounted from law-making decisions.
I have no problem with making them part of the system and acknowledging them. But that requires being subject to the laws we have. I don't believe in a freebie for gays on sexual harrassment. The way we deal pre-emptively with the issue between genders is through EO policies and laws (even if they have gotten pretty silly). The intent of an EO policy is easy to expand to include 'new' groups. What's not so easy is complying with the policies with a housing system stuck on a strictly gender based paradigm.
Be your own god!
(First, and only, commandment of Sollyism)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
