Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Conservatives were wrong then and now.

slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 12:31:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

I'm a Moderate. The Conservatives keep you guys from slitting your own throats. It's a counterbalance to the madness we call Liberal. Nevertheless, yes, LGBT's should be able to serve their country.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 5:31:26 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I would think that the old fashioned social conservatives would prefer that gays were put in the army. They could be sent overseas, and from there to the most dangerous missions because they could be consider expendable.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 6:07:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

Citations please.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 7:47:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

They should be able to serve, but only if the capacity which they can test to. Obviously physiology comes into play and will muddy things up, to the point where F -> M may be tested out of more intensive roles at higher rates.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:15:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

The artillery corps is eternally grateful.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 11:31:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 7:47:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

They should be able to serve, but only if the capacity which they can test to. Obviously physiology comes into play and will muddy things up, to the point where F -> M may be tested out of more intensive roles at higher rates.

Do you know which psychological tests are currently used?
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 1:17:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 11:31:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 7:47:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

They should be able to serve, but only if the capacity which they can test to. Obviously physiology comes into play and will muddy things up, to the point where F -> M may be tested out of more intensive roles at higher rates.

Do you know which psychological tests are currently used?

I think Skep meant that F -> M people are physically less fit that cis males for certain roles.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,376
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 1:22:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

Not against trans people serving, but interested to see how the physical tests would be conducted. Would they be treated as if they were women or men?
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
Beisht_Kione
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 1:45:42 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 1:22:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

Not against trans people serving, but interested to see how the physical tests would be conducted. Would they be treated as if they were women or men?

I agree. That should be very interesting indeed. I'd also be interested to see how the psych evals will play out, since there are plenty of military jobs that require them.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 2:18:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I definitely have no problem with them serving, however footing the bill for their constructive surgery doesn't seem right. That seems like elective cosmetic surgery.

"began outlining how the military will begin allowing " and paying for " service members to transition, medically and officially, from one gender to another."

http://www.militarytimes.com...

Tricare doesn't normally cover those things

Examples of things not covered:
Dental congenital anomalies
Elective correction of minor skin blemishes and marks
Breast augmentation
Face lifts
Reduction mammoplasties (breast reductions), except in the case of significant pain due to large breasts
Blepharoplasty (removal of excess skin of the eyelid)
Rhinoplasties (nose surgery)
Chemical peeling for the treatment of facial wrinkles or acne scars
Hair transplants
Electrolysis
Removal of tattoos
Liposuction for body contouring
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 7:37:34 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 1:17:51 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/1/2016 11:31:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 7:47:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

They should be able to serve, but only if the capacity which they can test to. Obviously physiology comes into play and will muddy things up, to the point where F -> M may be tested out of more intensive roles at higher rates.

Do you know which psychological tests are currently used?

I think Skep meant that F -> M people are physically less fit that cis males for certain roles.

Thanks. I see that I completely messed that up.

The biggest difference between men and women in army basic training is the number of push ups required. I'm not familiar with physical requirements beyond that.

It is an interesting question that I'll have to look up. I assume you pass under gender of identity, but have no idea if that is it.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 8:42:25 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/1/2016 7:37:34 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 1:17:51 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 7/1/2016 11:31:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/1/2016 7:47:19 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 7/1/2016 12:28:33 AM, slo1 wrote:
Allowing Gays to openly serve was going to make us unsafe. They were wrong. They thought there would be too much push back and an inability to control hetro male anger towards open homosexuals. They were wrong.

Now go see what they say about allowing open transsexuals serve. What ever they are saying they are wrong.

They should be able to serve, but only if the capacity which they can test to. Obviously physiology comes into play and will muddy things up, to the point where F -> M may be tested out of more intensive roles at higher rates.

Do you know which psychological tests are currently used?

I think Skep meant that F -> M people are physically less fit that cis males for certain roles.

Thanks. I see that I completely messed that up.

The biggest difference between men and women in army basic training is the number of push ups required. I'm not familiar with physical requirements beyond that.

It is an interesting question that I'll have to look up. I assume you pass under gender of identity, but have no idea if that is it.

There's lots of differences in APFT standards. The 2-Mile run times are different, Push Ups as you pointed out.

I'll give you an example. 50 points (bare minimum for POGs to pass)

Women 32-36 time 23:06
Men 32-36 time 18:48

4 minutes and 18 seconds less.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2016 9:14:28 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I'm just glad the military has its priorities straight. I mean really, ISIS bombs another city, the USAF is supposedly running out of bombs, the Army is at its lowest level since before WWII, the Navy has half the ships it had when Reagan was President, but hey, at least transgenders can serve now.

I wonder what social experiment we'll use the military for next.