|
|
Post by John E on Sept 30, 2011 15:18:25 GMT -5
I'm not trying to get you to say something homophobic, LHM. I assumed you wouldn't, and that's kinda the point. I'm trying to find out if you are applying your argument consistently. If you are, then you ought to be against allowing gay men and women to serve in combat rolls too (at least not more than one in the same unit). If you aren't, then you're not applying you argument consistently, which means there's something wrong with your argument (hand waving platitudes like "I'm not gay so I don't know if their relationships have the same potential for disruption doesn't change that).
Let me be clear: I am questioning your argument, not attacking you as a person.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 30, 2011 15:23:17 GMT -5
I would very much appreciate more research on potential impacts going on before our PC masters use the military as a social engineering testbed. As I tried to explain earlier, that's my big problem and reason for making the OP. You seem to forget that the military serves the country and is a political tool. If your PC masters think that the military should reflect societal values a little better, good for them. And what's wrong with social engineering? Everything society is is the product of social engineering. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 30, 2011 15:27:36 GMT -5
I think Captain Samantha Carter of the SGC would like a few words with you... Mostly involving shooting you in the kneecaps while describing all the physics going behind the reason that you're now on the floor in agonizing pain. Before Teal'c knocks your head off and O'Neill makes a wisecrack.I rather think that people who think star gate or other crummy TV shows are a remotely accurate representation of combat are a a big part of the problem here. Lighty, that's what we in the living business call a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 15:29:38 GMT -5
I'm not trying to get you to say something homophobic, LHM. I assumed you wouldn't, and that's kinda the point. I'm trying to find out if you are applying your argument consistently. If you are, then you ought to be against allowing gay men and women to serve in combat rolls too (at least not more than one in the same unit). If you aren't, then you're not applying you argument consistently, which means there's something wrong with your argument (hand waving platitudes like "I'm not gay so I don't know if their relationships have the same potential for disruption doesn't change that). Let me be clear: I am questioning your argument, not attacking you as a person. Forgive me if I get defensive. OK, yes, I could see similar issues arising between gay members of the same unit. However... and this is why I don't think the two situations are comparable, the number of homosexuals likely to be in any given combat unit vs. the number of heterosexuals likely to be in any given combat unit, makes the liklihoods of difficulties arising less. Lets take an infantry platoon for our example... 40 members... according to most research I've read, that means you are likely to have up to 4 homosexual members. What are the odds that any of those 4 are likely to get in a relationship with each other? What is the liklihood that in the event of a relationship breakdown, they are likely to spread bad blood, jealousy, envy, and side taking among their colleagues? Less, I would argue, than the same questions asked in relation to the 36+ heterosexuals in the platoon if any of them are women. I understand the argument about homosexuals having relationships in a workplace being comparable to heterosexuals having relationships in a workplace... but from experience (and yes, I know its anecdotal, but tell me I'm wrong) romantic entanglements at work seem to be something that blows up in the face of heterosexuals a lot more than homosexuals. I work with heterosexuals and homosexuals, and have done for years, yet I simply don't see the sorts of problems we're talking about among homosexuals. I don't know if this is because said problems don't exist, or if its because homosexuals are simply better at keeping their private lives private, or any other explanation. But I'm only going to talk about what I know, and I know, from experience, that heterosexual romances can make a workplace dynamic very, very complicated, and I don't think that is a good idea when talking about a workplace that involves potential combat deployments. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 15:40:58 GMT -5
I would very much appreciate more research on potential impacts going on before our PC masters use the military as a social engineering testbed. As I tried to explain earlier, that's my big problem and reason for making the OP. You seem to forget that the military serves the country and is a political tool. If your PC masters think that the military should reflect societal values a little better, good for them. And what's wrong with social engineering? Everything society is is the product of social engineering. It depends what your idea of a military mission statement is. If you think of the military as an inclusive organisation meant to reflect the social, gender, sexual orientation and multi-cultural diversity of the society it represents, well, I guess so. If, on the other hand, you think the role of the military is to provide a potent, versatile and modern (military) to promote the security of Australia and to protect its people and interests. www.army.gov.au/ Then maybe not. Let me try this... what is the racial make up of your country's Olympic track team? How about your country's Olympic swim team? Are they ethnically diverse? Does racial equality feature prominently in who they let in? Or... are the specifics of the job they have to do considered more important than ensuring that they reflect the ethnic make up of society? I would contend that the military is similar... the nature of its role means that practicalities of optimisation are more important than window dressing and making sure PC niceties are observed. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 15:41:26 GMT -5
I rather think that people who think star gate or other crummy TV shows are a remotely accurate representation of combat are a a big part of the problem here. Lighty, that's what we in the living business call a joke.Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 30, 2011 15:42:08 GMT -5
Hey, LHM, question. What if best friends have a massive fight? A male and a male have this huge massive fight. They've been best mates forever and a day. Would this not be just as disruptive as two significant others getting into a fight?
So what are we going to do? Prevent people from having any sort of connections with others whatsoever?
Not to mention the whole esprit de corps thing. Band of brothers. You care for the man next to you more than anything. It's platonic love, one could say. There's hardly a difference between mates having a fight and lovers having a fight that disrupts things.
But if you're in the military you have to learn to control yourself. You had a fight, okay. You still do your damndest to keep the person next to you alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Sept 30, 2011 15:43:20 GMT -5
You think people in hospitals work 9-5....  Pfffffttttt....... *Starts laughing hysterically* Newsflash LHM: Hospital staff shifts can last from 12 to 16 hours at a time. I'm friends with a woman who's a nurse and my family knows SEVERAL doctors, so I can easily call bullshit on your statement there. Your the one making the claim that integrated units are a bad thing, and I'm waiting for you to show us REAL evidence for this. You completely missed the BOLD part, didn't you? Selective reading much? |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 30, 2011 15:43:36 GMT -5
Lighty, that's what we in the living business call a joke.Sorry. Oh, I suppose I'll forgive you this time. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 15:45:08 GMT -5
You think people in hospitals work 9-5.... Pfffffttttt....... *Starts laughing hysterically* Newsflash LHM: Hospital staff shifts can last from 12 to 16 hours at a time. I'm friends with a woman who's a nurse and my family knows SEVERAL doctors, so I can easily call bullshit on your statement there. Your the one making the claim that integrated units are a bad thing, and I'm waiting for you to show us REAL evidence for this. You completely missed the BOLD part, didn't you? Selective reading much? And military deployments can last for months at a time. Sorry, no, they aren't comparable. And yes,m I have worked 17 hour double shifts in hospitals. You still get to go home at the end of it, and take the weekend off. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 15:45:40 GMT -5
Oh, I suppose I'll forgive you this time. Thanks. You're a sahib. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 30, 2011 15:54:38 GMT -5
There's hardly a difference between mates having a fight and lovers having a fight that disrupts things.  |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Sept 30, 2011 16:04:57 GMT -5
Let me try this... what is the racial make up of your country's Olympic track team? How about your country's Olympic swim team? Are they ethnically diverse? Does racial equality feature prominently in who they let in? Or... are the specifics of the job they have to do considered more important than ensuring that they reflect the ethnic make up of society? I would contend that the military is similar... the nature of its role means that practicalities of optimisation are more important than window dressing and making sure PC niceties are observed. The problem with that analogy my friend is that anybody who makes the cut gets in. If one person of whatever group makes the cut we let them in. This isn't 1930's Germany where you had to look the part in order to be allowed to compete... and then get shown up when another country allowed the best person for the job to represent them. As to military effectiveness, what enemies does Australia see itself as facing? If we are going to keep going into backwater little shit holes and try to convince them to play nice and join the modern world then I think that fielding an army where men and women work together as equals might actually be beneficial to the success of the mission. |
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Sept 30, 2011 16:06:31 GMT -5
You completely missed the BOLD part, didn't you? Selective reading much? And military deployments can last for months at a time. Sorry, no, they aren't comparable. And yes,m I have worked 17 hour double shifts in hospitals. You still get to go home at the end of it, and take the weekend off. Okay, I'll give you a different example then. What about men and women who go working up in the Oil Sands and similar places for MONTHS at a time? Living in close quarters, little privacy, etc. I haven't heard of any problems erupted from them. I know a man who works there for six months at a time. So does one of his DAUGHTERS. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Sept 30, 2011 16:06:35 GMT -5
Love how LHM can't cite anything regarding women in combat disrupting unit moral or any of the objections he's raised.
ironbite-very telling
|
|
