Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Military Standards

123457

Posts

  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    There's not much that can be done for you if you willfully ignore reality.

    Quid on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Are you going to tell me how one person = large group of people, or are you just going to keep telling me I am wrong without anything to back it up?

    I mean you said it wasn't a democracy. If it was a democracy than your point would at least have some merit, because it would mean than the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least the things they voted to do. Unfortunately it is NOT a democracy as you have frequently pointed out. So, how do one persons actions mean that an entire group of hundreds of thousands of people are all the same? I mean, if Dan Choi was the president of the army, you might have a point. But you do understand that Dan Choi is not the president of the army, right?

    Burtletoy on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    So, no, it doesn't have anything to do with my point that one person =/= entire army.

    You've also made it clear you don't care if it costs lives, destroys families, and gives people severe mental trauma.

    That's pretty heartless.

    Hahahahahahahaha

    This had better be a joke, you heartless goosehole

    Rent on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    So, no, it doesn't have anything to do with my point that one person =/= entire army.

    You've also made it clear you don't care if it costs lives, destroys families, and gives people severe mental trauma.

    That's pretty heartless.

    Hahahahahahahaha

    This had better be a joke, you heartless goosehole

    Me? I never actually said anything near what Quid attributed to me. I was laughing at his silly goosery, not at causing harm and trauma to soldiers.

    Burtletoy on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    He just doesn't think people having to replace a person who it turns out won't be deploying has any negative effects.

    Quid on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    He just doesn't think people having to replace a person who it turns out won't be deploying has any negative effects.

    No, I just don't think Lt. Dan Choi being not deployed will cost lives.

    You said it will. I said prove it. You didn't, haven't, and don't appear to be trying to.

    Burtletoy on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Choi is a person.

    Someone else in the currently undermanned military will have to replace him.

    Quid on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Now if, on the other hand, you had said that Lt. Dan Choi not being deployed might cost lives, I would agree with you. But that isn't what you said, and I was attempting to point out your hyperbole.

    Burtletoy on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Choi is a person.

    Someone else in the currently undermanned military will have to replace him.

    That doesn't show, in any way what-so-ever, that Choi not deploying cost lives. Which is what you said, initially. Admittedly you have backed off this since, but still have qualms about me saying you initial statement was wrong.

    Burtletoy on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Oh right.

    It's just incredibly likely to fuck up life of another person and increase the overall likelihood of lost life.

    My but your pedantry has made for a rousing defense.

    Quid on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh right.

    It's just incredibly likely to fuck up life of another person and increase the overall likelihood of lost life.

    My but your pedantry has made for a rousing defense.

    And your hyperbole has made for a rousing initial line of attack.

    Burtletoy on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Another thing is, his protesting, it is likely to increase awareness of the outcome of DADT and has increased chances of not fucking up other peoples life and decreased the likelihood of lost life. Fun two way street, that.

    Burtletoy on
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    one person =/= entire army.

    You're right.

    You should tell that to all of the Vietnam veterans that were spit on, and labelled babykillers by the American public upon their return home.

    The actions of an individual shouldn't represent an entire organization, the public however, doesn't always see it that way, and that is why service members aren't permitted to make political statements while in uniform. They're lucky they can even make them in civilian clothing.

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
    EH28YFo.jpg
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Another thing is, his protesting, it is likely to increase awareness of the outcome of DADT and has increased chances of not fucking up other peoples life and decreased the likelihood of lost life. Fun two way street, that.
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh yes the administration is crumbling because of what he did.

    I mean, not as much as whoever's going to be covering his deployment, but hey, just look at what he's accomplished.

    Quid on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Taranis wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    one person =/= entire army.

    You're right.

    You should tell that to all of the Vietnam veterans that were spit on, and labelled babykillers by the American public upon their return home.

    The actions of an individual shouldn't represent an entire organization, the public however, doesn't always see it that way, and that is why service members aren't permitted to make political statements while in uniform. They're lucky they can even make them in civilian clothing.

    Just like that one guy who threw a frag into his officers tent and kill his leaders. The public, after than incident, knew that every member of the army is trying to kill their leaders.

    Or those few people that grafettied things about christianity on Mosques means that the entire american public thinks every soldier hates every muslim.

    Or, you could be, you know, wrong.

    Burtletoy on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Another thing is, his protesting, it is likely to increase awareness of the outcome of DADT and has increased chances of not fucking up other peoples life and decreased the likelihood of lost life. Fun two way street, that.
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh yes the administration is crumbling because of what he did.

    I mean, not as much as whoever's going to be covering his deployment, but hey, just look at what he's accomplished.

    So gains that are not instaneous and obvious must not have/be happened/happening at all?

    Burtletoy on
  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    If it was a democracy than your point would at least have some merit, because it would mean than the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least the things they voted to do.

    Perhaps a democracy that requires a 100% majority to actually vote for things, but I'm not even sure this very very false statement would be true even then.

    piL on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Another thing is, his protesting, it is likely to increase awareness of the outcome of DADT and has increased chances of not fucking up other peoples life and decreased the likelihood of lost life. Fun two way street, that.
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh yes the administration is crumbling because of what he did.

    I mean, not as much as whoever's going to be covering his deployment, but hey, just look at what he's accomplished.

    So gains that are not instaneous and obvious must not have/be happened/happening at all?

    You're the one constantly demanding proof. What gains has he made that are worth forcing someone else to redeploy?

    Quid on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Another thing is, his protesting, it is likely to increase awareness of the outcome of DADT and has increased chances of not fucking up other peoples life and decreased the likelihood of lost life. Fun two way street, that.
    Quid wrote: »
    Oh yes the administration is crumbling because of what he did.

    I mean, not as much as whoever's going to be covering his deployment, but hey, just look at what he's accomplished.

    So gains that are not instaneous and obvious must not have/be happened/happening at all?

    You're the one constantly demanding proof. What gains has he made that are worth forcing someone else to redeploy?

    He has brought massive public and mainstream medias attention to the policy of DADT and its negative effects.

    In other words, exactly what a protest is supposed to do.

    Burtletoy on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    If it was a democracy than your point would at least have some merit, because it would mean than the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least the things they voted to do.

    Perhaps a democracy that requires a 100% majority to actually vote for things, but I'm not even sure this very very false statement would be true even then.

    I meant to type the word "some" in the middle of that sentence. "it would mean that the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least some of the things they voted to do.

    Burtletoy on
  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    If it was a democracy than your point would at least have some merit, because it would mean than the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least the things they voted to do.

    Perhaps a democracy that requires a 100% majority to actually vote for things, but I'm not even sure this very very false statement would be true even then.

    I meant to type the word "some" in the middle of that sentence. "it would mean that the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least some of the things they voted to do.

    This is likely only true about very basic things like, "Should criminals be punished." "Should we be be paid." Not anything worth actually voting on. Democracy does not magically meet the desires of all individuals and cause them to match, but rather tries to maximize the fulfillment of desires by appealing to the greatest number of desires. Ideally, a democracy does so without marginalizing a minority, but that's not really a requirement of being a democracy.

    piL on
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    He has brought massive public and mainstream medias attention to the policy of DADT and its negative effects.

    In other words, exactly what a protest is supposed to do.

    My what a boon that has achieved. It's clearly had a great effect now that the date to change it has been moved even further back.

    And hey, now he isn't going on talk shows or to rallies. Clearly a brilliant move.

    Quid on
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Choi is a person.

    Someone else in the currently undermanned military will have to replace him.

    That doesn't show, in any way what-so-ever, that Choi not deploying cost lives. Which is what you said, initially. Admittedly you have backed off this since, but still have qualms about me saying you initial statement was wrong.

    Here's what will likely happen:

    When Choi doesn't deploy the Platoon Sergeant will likely have to perform the duties Choi's duties overseas.

    The Weapons Squad Leader will have to step up to fill his slot with little training beforehand.

    A line Squad Leader will have to take charge of Weapons Squad.

    A team leader will get promoted to squad leader.

    A private/specialist will be promoted to team leader.

    That's 5 leaders filling roles that they may not be ready for. Not to mention that Choi's platoon now has one less guy to pull security/guard and they may now have a fire team that is combat ineffective due to a lack of manpower.

    It's pretty easy to see how Choi's actions could result in a loss of life, and/or trauma while overseas that could've been prevented.

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
    EH28YFo.jpg
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    On the other hand, I think Choi is doing the right thing

    Just not in the best way

    But really his first loyalty should be to the team he's in charge of, not to his sexuality nor his protest movement

    I mean, he's right, but also really wrong at the same time

    Rent on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    If it was a democracy than your point would at least have some merit, because it would mean than the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least the things they voted to do.

    Perhaps a democracy that requires a 100% majority to actually vote for things, but I'm not even sure this very very false statement would be true even then.

    I meant to type the word "some" in the middle of that sentence. "it would mean that the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least some of the things they voted to do.

    This is likely only true about very basic things like, "Should criminals be punished." "Should we be be paid." Not anything worth actually voting on. Democracy does not magically meet the desires of all individuals and cause them to match, but rather tries to maximize the fulfillment of desires by appealing to the greatest number of desires. Ideally, a democracy does so without marginalizing a minority, but that's not really a requirement of being a democracy.

    I know what a democracy is, all I was saying is IF the army were a democracy, the idea that one person can potentially represent the entire group gains traction, whereas right now saying one person can and does represent the entire armed forces is simply not true.

    Burtletoy on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    He has brought massive public and mainstream medias attention to the policy of DADT and its negative effects.

    In other words, exactly what a protest is supposed to do.

    My what a boon that has achieved. It's clearly had a great effect now that the date to change it has been moved even further back.

    And hey, now he isn't going on talk shows or to rallies. Clearly a brilliant move.

    So, protesting a policy on talk shows and rallies = good publicity
    But protesting a policy at the white house = bad publicity

    I don't follow that. Question, because I don't know, did Choi ever go to any of those talk shows or rallies in uniform? If he did, why were those things good, but this thing bad?

    Burtletoy on
  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    I know what a democracy is, all I was saying is IF the army were a democracy, the idea that one person can potentially represent the entire group gains traction, whereas right now saying one person can and does represent the entire armed forces is simply not true.

    O.K. That is all you are saying, but it doesn't really make any sense. No member of any democracy represents an entire democracy, except maybe prime elected officials, which is tangential (because nobody's talking about what the president or CSA did), but also not exclusive: the king-of-the-army would be representative of some hypothetical monarchy army.

    But I really don't think you do understand what a democracy is.

    Edit: Well, the CSA isn't elected.

    piL on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    If it was a democracy than your point would at least have some merit, because it would mean than the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least the things they voted to do.

    Perhaps a democracy that requires a 100% majority to actually vote for things, but I'm not even sure this very very false statement would be true even then.

    I meant to type the word "some" in the middle of that sentence. "it would mean that the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least some of the things they voted to do.

    This is likely only true about very basic things like, "Should criminals be punished." "Should we be be paid." Not anything worth actually voting on. Democracy does not magically meet the desires of all individuals and cause them to match, but rather tries to maximize the fulfillment of desires by appealing to the greatest number of desires. Ideally, a democracy does so without marginalizing a minority, but that's not really a requirement of being a democracy.

    I know what a democracy is, all I was saying is IF the army were a democracy, the idea that one person can potentially represent the entire group gains traction, whereas right now saying one person can and does represent the entire armed forces is simply not true.

    david_h_petraeus_2007.jpg

    16301__lynch_l.jpg

    general-george-s-patton.jpg

    audie1.jpg

    181206_mcveigh_1991.jpg

    Rent on
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    one person =/= entire army.

    You're right.

    You should tell that to all of the Vietnam veterans that were spit on, and labelled babykillers by the American public upon their return home.

    The actions of an individual shouldn't represent an entire organization, the public however, doesn't always see it that way, and that is why service members aren't permitted to make political statements while in uniform. They're lucky they can even make them in civilian clothing.

    Just like that one guy who threw a frag into his officers tent and kill his leaders. The public, after than incident, knew that every member of the army is trying to kill their leaders.

    Or those few people that grafettied things about christianity on Mosques means that the entire american public thinks every soldier hates every muslim.

    Or, you could be, you know, wrong.

    Well you can't deny that it has happened in the past, and there's nothing to stop it from happening now.

    My general impression from the far left (and much of the rest of the world) is that they think that most service members are psychopathic christians. They believe this because of the actions of a few individuals.

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
    EH28YFo.jpg
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    If it was a democracy than your point would at least have some merit, because it would mean than the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least the things they voted to do.

    Perhaps a democracy that requires a 100% majority to actually vote for things, but I'm not even sure this very very false statement would be true even then.

    I meant to type the word "some" in the middle of that sentence. "it would mean that the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least some of the things they voted to do.

    This is likely only true about very basic things like, "Should criminals be punished." "Should we be be paid." Not anything worth actually voting on. Democracy does not magically meet the desires of all individuals and cause them to match, but rather tries to maximize the fulfillment of desires by appealing to the greatest number of desires. Ideally, a democracy does so without marginalizing a minority, but that's not really a requirement of being a democracy.

    I know what a democracy is, all I was saying is IF the army were a democracy, the idea that one person can potentially represent the entire group gains traction, whereas right now saying one person can and does represent the entire armed forces is simply not true.

    *famous military peoples picutres*

    Ah, so a leader of the army can potentially represent the entire army, because it is not a democracy and the leader can enforce his will upon the rest of the army, making his opinions the de facto army opinions.

    Lt. Choi is not the leader or the entire armed forces. Lt. Choi protesting does not represent the will of the entire armed forces.

    Burtletoy on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    piL wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    If it was a democracy than your point would at least have some merit, because it would mean than the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least the things they voted to do.

    Perhaps a democracy that requires a 100% majority to actually vote for things, but I'm not even sure this very very false statement would be true even then.

    I meant to type the word "some" in the middle of that sentence. "it would mean that the entire army IS of the same opinion on at least some of the things they voted to do.

    This is likely only true about very basic things like, "Should criminals be punished." "Should we be be paid." Not anything worth actually voting on. Democracy does not magically meet the desires of all individuals and cause them to match, but rather tries to maximize the fulfillment of desires by appealing to the greatest number of desires. Ideally, a democracy does so without marginalizing a minority, but that's not really a requirement of being a democracy.

    I know what a democracy is, all I was saying is IF the army were a democracy, the idea that one person can potentially represent the entire group gains traction, whereas right now saying one person can and does represent the entire armed forces is simply not true.

    *famous military peoples picutres*

    Ah, so a leader of the army can potentially represent the entire army, because it is not a democracy and the leader can enforce his will upon the rest of the army, making his opinions the de facto army opinions.

    Lt. Choi is not the leader or the entire armed forces. Lt. Choi protesting does not represent the will of the entire armed forces.

    I didn't know Audie Murphy, Jessica Lynch, and Timothy McVeigh were leaders of the army :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


    (One wasn't even in the Army! Nice one, genius!)

    Rent on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Wait, Lynch?

    Really?

    The poor woman who came out and said "uh those jerks beat up some Iraqi doctors and nurses who were helping me during my 'rescue', and I never fired my rifle once FYI because it jammed"?

    EDIT Rent, Crazy Dead Tim's status as a soldier doesn't really come up much from the media I see in Canada

    DOUBLE EDIT I'm surprised you didn't toss Tillman up there if you're going for iconic soldiers

    Robman on
  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Representing the Armed Forces is separate from representing the will of each individual member of the armed forces.

    piL on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    piL wrote: »
    Representing the Armed Forces is separate from representing the will of each individual member of the armed forces.

    And that, that was my point. Ring a ding ding
    Robman wrote: »
    Wait, Lynch?

    Really?

    The poor woman who came out and said "uh those jerks beat up some Iraqi doctors and nurses who were helping me during my 'rescue', and I never fired my rifle once FYI because it jammed"?

    Actually she wrote a book claiming she was raped when she wasn't but that's neither here nor there

    Rent on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    I didn't know Audie Murphy, Jessica Lynch, and Timothy McVeigh were leaders of the army :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


    (One wasn't even in the Army! Nice one, genius!)

    I never said they were leaders of the army. I also never said they were in the Army. Good reading comprehension, genius.

    Burtletoy on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Quid wrote: »
    Choi is a person.

    Someone else in the currently undermanned military will have to replace him.

    I'm confused:

    Is he not being deployed because he came out and DADT came into effect, or because he chained himself to the White House fence?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    I didn't know Audie Murphy, Jessica Lynch, and Timothy McVeigh were leaders of the army :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


    (One wasn't even in the Army! Nice one, genius!)

    I never said they were leaders of the army. I also never said they were in the Army. Good reading comprehension, genius.


    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Ah, so a leader of the army can potentially represent the entire army, because it is not a democracy and the leader can enforce his will upon the rest of the army, making his opinions the de facto army opinions.

    Lt. Choi is not the leader or the entire armed forces. Lt. Choi protesting does not represent the will of the entire armed forces.

    Rent on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Rent wrote: »
    I didn't know Audie Murphy, Jessica Lynch, and Timothy McVeigh were leaders of the army :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


    (One wasn't even in the Army! Nice one, genius!)

    I never said they were leaders of the army. I also never said they were in the Army. Good reading comprehension, genius.


    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Ah, so a leader of the army can potentially represent the entire army, because it is not a democracy and the leader can enforce his will upon the rest of the army, making his opinions the de facto army opinions.

    Lt. Choi is not the leader or the entire armed forces. Lt. Choi protesting does not represent the will of the entire armed forces.

    Where did I say those pictures you posted were leaders of the army?

    You should show me, because for you information, I didn't and it isn't there.

    Burtletoy on
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Rent wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    Wait, Lynch?

    Really?

    The poor woman who came out and said "uh those jerks beat up some Iraqi doctors and nurses who were helping me during my 'rescue', and I never fired my rifle once FYI because it jammed"?

    Actually she wrote a book claiming she was raped when she wasn't but that's neither here nor there

    So much fail.

    Really the US armed forces should just stick to wacky recruitment videos like the Mars USAF recruitment one, because have they ever done a PR thing that hasn't ended up blowing up in their faces?

    Robman on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2010
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    Where did I say those pictures you posted were leaders of the army?

    You should show me, because for you information, I didn't and it isn't there.

    So you were ignoring my point to focus on one person's picture instead of addressing my whole post as opposed to being an ignorant about the military?

    Because there was a reason I posted mcveigh/lynch's pictures there

    How about you address that then
    Robman wrote: »

    Really the US armed forces should just stick to wacky recruitment videos like the Mars USAF recruitment one, because have they ever done a PR thing that hasn't ended up blowing up in their faces?

    Uhh...America's Army and Audie Murphy's life in general are really the only two I can think of

    Rent on
Sign In or Register to comment.