People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Uh yes, yes in fact it can. Has been for some time now. That you think it should be otherwise is terribly naive. The military is not a democracy. It isn't supposed to be.
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Uh yes, yes in fact it can. Has been for some time now. That you think it should be otherwise is terribly naive. The military is not a democracy. It isn't supposed to be.
By a show of hands, who wants to charge that heavily fortified machine gun nest? Okay, and who wants to stay here and play euchre?
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Uh yes, yes in fact it can. Has been for some time now. That you think it should be otherwise is terribly naive. The military is not a democracy. It isn't supposed to be.
By a show of hands, who wants to charge that heavily fortified machine gun nest? Okay, and who wants to stay here and play euchre?
Protesting for better wages and living conditions sound like excellent occasions to be in uniform. Obviously I don't like the idea of anyone protesting against gay soldiers, but I can't say that the presence or absence of a uniform makes much of a difference to me.
I imagine because you're not the one trying to control people that can now protest orders simply because they don't like them. And before you decide to confuse the issue, there's a massive difference between an order a person doesn't like and an unlawful order.
This is nothing but special pleading.
I'm sorry, would you care to point out the effective military that was also a democracy? And no, a corporation is not a democracy. It does, however, have to obey the rules of the democracy it's in. Even at the cost of going under.
Ive always been told by friends who serve, and some are in fact still in the military that when you put on the uniform, you're "on the clock" so to speak. You become the face of a government entity. I think it's fair to say that protesting ANYTHING while in uniform is a bad idea.
For or against gays, religion, evil space monkeys or whatever. Yeah, it's fucked up that the people higher up can be open bigots. It doesn't mean it's okay for you to ignore regulations that are for better or worse, seated in a well intentioned portion of reality.
It's not fair, I agree entirely. I don't think there should be an open-hate policy on homosexuals who are willing to be shot at and die for a country and government that hasn't shown them much favor. I also think it probably rallied a lot of support for the cause with what he did.
It also probably angered quite a few people, it's divisive even if it's noble to try.
When you sign, you become property. It sucks, but it's the best way to think of it in a broader sense. There's a reason for it though.
edit: I'm also against cops or anyone else deciding to protest something in government uniform. I don't give a shit if you're in the postal service or a prison guard.
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Oddly, an organization where people are routinely ordered to place their lives in danger (or just plain lose them) doesn't mesh well with the Bill of Rights.
The difference is that they volunteered their lives when they joined. So it doesn't quite matter if someone actually orders them to die, at that point.
Except "the military" includes a lot of guys (a majority, by some counts) who are fine with him serving and support changing the policy. He disrespected their military (and them) as well.
Excuse me, but how does protesting equate to disrespect, exactly?
How does one disrespect his fellow soldiers when he protests for better wages, better housing, and generally better treatment, not just for himself but also for his fellow soldiers?
He's putting himself on the line for it, opening himself to possible punishment from the higher ups. There isn't anything disrespectful about that.
Except "the military" includes a lot of guys (a majority, by some counts) who are fine with him serving and support changing the policy. He disrespected their military (and them) as well.
Excuse me, but how does protesting equate to disrespect, exactly?
How does one disrespect his fellow soldiers when he protests for better wages, better housing, and generally better treatment, not just for himself but also for his fellow soldiers?
He's putting himself on the line for it, opening himself to possible punishment from the higher ups. There isn't anything disrespectful about that.
There is as soon as you do it in uniform.
edit: Think of it like this,
What if he was in the honor guard and wore his uniform?
Excuse me, but how does protesting equate to disrespect, exactly?
How does one disrespect his fellow soldiers when he protests for better wages, better housing, and generally better treatment, not just for himself but also for his fellow soldiers?
He's putting himself on the line for it, opening himself to possible punishment from the higher ups. There isn't anything disrespectful about that.
The military is not a democracy. It's not an open forum for people to express there wants and and dislikes. Especially when what someone may be protesting may very well be wrong.
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Oddly, an organization where people are routinely ordered to place their lives in danger (or just plain lose them) doesn't mesh well with the Bill of Rights.
The difference is that they volunteered their lives when they joined. So it doesn't quite matter if someone actually orders them to die, at that point.
Political speech is one of those rights you give up when you sign on the dotted line, as well. You volunteer to undergo certain restrictions in your rights, and that is put forth when you sign. One of the first rules you are taught is no political activity while in uniform. The UCMJ is very cut-and-dried on that point. I don't know why it is so hard to comprehend.
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Uh yes, yes in fact it can. Has been for some time now. That you think it should be otherwise is terribly naive.
I'm pretty sure the American military does not protect said values. It forces them on other countries. And the only values it has forced on other countries since WWII are capitalism and imperialism.
If you disagree, point out one instance in the last 50 years where American "freedoms" were in danger and the military intervened to uphold them.
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Oddly, an organization where people are routinely ordered to place their lives in danger (or just plain lose them) doesn't mesh well with the Bill of Rights.
The difference is that they volunteered their lives when they joined. So it doesn't quite matter if someone actually orders them to die, at that point.
Political speech is one of those rights you give up when you sign on the dotted line, as well. You volunteer to undergo certain restrictions in your rights, and that is put forth when you sign. One of the first rules you are taught is no political activity while in uniform. The UCMJ is very cut-and-dried on that point. I don't know why it is so hard to comprehend.
Um, just because you sign a paper does not make it legal?
You can sign a paper saying you are now my slave, but if you do that I'm pretty sure we're both going to get into trouble because slavery is illegal.
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Uh yes, yes in fact it can. Has been for some time now. That you think it should be otherwise is terribly naive.
I'm pretty sure the American military does not protect said values. It forces them on other countries. And the only values it has forced on other countries since WWII are capitalism and imperialism.
If you disagree, point out one instance in the last 50 years where American "freedoms" were in danger and the military intervened to uphold them.
The tangent is already barely related to the thread. If you want to make a thread about the evils of the U.S. military feel free.
Um, just because you sign a paper does not make it legal?
You can sign a paper saying you are now my slave, but if you do that I'm pretty sure we're both going to get into trouble because slavery is illegal.
Indeed, there's quite a bit of latitude the military receives that private entities don't. Of course, they're also held to much higher standards and scrutiny.
Um, just because you sign a paper does not make it legal?
You can sign a paper saying you are now my slave, but if you do that I'm pretty sure we're both going to get into trouble because slavery is illegal.
Indeed, there's quite a bit of latitude the military receives that private entities don't. Of course, they're also held to much higher standards and scrutiny.
Much higher standards like hating gays, you mean. :P
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Uh yes, yes in fact it can. Has been for some time now. That you think it should be otherwise is terribly naive.
I'm pretty sure the American military does not protect said values. It forces them on other countries. And the only values it has forced on other countries since WWII are capitalism and imperialism.
If you disagree, point out one instance in the last 50 years where American "freedoms" were in danger and the military intervened to uphold them.
The tangent is already barely related to the thread. If you want to make a thread about the evils of the U.S. military feel free.
I don't mean to imply that the US military is evil. I'm just saying it doesn't uphold the values you think it does.
Um, just because you sign a paper does not make it legal?
You can sign a paper saying you are now my slave, but if you do that I'm pretty sure we're both going to get into trouble because slavery is illegal.
Indeed, there's quite a bit of latitude the military receives that private entities don't. Of course, they're also held to much higher standards and scrutiny.
Much higher standards like hating gays, you mean. :P
...
Right, you're not really intending to have an honest discussion here. You have fun talking to others.
Um, just because you sign a paper does not make it legal?
You can sign a paper saying you are now my slave, but if you do that I'm pretty sure we're both going to get into trouble because slavery is illegal.
Indeed, there's quite a bit of latitude the military receives that private entities don't. Of course, they're also held to much higher standards and scrutiny.
Much higher standards like hating gays, you mean. :P
...
Right, you're not really intending to have an honest discussion here. You have fun talking to others.
No, I just find your delusion amusing.
The military isn't held to "much higher standards and scrutiny". It's actually pretty amazing that you think that way, because the military is absolutely notorious for the whole "what happens in the military stays in the military" mindset where it is strongly discouraged to talk about the fucked up shit that goes in there and no amount of scrutiny has been able to break through some barriers.
Same holds true for "higher standards". An example of this is collateral damage. When civilians cause collateral damage, they are tried in court. When the military causes collateral damage, "it's war". Same holds true for accidental killings of bystandards, which would be tried as manslaughter in civilian courts.
No, mate. If anything, the US military is given amazing amounts of leeway and is held to much lower standards and scrutiny than the civilian population.
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
Oddly, an organization where people are routinely ordered to place their lives in danger (or just plain lose them) doesn't mesh well with the Bill of Rights.
The difference is that they volunteered their lives when they joined. So it doesn't quite matter if someone actually orders them to die, at that point.
Political speech is one of those rights you give up when you sign on the dotted line, as well. You volunteer to undergo certain restrictions in your rights, and that is put forth when you sign. One of the first rules you are taught is no political activity while in uniform. The UCMJ is very cut-and-dried on that point. I don't know why it is so hard to comprehend.
Um, just because you sign a paper does not make it legal?
You can sign a paper saying you are now my slave, but if you do that I'm pretty sure we're both going to get into trouble because slavery is illegal.
If the government says it's legal, it is. That's how the law works. You can't have a beard while in the military either. Grow a beard, you deal with the consequences, same as protesting in uniform.
And don't try to squeeze away from the conversation by saying this is not the subject of this debate. Because if you're operating from a position where your core belief is that the military subscribes to higher standards, then you're automatically wrong. The entire military culture is one of extreme fraternalism and violence. No higher standards can be bred and upheld in such a culture.
If the government says it's legal, it is. That's how the law works.
Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So they would have to overturn this. Good luck with that.
You can't have a beard while in the military either. Grow a beard, you deal with the consequences
Somehow I don't think not being able to grow a beard is the equivalent of not being able to protest for better, more respectful treatment.
Someone a while back said something along the lines of "well, he took an oath to respect the military, so he can't do certain things while in uniform".
Which is, frankly, a huge crock of shit.
You can't expect people to respect an organization that does not respect them back. If the military hates gays so much, maybe it doesn't deserve their respect, hmm?
So are you okay with people wearing military uniform protesting homosexuals serving openly? How about open protest in uniform for better wages? Improved living conditions? Better food? Where does it become not okay to protest military policy in uniform?
People should be able to protest whatever the hell they want.
An organization cannot uphold democratic values such as free speech without practicing them itself.
And Choi was perfectly free to protest whatever the hell he wanted, just not as a representative of the US Army. Do you get the distinction? We're not saying Choi was wrong to protest, we're saying he was wrong to protest in uniform, because while wearing it he is the US army and is making a political statement for the army, not for himself.
Doing something as an act of protest does not relieve you of suffering the consequences for it. If you protest the drinking age by getting drunk at 18, you're still consuming as a minor. If you protest a new law by putting a brick through your representative's window, you're still a vandal. If you protest DADT by actively coming out while you're in uniform, you're still violating the law even if you feel that it isn't valid.
"Act of protest" isn't a panacea against prosecution.
Doing something as an act of protest does not relieve you of suffering the consequences for it. If you protest the drinking age by getting drunk at 18, you're still consuming as a minor. If you protest a new law by putting a brick through your representative's window, you're still a vandal. If you protest DADT by actively coming out while you're in uniform, you're still violating the law even if you feel that it isn't valid.
"Act of protest" isn't a panacea against prosecution.
Would it be different if he wasn't in uniform, but still made it clear that he was a service member?
No, I don't think it would. The reasons for punishing him are more than just the symbolism of wearing a uniform while protesting.
Doing something as an act of protest does not relieve you of suffering the consequences for it. If you protest the drinking age by getting drunk at 18, you're still consuming as a minor. If you protest a new law by putting a brick through your representative's window, you're still a vandal. If you protest DADT by actively coming out while you're in uniform, you're still violating the law even if you feel that it isn't valid.
"Act of protest" isn't a panacea against prosecution.
Would it be different if he wasn't in uniform, but still made it clear that he was a service member?
No, I don't think it would. The reasons for punishing him are more than just the symbolism of wearing a uniform while protesting.
Actively and publicly coming out of the closet as a member of the united states military is grounds for immediate discharge under DADT, whether you're uniformed at the time or not.
Fuck whether his actions reflected well on the military. That's not why we don't let people dress in uniform engage in political activity such as campaigning for office (for yourself or other people) or protesting. The military must be apolitical and subservient to civilian office, not a faction vying for political power.
Doing something as an act of protest does not relieve you of suffering the consequences for it. If you protest the drinking age by getting drunk at 18, you're still consuming as a minor. If you protest a new law by putting a brick through your representative's window, you're still a vandal. If you protest DADT by actively coming out while you're in uniform, you're still violating the law even if you feel that it isn't valid.
"Act of protest" isn't a panacea against prosecution.
Would it be different if he wasn't in uniform, but still made it clear that he was a service member?
No, I don't think it would. The reasons for punishing him are more than just the symbolism of wearing a uniform while protesting.
Actively and publicly coming out of the closet as a member of the united states military is grounds for immediate discharge under DADT, whether you're uniformed at the time or not.
Fuck whether his actions reflected well on the military. That's not why we don't let people dress in uniform engage in political activity such as campaigning for office (for yourself or other people) or protesting. The military must be apolitical and subservient to civilian office, not a faction vying for political power.
A Three Star General urged service members to write to their reps asking them to fight the repeal. He's not being punished.
This in an interesting tidbit:
McHugh said he has talked with some gay soldiers already about the policy. He said the troops wouldn't be discharged for revealing their sexual orientation in those discussions, even though doing so technically violates the law.
Isn't this kind of the same as what Choi did? I mean this guy is completely disregarding the law, stupid though that law is.
And don't try to squeeze away from the conversation by saying this is not the subject of this debate. Because if you're operating from a position where your core belief is that the military subscribes to higher standards, then you're automatically wrong. The entire military culture is one of extreme fraternalism and violence. No higher standards can be bred and upheld in such a culture.
haha oh wow...
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
And don't try to squeeze away from the conversation by saying this is not the subject of this debate. Because if you're operating from a position where your core belief is that the military subscribes to higher standards, then you're automatically wrong. The entire military culture is one of extreme fraternalism and violence. No higher standards can be bred and upheld in such a culture.
haha oh wow...
Yea, what you're saying has no relevance to this thread protein.
Fuck whether his actions reflected well on the military. That's not why we don't let people dress in uniform engage in political activity such as campaigning for office (for yourself or other people) or protesting. The military must be apolitical and subservient to civilian office, not a faction vying for political power.
But he is obviously not making a political statement on behalf of the military, seeing as he is obviously making a political statement against the military. That's why I say his actions may violate te letter of the law, but not the spirit of it.
And don't try to squeeze away from the conversation by saying this is not the subject of this debate. Because if you're operating from a position where your core belief is that the military subscribes to higher standards, then you're automatically wrong. The entire military culture is one of extreme fraternalism and violence. No higher standards can be bred and upheld in such a culture.
haha oh wow...
Yea, what you're saying has no relevance to this thread protein.
On the contrary, it is very relevant, because the military's hatred of gays is a direct result of what I bolded above.
And don't try to squeeze away from the conversation by saying this is not the subject of this debate. Because if you're operating from a position where your core belief is that the military subscribes to higher standards, then you're automatically wrong. The entire military culture is one of extreme fraternalism and violence. No higher standards can be bred and upheld in such a culture.
haha oh wow...
Yea, what you're saying has no relevance to this thread protein.
On the contrary, it is very relevant, because the military's hatred of gays is a direct result of what I bolded above.
haha you rule dude.
That's like saying ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!!!!1111
Stay classy guy.
Greg USN on
FFXIV Petra Ironheart Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
And don't try to squeeze away from the conversation by saying this is not the subject of this debate. Because if you're operating from a position where your core belief is that the military subscribes to higher standards, then you're automatically wrong. The entire military culture is one of extreme fraternalism and violence. No higher standards can be bred and upheld in such a culture.
haha oh wow...
Yea, what you're saying has no relevance to this thread protein.
On the contrary, it is very relevant, because the military's hatred of gays is a direct result of what I bolded above.
haha you rule dude.
That's like saying ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!!!!1111
Stay classy guy.
And don't try to squeeze away from the conversation by saying this is not the subject of this debate. Because if you're operating from a position where your core belief is that the military subscribes to higher standards, then you're automatically wrong. The entire military culture is one of extreme fraternalism and violence. No higher standards can be bred and upheld in such a culture.
haha oh wow...
Yea, what you're saying has no relevance to this thread protein.
On the contrary, it is very relevant, because the military's hatred of gays is a direct result of what I bolded above.
haha you rule dude.
That's like saying ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!!!!1111
Stay classy guy.
Posts
Uh yes, yes in fact it can. Has been for some time now. That you think it should be otherwise is terribly naive. The military is not a democracy. It isn't supposed to be.
By a show of hands, who wants to charge that heavily fortified machine gun nest? Okay, and who wants to stay here and play euchre?
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eUfCA2gJo
I don't remember this debate happening before his arrest.
/euchre!
Sorry I haven't been following him for you. That's wrong too.
I'm sorry, would you care to point out the effective military that was also a democracy? And no, a corporation is not a democracy. It does, however, have to obey the rules of the democracy it's in. Even at the cost of going under.
The military isn't supposed to risk going under.
For or against gays, religion, evil space monkeys or whatever. Yeah, it's fucked up that the people higher up can be open bigots. It doesn't mean it's okay for you to ignore regulations that are for better or worse, seated in a well intentioned portion of reality.
It's not fair, I agree entirely. I don't think there should be an open-hate policy on homosexuals who are willing to be shot at and die for a country and government that hasn't shown them much favor. I also think it probably rallied a lot of support for the cause with what he did.
It also probably angered quite a few people, it's divisive even if it's noble to try.
When you sign, you become property. It sucks, but it's the best way to think of it in a broader sense. There's a reason for it though.
edit: I'm also against cops or anyone else deciding to protest something in government uniform. I don't give a shit if you're in the postal service or a prison guard.
The difference is that they volunteered their lives when they joined. So it doesn't quite matter if someone actually orders them to die, at that point.
Excuse me, but how does protesting equate to disrespect, exactly?
How does one disrespect his fellow soldiers when he protests for better wages, better housing, and generally better treatment, not just for himself but also for his fellow soldiers?
He's putting himself on the line for it, opening himself to possible punishment from the higher ups. There isn't anything disrespectful about that.
There is as soon as you do it in uniform.
edit: Think of it like this,
What if he was in the honor guard and wore his uniform?
The military is not a democracy. It's not an open forum for people to express there wants and and dislikes. Especially when what someone may be protesting may very well be wrong.
Political speech is one of those rights you give up when you sign on the dotted line, as well. You volunteer to undergo certain restrictions in your rights, and that is put forth when you sign. One of the first rules you are taught is no political activity while in uniform. The UCMJ is very cut-and-dried on that point. I don't know why it is so hard to comprehend.
I'm pretty sure the American military does not protect said values. It forces them on other countries. And the only values it has forced on other countries since WWII are capitalism and imperialism.
If you disagree, point out one instance in the last 50 years where American "freedoms" were in danger and the military intervened to uphold them.
Um, just because you sign a paper does not make it legal?
You can sign a paper saying you are now my slave, but if you do that I'm pretty sure we're both going to get into trouble because slavery is illegal.
The tangent is already barely related to the thread. If you want to make a thread about the evils of the U.S. military feel free.
Indeed, there's quite a bit of latitude the military receives that private entities don't. Of course, they're also held to much higher standards and scrutiny.
Much higher standards like hating gays, you mean. :P
I don't mean to imply that the US military is evil. I'm just saying it doesn't uphold the values you think it does.
I assume you're a service member?
...
Right, you're not really intending to have an honest discussion here. You have fun talking to others.
No, I just find your delusion amusing.
The military isn't held to "much higher standards and scrutiny". It's actually pretty amazing that you think that way, because the military is absolutely notorious for the whole "what happens in the military stays in the military" mindset where it is strongly discouraged to talk about the fucked up shit that goes in there and no amount of scrutiny has been able to break through some barriers.
For example.
Same holds true for "higher standards". An example of this is collateral damage. When civilians cause collateral damage, they are tried in court. When the military causes collateral damage, "it's war". Same holds true for accidental killings of bystandards, which would be tried as manslaughter in civilian courts.
No, mate. If anything, the US military is given amazing amounts of leeway and is held to much lower standards and scrutiny than the civilian population.
If the government says it's legal, it is. That's how the law works. You can't have a beard while in the military either. Grow a beard, you deal with the consequences, same as protesting in uniform.
Thirteenth Amendment:
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So they would have to overturn this. Good luck with that.
Somehow I don't think not being able to grow a beard is the equivalent of not being able to protest for better, more respectful treatment.
And Choi was perfectly free to protest whatever the hell he wanted, just not as a representative of the US Army. Do you get the distinction? We're not saying Choi was wrong to protest, we're saying he was wrong to protest in uniform, because while wearing it he is the US army and is making a political statement for the army, not for himself.
"Act of protest" isn't a panacea against prosecution.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Would it be different if he wasn't in uniform, but still made it clear that he was a service member?
No, I don't think it would. The reasons for punishing him are more than just the symbolism of wearing a uniform while protesting.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Exactly, that's what I thought.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This in an interesting tidbit:
Isn't this kind of the same as what Choi did? I mean this guy is completely disregarding the law, stupid though that law is.
haha oh wow...
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Yea, what you're saying has no relevance to this thread protein.
But he is obviously not making a political statement on behalf of the military, seeing as he is obviously making a political statement against the military. That's why I say his actions may violate te letter of the law, but not the spirit of it.
On the contrary, it is very relevant, because the military's hatred of gays is a direct result of what I bolded above.
haha you rule dude.
That's like saying ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!!!!1111
Stay classy guy.
Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
Nice Godwin.
Stay dumb, guy.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I don't think that means what you think it means.