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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
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.
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?
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
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
Posts
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So gains that are not instaneous and obvious must not have/be happened/happening at all?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
(One wasn't even in the Army! Nice one, genius!)
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
And that, that was my point. Ring a ding ding
Actually she wrote a book claiming she was raped when she wasn't but that's neither here nor there
I never said they were leaders of the army. I also never said they were in the Army. Good reading comprehension, genius.
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?
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 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?
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
Uhh...America's Army and Audie Murphy's life in general are really the only two I can think of