Mister Jack Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 Even if what you say is true, the decision shouldn't be made for them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 It's not true. The reason the military decided to allow transgender soldiers is because they studied it for years and determined that doing so improves force readiness. Then Trump comes along and chucks it out the window because he's a bigot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HydrateStandby Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Mister Jack said: Even if what you say is true, the decision shouldn't be made for them. Like I said: decision gets made for a lot of people the way they are born when they decide to join. It sucks and people get rejected for surgeries and/or stuff they were born with. People get rejected for all kinds of medical reasons. Decision isn’t being made for them any differently than someone who was told at Meps that their health isn’t good enough to be fit for full duty because he government isn’t gonna pay for their problems in the future, it’s free healthcare. What kind of research has been done on force readiness besides needing numbers and being undermanned? The only issue with what was done is the transgender people who currently man roles in the military, at that point hundreds of thousands of dollars has been put on a person for training . What I’m saying is definitely a reality though, if I were to go under any hormonal treatment they would say I’m not fit for duty and put me on a shore command doing paperwork. It is a reality and people need to realize there’s consequences to accepting people who need similar treatment in a critical environment where stress is a normal. They don’t have to ban transgender people but they would definitely need to make a policy saying that if you need hormonal treatment regularly then you can’t join without medical citation proving you already went through the transition. I mean not all transgender people are the same but to call it bigotry and not ask why they would implement a policy is a little weird don’t you think? Not all transgender people are the same but they do go through a treatment process. Edited January 8, 2018 by HydrateStandby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 (edited) The DoD determined this wouldn't be a problem. Culture warriors think it's a problem. ETA: "You can’t just join the military to get free surgery and medicine, they should let people join but they should pay for cosmetic surgeries and their own hormones." You can't just join the military to get free classes and an education, they should let people join but they should just pay for the education on their own. But, even better, why should the military disallow treatment for one congenital medical condition and not another? Should the VA not pay for the treatment of any pre-existing condition? Edited January 8, 2018 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 If we're going down a slippery slope then why not go all the way to the bottom? You can't just join the military to get free guns and transportation, they should let people join, but they should pay for their guns and flights. Seriously though, if you can't represent what you are fighting for in the group that are fighting for it, then what is the point? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 I'm not making a slippery slope argument; I'm asking why some seemingly-expensive benefits of service are allowable but others aren't in order to tease out the principles underlying Hydrate's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 @HydrateStandby here's the study: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1530.html I did overstate when I said it improves force readiness, the actual finding was that it does not decrease force readiness. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 8, 2018 Report Share Posted January 8, 2018 Oh, and I want to draw attention to this bit at the bottom of the page: Quote This research was sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 Reading bits and pieces of the full study (I was looking into the hormone therapy issue), seems like it comes down to numbers. While the number is poorly defined, there's just too few transgender people to make a dent, especially after you split them up into categories. Seriously, the transgender population can fits within the error bars for the normal population. As for hormone therapy precluding service in certain places, that's what Britain does. Seems straight forward considering the numbers. And if you guys are going to bring up education and shit. Bring up Viagra, condoms and birth control. I'm quite sure service members get those. Ideally they don't fuck around but the military isn't going to stop it from happening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 Yeah, after I posted that it occurred to me that female servicemembers surely can get hormonal birth control, which is also a hormone treatment that you have to take daily. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted January 9, 2018 Report Share Posted January 9, 2018 I'm just not sure if all hormone treatment for transgender folks can come in pill forms too. The study mentioned refrigeration which would make some forms highly impractical in some cases. I wished this study went more in-depth in defining and explaining things. I went into the study with general ideas and wanted more concrete answers for the hormone treatments. I didn't really get it but the gist of the study makes any issues I have trivial in that you can shuffle or bench them with no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogie 2.0 Posted January 27, 2018 Report Share Posted January 27, 2018 Sorry to bump this thread but, On 1/8/2018 at 1:25 AM, TheMightyEthan said: It's not true. The reason the military decided to allow transgender soldiers is because they studied it for years and determined that doing so improves force readiness. Then Trump comes along and chucks it out the window because he's a bigot. You can't just say things like that Ethan without looking at the whole picture. Not only there's the already complicated matter of women in the military and how it really affects them (please watch this and don't mind the title), there's also the fact that transgenderism itself is still a big sensitive issue with it being only fully supported by some psychologists as really a thing (the same "scientific" branch that branded not long ago homosexuality as a mental illness) and not much but not biology -- don't forget those other psychologists who point their alarming suicide rates to it being an diagnosed mental illness. The military is about the worst place to do social experiments, is it not?Whatever your beliefs here, calling Trump a bigot on a subject as exceptionally complex as this one seems highly unproductive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 27, 2018 Report Share Posted January 27, 2018 Trump has proved time and again he is a bigot on every conceivable axis. He lost the benefit of the doubt long ago, regardless of the larger context. If he does something that appears bigoted then the reasonable assumption is that it is, unless there's strong evidence to the contrary. In this specific situation his stated reason (that it will decrease military readiness) is not backed up by the military's own research, so it screams pretext. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogie 2.0 Posted January 28, 2018 Report Share Posted January 28, 2018 3 hours ago, TheMightyEthan said: (1) Trump has proved time and again he is a bigot on every conceivable axis. He lost the benefit of the doubt long ago, regardless of the larger context. If he does something that appears bigoted then the reasonable assumption is that it is, unless there's strong evidence to the contrary. (2) In this specific situation his stated reason (that it will decrease military readiness) is not backed up by the military's own research, so it screams pretext. (1) Would you mind giving me a specific example of this? I’ve tried googling it but when I keep finding stuff like the word neo-nazi being thrown alongside koi carp, I think I rather have you direct me to one if that’s cool.(2) I think you're referring specifically to the Rand Corp's paper you linked previously. Well, although Trump isn’t specific on this, he does seem to fall on the side of “non-believers” meaning that any expenses here will always just get in the way military readiness for him (thus being fallacious comparing them with e.g. contraceptives). It as if a tiny speck of its vital budget would be spent on transracialism matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 28, 2018 Report Share Posted January 28, 2018 1) Trump has said Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists, Puerto Ricans are lazy, he'd rather have immigrants from Norway than Africa, just to name a few that spring to mind. His attorney general said he thought the KKK were good people until he learned they smoked pot. He said the white nationalists in Charlotte were good people. He's had the Justice Department take the position that it's okay to fire people for being gay and transgender. He keeps appointing homophobic people to various posts (here's one example). And don't forget "grab 'em by the pussy". This is far from everything. (I know I didn't provide links to everything, but I did provide links for the things that weren't major news so you might not have heard of them.) 2) As I said, he lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogie 2.0 Posted January 28, 2018 Report Share Posted January 28, 2018 (edited) First thank you for your trouble and secondly, I apologize for the HU-ge post: 2 hours ago, TheMightyEthan said: (1) Trump has said Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists, (2) Puerto Ricans are lazy, (3) he'd rather have immigrants from Norway than Africa, just to name a few that spring to mind. (4) His attorney general said he thought the KKK were good people until he learned they smoked pot. (5) He said the white nationalists in Charlotte were good people. (6) He's had the Justice Department take the position that it's okay to fire people for being gay and transgender. (7) He keeps appointing homophobic people to various posts (here's one example). (8) And don't forget "grab 'em by the pussy". (1) He said that Mexico keeps sending their criminals to the USA and there’s more than proof of that seeing as its own government has been distributing pamphlets on how do go about it for ages (also, you’re missing a keyword there: illegal Mexicans). (2) That’s a known fake tweet. He said the Mayor of San Juan had “poor leadership ability” among officials since they “want everything to be done for them.” (3) That was clearly about economics, man. Like any other leader, he prefers the crème de la crème and usually a country’s GDP is a good indicator of where to find it – context matters.(4) I couldn’t confirm that, but either way that’s not Trump and I think you’re fallaciously putting them in the same basket. I mean, remember B. Obama’s Secretary of State's shenanigans? Would you also put that on his administration?(5) Err that’s not how it went Ethan. There was a huge crowd there and white nationalists were but a small percentage – he said there were good and bad people on both sides. And, as per usual of him, questioned the press about their unprofessionalism like not condemning/reporting the violent actions of Antifa (now labelled as domestic terrorists) or the “radical-left” of that tragic day. Something which the press are just now finally admitting to have purposely omitted btw.(6) Woah what a blatant a hit piece! Here’s a much better assessment of its complexity.(7) Again, that’s not Trump. But wait, he’s “homophobic” because he’s against same-sex marriage? I know gay guys who also find the notion ludicrous . Also, how does that affect in any way his role with NASA? (8) You mean when he said – more than a decade ago and in private – that a powerful & rich guy like him could do anything to women even stuff like that? I dunno man, that’s seems like a stretch to me. 2 hours ago, TheMightyEthan said: 2) As I said, he lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Uncouth, definitely. But a bigot? Throwing that around as easy as that just diminishes its power; look what’s been happening to the race-card. Edited January 28, 2018 by Bogie 2.0 twas nightmare to format all this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 No music, but still classic fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) Trump is clearly a bigot. Here's a good compilation of the evidence. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html But he's also clearly a lying, cheating, narcisstic, and amoral idiot. I mean, I get he's your man, Bogie, but you ought to respect yourself more than that. Edit: I'm also interested in how folks who support statues of soldiers who believed humans ought to be property based in large part on the color of their skin and who fought a treasonous war to retain the ability to own people aren't effectively white nationalists. Edited January 30, 2018 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 @Bogie 2.0 Sorry for taking so long to reply. I have specific responses to two of your points, and then a more general response to your post as a whole. First, I was not referring to the fake tweet, I was referring to the quote you mentioned. Here's the full twitter thread: Just so we're clear what I meant by that. I admit I was paraphrasing when I used the word "lazy", but I think that's a fair inference to make (Puerto Rican workers won't help, they want everything done for them), especially in light of my general point below. Second, I do think it's fair to judge him by who he appoints. For instance, Sessions was known to be a racist before he was appointed, yet Trump still picked him to head the government department in charge of enforcing civil rights. The fact that that doesn't seem to be a problem for Trump (or the Senate) reflects negatively on his character. For my more general response, there's an adage that I think is applicable: Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. It's nearly always possible to explain away someone's statements and actions as being not as bad as they look, and if we were talking about one or two isolated incidents then I would have to admit that you have a point. But Trump has established a pattern of this kind of thing (I didn't list anywhere close to everything), and that pattern doesn't go away just because most or all of his individual statements and actions can be rationalized when looked at in isolation. They do not occur in a vacuum, and taken together they paint a picture of a very bigoted person. That's why he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but if anyone still believes at this point that Trump has no prejudices then I have some lovely swampland in Florida to sell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogie 2.0 Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 @deanb Here's a tough question for you: who's the bigger d*ck in that video? 5 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said: Trump is clearly a bigot. Here's a good compilation of the evidence. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html An opinion piece from the same paper that admitted to lying about Donald Trump time and time again? What, was Buzzfeed unavailable ? But I’ll read it, let’s see: not specifying he said illegal Mexicans (check), calling him racist for suggesting that some dreamers could actually be contributing to ms-13 (check), claiming without any proof that he said Haitians "all have AIDS," Nigerian immigrants would never "go back to their huts", and that Afghanistan is a terrorist haven (check check check). I’m sorry, not to dismiss your contribution, but that one seems like a waste of time to me even if just for the fact that the race-card is being used as easily as that. 6 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said: I mean, I get he's your man, Bogie, but you ought to respect yourself more than that. He is? How so? That’s like saying JFK’s your man just based on that picture -- a man which could be argued to be one of the worst presidents in US history. 6 hours ago, Mr. GOH! said: Edit: I'm also interested in how folks who support statues of soldiers who believed humans ought to be property based in large part on the color of their skin and who fought a treasonous war to retain the ability to own people aren't effectively white nationalists. I'm not a white nationalist but I "support statues" as you put it. Historical figures are complex with a lot of merits (like a distinguished soldier of the Mexican-American War who freed his own slaves before the American Civil War -- a confederate might I add) and demerits, and cherry-picking their “faults” to fit that narrative seems unfair. I’m including the 5 Lenin statues in the US and I don’t care for his achievements, does that make me a commie? @TheMightyEthan Eh, just be sure to contribute to this thread as a proper apology you lazy bum (i.e. don’t worry ). I’m having a hard time with this guilt-by-association (for the lack of a better word) I think you’re using. Again, using the Obama administration as an example, with Hillary Clinton being caught laughing on tape about how she managed to alleviate the sentence of a child rapist and the victim accusing H.C. of smearing her in court, what would we call him? Now, with Hillary being great friends and financed by Harvey Weinstein – the most open-secret in cuckooland --, what would that make her? Each person I’ve mentioned has multiples “strikes” – ask and ye shall receive if ye what –, so… yeah. I’m inclined to still give him the benefit based on that. With so many sources twisting or lying about what he says, I think you’ll understand my position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 I know it has been said that American politics now is a lot like sports. Well, tonight there was a "USA USA USA" chant near the end of the SOTU address. Burn it all down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 @Bogie 2.0 you keep trying to turn this around on Obama, but here's the thing: I don't like Obama that much either. I think he was better than Trump (and Bush) but that's really not saying a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) Yet Robert E. Lee fought a treasonous war to support chattel slavery. It's wtat he is most known for and the central fact of his legacy. Why is he worthy of veneration? Saying that focusing on a person's involvement in one if the most violent and transformative conflicts in US history is disingenuous and you know it. Citing corrections as poetry of lying in a newspaper is also disingenuous. Neither thing you point out is a lie, and the photo misinterpretion is clearly a mistake. Trumps bigoted trumpeting of the Obama birth certificate thing is rank racism. His ad against the clearly innocent central park 5 was racist. His companies pressured racist and exclusionary policies. But why am I arguing about this with you? Your support the white nationalist goal of venerating confederate statues tells me you are more than comfortable with racism. Additionally, most confederate statues in the South were erected in support of segregation and Jim Crow. Their purpose was divisive and racist. Why is that not a factor for you? If you think Nigeria is only full of huts, well, I'm not surprised you support bigots. Trump is your man based on your defense of him. I would not argue that JFK was a good president at all, incidentally. However he looks retro cool smoking a stogie in a black and white avatar pic. But let's talk about substance; do you support the border wall, deporting dreamers, trickle down economics, civil forfeiture, unprecedented defense spending, outlawing abortion, allowing discrimination based on sex or sexual preference, cracking down on legal marijuana states, a hearth care system like we had before Obama, and protectionist trade measures, or is your support of Trump just trolling? Edited January 31, 2018 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 I'd agree with Goh and Ethan, yeah you could pass off one or two things as a slip of the tongue, or that based on his track record that we should read the context generously, but when he is saying things that are this inflammatory, this often and when he is taking legislative action that hugely, disproportionately has a negative impact on minorities, I don't think you can, in good faith, ascribe that to his being lost in translation. P.S. I don't think we've mentioned the whole "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." thing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.