News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Gays responsible for Srebrenica massacre

Started by viper37, March 18, 2010, 05:58:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Admiral Yi

Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:26:22 AM
Will gays as a group be more likely to join up than rednecks as a group? The idea that there would be a higher density of gays in the military may well be valid but not obviously so.
I don't know where you're getting this from.

The Brain

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:30:06 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:26:22 AM
Will gays as a group be more likely to join up than rednecks as a group? The idea that there would be a higher density of gays in the military may well be valid but not obviously so.
I don't know where you're getting this from.

Why would those rural boys suddenly be more confronted with gays in the military than they were in civilian life?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:31:36 AM
Why would those rural boys suddenly be more confronted with gays in the military than they were in civilian life?
Because I think (out) gays skew urban and coastal.

Martinus

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:07:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 05:42:44 AM
Well this does not appear to be an issue in the militaries that allow gay people to serve openly. So what was your point again?
AFAIK there are exactly two peices of evidence that have been entered into the debate on the effect of openly serving gays in the military.  One is an article by a respected US miliitary journal that reviewed the experiences of five or so western armies and found no impact.  The other is the testimony by that General Homohater before Congress that the Dutch Chief of Staff told him gays caused [sic] the Sbrenica massacre.  I haven't read the journal article and I assume you haven't either.  I don't know how they evaluated small unit cohesion before and after the inclusion of gays, I don't know if they focused on combat units, or combat units in combat, or anything at all.  But it's still evidence in favor of inclusion.  So the only question is how much certainty we can attach to the future outcome.

The testimony by the General Homohater is not "evidence" at all - it's an anecdotal testimony of him saying that this is "what he heard" being used as one of the reasons by some unnamed Dutch army people, and then the Dutch army dismissing it as "utter nonsense" through the mouth of its spokesman.

Martinus

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:33:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:31:36 AM
Why would those rural boys suddenly be more confronted with gays in the military than they were in civilian life?
Because I think (out) gays skew urban and coastal.

I think your mistake is to equate out gays and gays who are flamboyant. I think the latter are much less likely to join the military in the first place, not to mention make it through the boot camp.

Neil Patrick Harris is an example of an out gay (and he was great as Colonel Carl Jenkins :P). Ru Paul is an example of a flamboyant one. Big difference.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:34:18 AM
The testimony by the General Homohater is not "evidence" at all - it's an anecdotal testimony of him saying that this is "what he heard" being used as one of the reasons by some unnamed Dutch army people, and then the Dutch army dismissing it as "utter nonsense" through the mouth of its spokesman.
Not by some unnamed Dutch army people, by the Dutch chief of staff.  And not one of the reasons [for the massacre], as "a problem."

Martinus

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:40:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:34:18 AM
The testimony by the General Homohater is not "evidence" at all - it's an anecdotal testimony of him saying that this is "what he heard" being used as one of the reasons by some unnamed Dutch army people, and then the Dutch army dismissing it as "utter nonsense" through the mouth of its spokesman.
Not by some unnamed Dutch army people, by the Dutch chief of staff.  And not one of the reasons [for the massacre], as "a problem."

This has not been confirmed by the Dutch chief of staff, and has been aggressively opposed by the Dutch military in their official statement, saying it's utter nonsense and untrue. There is no evidence he simply didn't make it up.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:38:30 AM
I think your mistake is to equate out gays and gays who are flamboyant. I think the latter are much less likely to join the military in the first place, not to mention make it through the boot camp.

Neil Patrick Harris is an example of an out gay (and he was great as Colonel Carl Jenkins :P). Ru Paul is an example of a flamboyant one. Big difference.
I think you're completely missing the point.  Brain and I were discussing how the exposure of straight military recruits to gays before they enlist.  Nothing at all to do with how many gays will join or how they will act once in uniform.

The Brain

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:33:16 AM
Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:31:36 AM
Why would those rural boys suddenly be more confronted with gays in the military than they were in civilian life?
Because I think (out) gays skew urban and coastal.

I'm too tired and feverish to add "out" to the equation right now. I can't think straight (no fun intended).
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Martinus

Btw:

Quote"Total nonsense," said General Henk van den Breemen, the Dutch chief of staff at the time. The Dutch embassy in Washington dismissed the US officer's argument as worthless, Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch foreign minister said that it was not worth commenting on, and the Dutch defence ministry voiced incredulity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/gay-dutch-soldiers-srebrenica

So it's a fucking lie.

Martinus

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2010, 06:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2010, 06:38:30 AM
I think your mistake is to equate out gays and gays who are flamboyant. I think the latter are much less likely to join the military in the first place, not to mention make it through the boot camp.

Neil Patrick Harris is an example of an out gay (and he was great as Colonel Carl Jenkins :P). Ru Paul is an example of a flamboyant one. Big difference.
I think you're completely missing the point.  Brain and I were discussing how the exposure of straight military recruits to gays before they enlist.  Nothing at all to do with how many gays will join or how they will act once in uniform.

The thing is, the exposure of Southern rednecks to openly gay people who are not flamboyant is greater than zero before they  join - they know people who have no girlfriends and who are suspected of being gay, etc. They will not go through some social shock when they join the military and find such people inside, too.

The Brain

Btw what is the gay situation in American PDs and FDs? What's the official policy? What's the experience? I know nothing about this.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:55:04 AM
Btw what is the gay situation in American PDs and FDs? What's the official policy? What's the experience? I know nothing about this.
No idea.  Never heard of an openly gay dude in either, either positively or negatively.

Martinus

Quote from: The Brain on March 21, 2010, 06:55:04 AM
Btw what is the gay situation in American PDs and FDs? What's the official policy? What's the experience? I know nothing about this.

What's PDs and FDs?

Police and fire departments? I believe openly gay people can serve without problems - there have been at least two tv series with openly gay policemen, and I think one of the 911 firemen heroes was openly gay.

Martinus

Here's the story of one of the most interesting homosexual fireman too (although celibate):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_Judge