I’m looking for the part where you acknowledge that this is part of the issue.
My more liberal friends have never understood why I joined the military in the first place. Couldn’t I get a job? Why do I want to work with rednecks? Why does the military have to have half the federal budget (it isn’t). We could solve all of our financial issues without DoD (we couldn’t).
My same friends want no part of the military, they haven’t shown any concern on how it works, don’t care how the military has to make something like this work, who have only told me it’s too big and costs to much. Now all the sudden they champion transgenders in the military because it will make us “more ready.”
Transgender people in the military will make us no more ready, but it will be harder to manage. If the American people decide that a tiny fraction of the populace must be allowed in the military, regardless of the cost and difficulty than so be it. We’ll salute smartly, add this to the pile of things to do and we’ll make it happen. But let be honest about two things. Those that are championing this issue generally aren’t that supportive of the military, and it’s not about war fighting readiness but about a perceived equity issue for 0.3% of the population.
Let me ask you the opposite question: let’s say that next year, the military services have an absolutely fucking banner year. Instead of getting the typical assortment of recruits that average out to be broadly representative of the American population – like they all have IQs of 100 and sort of struggle to run a 10 minute mile – they get the same number of recruits that are all-star athletes and Rhodes Scholars. They are all as fit as Navy SEALs with the brains of MIT-trained engineers.
Do you think our national security would be somewhat improved by having more skilled and talented people in military service, as opposed to just your 50th percentile, totally average Americans?
I do. Note that I’m not claiming that every transgender person is so far above average. I’m simply establishing that the quality of the people in an organization contributes to the success of the organization. Which is apparently a point that is in contention, for whatever reason.
And even if they don’t lose the top of the crop, shotgun firings have a negative effect on morale, because they mean anybody may get fired just-because.
I have a usual shtick? And I use it enough for you to recognize it? That’s pretty cool.
Oh wait. Not sure where I am playing “devil’s advocate” since I am honestly and actively giving my true opinion on the matter. See below.
This seems disingenuous. I fail to see how I am not arguing honestly since I have clearly and openly stated my opinion:
The ban is wrong. It is stupid. It serves no purpose other than to disenfranchise a group of people from serving or enlisting in our military. It is cruel, bigoted, and idiotic. I would no more suggest that this ban is a good idea then I would chop off my own head. Anyone who is in favor of this ban is a moron.
This ban, if somehow implemented by more than just a tweet, will not affect National Security in any sort of meaningful way. I realize this is different than what I posted originally (not affect in ANY way), but I’ll back down from that extreme, since I’m not a big fan of extreme positions, and I realized that is what I was doing. But, I stand by not affecting National Security in any sort of meaningful way. Our military and our country will not be less effective or less secure in any meaningful sense.
I’m not sure how that is not arguing honestly.
Now, if you can show how losing a couple thousand people from our military will harm our National Security in a real, meaningful sense, then please do. Or insults will be okay too, as long as they are witty and original, if that’s what you like to do.
You may know people who believe that nonsense, and even be one yourself, but that’s the full extent to which it’s part of the issue.
The same readiness arguments were made about blacks, women, and gays. They proved through experience to be bullshit, just like they have when applied to transgenders - the military was *strengthened *by broadening its recruiting base and overcoming bigotry.
Yes, let’s be honest, and recognize that those statements are false.
Are you? Then when are you going to start doing it? Seems like a valuable skill that you are wasting by only continually posting nonsense and other drivel.
In this case yes. I bet you disagree with McCain all the time. You probably disagree with him more than you agree with him. Why is he the bellwether all the sudden?
I wasn’t aware that we were supposed to just declare blanket statements in Great Debates (where you started this thread) without providing any proof or evidence of the thought. Hmmm, guess I got this whole debate thing wrong. But since it’s been moved to the Pit, probably because you were just emotionally ranting and offered no debate or substance to your proclamations, I guess any evidence isn’t necessary, just blind agreement with you.
But since you seem to require validation by anonymous users on a message board, I’ll help you out: “OMG iiandyiiii!! Your grasp of the material and emotional harms deriving from a tweet from the president is spot-on! I’m not sure where you received the education, intellect, and empathy required to so succinctly sum up the harms that will result from this ban, but I would like to donate my entire retirement fund to the institute you attended, just to make sure others will be able to proudly state without fear the consequences such a ban will have on our great nation! Thank you for opening my eyes to the disasters awaiting if, God in heaven forbid, this ban is implemented. I will continuously remember who awakened my senses to the harm this ban will have on this great country’s National Security, and sleep well knowing you are out there to keep us all abreast of societal ills like this ban. Good show, my dear Sir!”
Much progress. Now the only disagreement is on the meaning of “meaningful way” and “meaningful sense”. That’s not a particularly interesting distinction to me, so I’m not going to spend any more effort on disputing it. Thank you for recharacterizing your position.
Because if you’re painting opponents of the President’s policy as generally being non-national security types who just want “social experimentation” or whatever the buzzword is, then you must have a hard time explaining why anyone should buy into your ad hominem attacks that clearly do not apply to a person who is undoubtedly one the most respected national security experts over the past few decades.
So if a soldier enlists with a dingaling, but later no longer has a dingaling, I’m proposing that she be treated with the same principles as General Shinseki was. Namely, if you want to kick someone out because they are a soldier who can no longer do their job, fine; if you want to kick them out because they are doing a good job but are now missing a body part they had when they enlisted, that’s not a good reason. I’m sorry I have to keep explaining this to you, dingdong.
This liberal (and tons of other liberals) served in the military. But I’m sure you already knew that.
Strongly disagree with this. The military is much, much more adaptable than you seem to think. Once soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines learn that trans people are just as capable as anyone else (which they’ll learn just as quickly as they/we did for black people, women, and gays serving) then resistence will evaporate – and many have already learned this. What matters most is “can you do the job” to the vast majority of servicefolks. And having even a slightly larger pool of recruits, as well as not booting skilled and experienced folks for no good reason, does actually increase our readiness, even if it’s by a small amount.
I would wonder (I am wondering) IF any generals or corporals or raw recruits recommended anything to Trump.
I doubt it. Assuming Trump always lies (the safest bet in the world) I would think (and I do) that he came up with this all on his own, but doesn’t have the fucking balls to “own” it.