The Troops are concerned about gays serving openly.

[kaz]

You say you have substance, so let's focus on this. I said you don't understand Atlas Shrugged. How does that lead to the conclusion anyone who disagrees with me on any topic does so because they don't understand? This is typical of how you argue.

WHAT DOES ATLAS SHRUGGED HAVE TO DO WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY?!?!?

You want to talk about how I argue, and you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant topic?

Have you ever looked at your avatar? And note you again dodged the question. You made the statement based on one instance with you that it applies to every case. That is how you argue. Then when called out on it you don't answer for another reason.

 

[bodecea]

Correct. I agree it used to and doesn't anymore. I understand that. I am merely saying when it WAS on the form (used to be) and a person LIED to get in (i.e. lying about committing a gay act), entered the service fraudulantly.

That's a felony, if convicted...

No, that's not at all what you were saying, and even if it were it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It has no bearing on gay people in the military today being supposedly untrustworthy.

Obviously, in addition to being an idiot, you can't read English?
You need it dumbed down further or posted in your native tongue, Arabic?

Oh look! Clever.

 

[bodecea]

So when you argued it's not a gay disease, that did support his contention that straights have every reason to be worried about it. Straights in the military even moreso since they are going to be exposed to gay blood. You had a nice little bit of support for the yota man, didn't you?

How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived. You're starting to ramble incoherently now.

You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it. So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.

Oh, for a bit there, I thought you were serious about HIV concerns in the military. Now it's clear you are not.

Had me going for a second there....yuk! yuk!

 

[kaz]

No, that's not at all what you were saying, and even if it were it would be completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It has no bearing on gay people in the military today being supposedly untrustworthy.

Obviously, in addition to being an idiot, you can't read English?
You need it dumbed down further or posted in your native tongue, Arabic?

Oh look! Clever.

I'm with you on this one. I don't think gekaap's an idiot who can't read English, I think he's an idiot who can read English

 

[gekaap]

Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases. That is actually "evidence." What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?

And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military. The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world. In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged, along with far greater sexual promiscuity, to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission). Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable. Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed. If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

How about you sit down and catch your breath, because your brain seems to be oxygen deprived. You're starting to ramble incoherently now.

You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it. So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.

Oh, for a bit there, I thought you were serious about HIV concerns in the military. Now it's clear you are not.

Had me going for a second there....yuk! yuk!

I was serious there originally. But there's no reason having a serious argument with gekaap and I gave up on it. If you make a serious point I will respond to it seriously though.

 

[bodecea]

You said it's not a gay disease, straights need to be just as worried about it. So if I'm an Islamic terrorist I target the guy in the Humvee with the lace curtains or with the neatest backpack or who's wearing pink socks and I make sure to splatter lots of blood.

Oh, for a bit there, I thought you were serious about HIV concerns in the military. Now it's clear you are not.

Had me going for a second there....yuk! yuk!

I was serious there originally. But there's no reason having a serious argument with gekaap and I gave up on it. If you make a serious point I will respond to it seriously though.

No, you weren't serious. It's pretty evident by your comments.

 

[bodecea]

You say you have substance, so let's focus on this. I said you don't understand Atlas Shrugged. How does that lead to the conclusion anyone who disagrees with me on any topic does so because they don't understand? This is typical of how you argue.

WHAT DOES ATLAS SHRUGGED HAVE TO DO WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY?!?!?

You want to talk about how I argue, and you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant topic?

Have you ever looked at your avatar? And note you again dodged the question. You made the statement based on one instance with you that it applies to every case. That is how you argue. Then when called out on it you don't answer for another reason.

Did he bring up his avatar first?

 

[kaz]

If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.

For you that was a good argument, but you end with this, which kills your credibility and points to agenda. Critical thinking makes people question. You raise good questions and reasons that civilian stats could vary from military ones. To say that and say those are good reasons to doubt that civilian statistics would carry over into the military in the same way would have been completely logical. But no, you had to overreach and concluded that as a fact you'd proven they are irrelevant, which you did not do and shows your argument was only leading to a pre-selected conclusion.

I agree though you raise reasons that civilian statistics may not carry over, but your agenda's still thinly veiled and you don't address the basic question why they need to tell other then you want them to.

 

[kaz]

Oh, for a bit there, I thought you were serious about HIV concerns in the military. Now it's clear you are not.

Had me going for a second there....yuk! yuk!

I was serious there originally. But there's no reason having a serious argument with gekaap and I gave up on it. If you make a serious point I will respond to it seriously though.

No, you weren't serious. It's pretty evident by your comments.

Right, they didn't lead to the inherent truth of liberalism, they couldn't have been serious. My bad.

 

[kaz]

WHAT DOES ATLAS SHRUGGED HAVE TO DO WITH GAYS IN THE MILITARY?!?!?

You want to talk about how I argue, and you keep bringing up this completely irrelevant topic?

Have you ever looked at your avatar? And note you again dodged the question. You made the statement based on one instance with you that it applies to every case. That is how you argue. Then when called out on it you don't answer for another reason.

Did he bring up his avatar first?

No

 

[bodecea]

Have you ever looked at your avatar? And note you again dodged the question. You made the statement based on one instance with you that it applies to every case. That is how you argue. Then when called out on it you don't answer for another reason.

Did he bring up his avatar first?

No

Now, isn't that interesting.

 

[gekaap]

I agree though you raise reasons that civilian statistics may not carry over, but your agenda's still thinly veiled and you don't address the basic question why they need to tell other then you want them to.

You continue to repeat this false premise over and over and over again. Repealing DADT is not about requiring gay people to go on record about their orientation. It is about allowing people's orientation remain a private matter where the government cannot encroach. It's about removing an unconstitutional law that made it illegal for a service member to discuss their orientation in the privacy of their own home with their family.

 

[bodecea]

I was serious there originally. But there's no reason having a serious argument with gekaap and I gave up on it. If you make a serious point I will respond to it seriously though.

No, you weren't serious. It's pretty evident by your comments.

Right, they didn't lead to the inherent truth of liberalism, they couldn't have been serious. My bad.

Fine...curtains on humvees....serious.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases. That is actually "evidence." What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?

And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military. The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world. In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged, along with far greater sexual promiscuity, to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission). Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable. Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed. If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.

Whose ******* Military were you in? You did not describe the military I served in, that's for damned sure.

 

[gekaap]

Whose ******* Military were you in? You did not describe the military I served in, that's for damned sure.

Well then I guess you were asleep for a very long time. Or maybe you just bought into the bill of goods that is sold to pass the facade?

 

[High_Gravity]

Gays are 2% of the population and 66% of all HIV cases. That is actually "evidence." What is your evidence that soldiers are somehow subject to different rates of HIV then the general population?

And I've already explained multiple times that civilian statistics have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the situation in the military. The lifestyle practices and customs in the military regarding relationships and sexuality are completely different than in the civilian world. In the military lifestyle marital infidelity is not only the norm, but is encouraged, along with far greater sexual promiscuity, to include purchasing sex from prostitutes (who are major source of HIV transmission). Safe sex practices (like wearing condoms) are far less at least partially because in the military an uncaring attitude toward high risk behaviors is seen as acceptable and desirable. Meanwhile, regular HIV testing is mandatory in the military, to include pre-deployment screening, with HIV positive patients not getting deployed. If you have even a basic ability for critical thinking, you'd recognize that rates of civilian HIV infections cannot account for these markedly different set of variables, which renders any argument based on civilian statistics as irrelevant.

Whose ******* Military were you in? You did not describe the military I served in, that's for damned sure.

Yeah no doubt, that sounds more like life at a swingers ranch, not Military service.

 

[kaz]

Did he bring up his avatar first?

No

Now, isn't that interesting.

He's the one who kept raising "who" raised an argument, I responded to his points but didn't make that argument, so no, it's not very interesting.

 

[kaz]

I agree though you raise reasons that civilian statistics may not carry over, but your agenda's still thinly veiled and you don't address the basic question why they need to tell other then you want them to.

You continue to repeat this false premise over and over and over again. Repealing DADT is not about requiring gay people to go on record about their orientation. It is about allowing people's orientation remain a private matter where the government cannot encroach. It's about removing an unconstitutional law that made it illegal for a service member to discuss their orientation in the privacy of their own home with their family.

DADT is only to my knowledge being used to say don't ask don't tell, not for the other things you say could happen. If you want to change those other things, I'm OK with that, but you are not arguing for that, you are arguing for them to actually tell.

And I like the irony with your complaint you again raised the Unconstitutional which I keep asking you to justify and not get an answer for.

 

[kaz]

No, you weren't serious. It's pretty evident by your comments.

Right, they didn't lead to the inherent truth of liberalism, they couldn't have been serious. My bad.

Fine...curtains on humvees....serious.

Do you even follow your own posts? You said you thought I was serious, you guess not based on this one, I said I was originally but it was a waste of time, you said no I wasn't, now your point is the one you already said I wasn't serious on. I don't care if you think I was serious or not, but if you read my posts across the board I'm consistently serious for serious posts and not serious for non-serious posts.