Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Don't Ever Apologize. It's a Sign of Weakness[*]
The AP reports that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "won't apologize for calling homosexuality immoral" in an interview yesterday with the Chicago Tribune:
Pace was asked about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don't engage in homosexual acts.
Pace said he supports the policy, which became law in 1994 and prohibits commanders from asking about a person's sexual orientation.
"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."...
"As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," he said.
Pace didn't or wouldn't respond to a 2005 Government Accountability Report which found that 10,000 members of the military, including 750 whose specialities were "critical" to the war on terror, have been cashiered since Don't Ask, Don't Tell went into effect. Nor, apparently, did he comment on a December 2006 Zogby poll which found that almost three-quarters of military folks were "comfortable" serving with gays and lesbians. More on that here.
The AP article ends by noting that
John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.
"These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers," Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.
[*]: Headline allusion explained. Scroll down about 14 exchanges.
|3.13.07 @ 1:12PM|#
Unfortunately, the brass is going to be way behind on the cultural curve in acceptance of gays (Pace graduated from Annapolis in 1967). Fortunately, they are probably professional enough that they'll accept it if the President or Congress tells them to suck it up. Unfortunately, this probably couldn't happen until 2009 at the earliest.
|3.13.07 @ 1:17PM|#
"'...just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we
were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's
wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We
prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,' he said."
We do?
|3.13.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Shannon Chamberlain,
The military does, yes.
I like the comparison of adultery with orientation, though. Pace
didn't go for the obvious ones like polygamy and / or
bestiality.
|3.13.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Yes Shannon, we do.
There was a case a few years ago where a female pilot, married I
believe, was having an affair with the spouse of someone in her
unit.
IIRC, they court martialed her and kicked her out of the
service.
|3.13.07 @ 1:29PM|#
I like the comparison of adultery with orientation, though.
Pace didn't go for the obvious ones like polygamy and / or
bestiality.
Adultery is a choice made by an individual rather than the inherent
nature of an individual.
This characterization of "immoral behavior" is particularly
annoying because it treats homosexuality as a choice -- "these
soldiers are choosing to engage in an immoral act". Cheating on a
spouse is an immoral act. Taking a partner that you are attracted
to is a natural action almost all human beings engage in.
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 1:32PM|#
One man taking another man's girl could cause dissension and squabbling within a unit, thus making the case for prosecuting adultery. The only way this could be vaguely related to gays is if one takes away another one's man...
|3.13.07 @ 1:33PM|#
a December 2006 Zogby poll which found that almost
three-quarters of military folks were "comfortable" serving with
gays and lesbians.
Doesn't that mean that over a quarter of our military folks
don't feel comfortable serving with pubic
homosexuals?
I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1 in 4
of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they don't
feel comfortable with asking a bit much?
Todd F|3.13.07 @ 1:35PM|#
I still don't get it though, they prosecute immoral behavior my
ass. I remember visiting my brother on a base in Germany. Staying
in his apartment, I was greeted with the joyful sounds of the
downstairs neighbor beating his wife on a nightly basis. The wife
across the hall had a different man with her every night, her
husband was in Iraq I was told. Meanwhile my brother routinely
drank himself unconscious when off duty.
Its a joke anyway, insisting that a group of 18-25 year olds (for
the most part) living away from their parents for the first time
with free housing and relatively large amounts of disposable income
are going to be responsible or verging on saints. It's true that
the majority of these men/women are nothing but professionals of
the highest caliber on duty, and my brother and his colleagues have
my deepest respect and gratitude. But to insist that they are the
face of moral behavior off duty is a farce, as is the assertion
that various types of moral failings get equal treatment in the
military.
Penry|3.13.07 @ 1:35PM|#
"Cheating on a spouse is an immoral act. Taking a partner that
you are attracted to is a natural action almost all human beings
engage in."
More specifically, cheating on your spouse violates the marriage
contract you freely entered into, whereas most gays have never
taken vows of heterosexuality.
|3.13.07 @ 1:36PM|#
How does the Navy feel about a married female Captain having an affair then driving across Texas in a diaper? She is out of NASA, but back on duty as a Naval officer.
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 1:37PM|#
This characterization of "immoral behavior" is particularly
annoying because it treats homosexuality as a choice . .
.
Currently, homosexuality is defined by behavior and behavior
only.
Different item, same thread, yes I am with the others in knowing
that adultry is currently still actively prosecuted. A General
"plea-bargained" into a lesser command about 2 years ago for being
charged with an adulterous act the day before his divorce was
granted.
All sorts of other acts, that folks out on the street don't see as
that big of a deal. Like the wife of a service member giving lap
dances of other service members at a party.
|3.13.07 @ 1:37PM|#
ChicagoTom,
You are right in saying that a homosexual does not choose his/her
orientation. However, engaging in sexual acts is a choice, and
since most heterosexuals are not serving with their spouses, it's a
case where anyone engaging in sexaul activity while deployed is
subject to prosecution.
|3.13.07 @ 1:37PM|#
ChicagoTom,
As a clarification, I don't actually "like" Pace's comparison and I
agree with you that it's bullshit. It was just a novel argument
that I hadn't seen before and hence my comment.(Although, in his
favor I mischaracterized what he said slightly. He was comparing
the behaviors not necessarily criticizing the orientation.)
|3.13.07 @ 1:38PM|#
I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1
in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they
don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?
Not at all much. As a soldier, there are many things you don't
"feel comfortable doing" but you suck it up and do it.
I'm sure there were lots of white soldiers that didn't feel
comfortable serving with black soldiers in the same units at some
point. They got over it.
|3.13.07 @ 1:39PM|#
I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1
in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they
don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?
I wonder what percentage of soldiers in WWII and Korea felt the
same way about sleeping and serving with black soldiers, and does
it really matter? We segregated our military in those conflicts to
accommodate the sensibilities of bigots. That was a mistake.
Todd F|3.13.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Regardless the morality of it should be weighed against the
pragmatic implications.
Personally I don't care if 1/4 of service men feel uncomfortable
with gays in certain positions. Don't they feel more uncomfortable
that we've fired their translators and have lost out on
intelligence that could keep them alive on the battlefield or help
to find terrorists.
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 1:40PM|#
Staying in his apartment, I was greeted with the joyful
sounds of the downstairs neighbor beating his wife on a nightly
basis. The wife across the hall had a different man with her every
night, her husband was in Iraq I was told. Meanwhile my brother
routinely drank himself unconscious when off duty.
All of that is actionable. What is your point? I agree that not
enough of this is reported and handled properly, if that is your
point.
|3.13.07 @ 1:40PM|#
If people disagree with Pace, they should say so. But what does the guy have to apologize for? A lot of people believe homosexuality is immoral. They may not be right, but it is a free country and they have every right to believe that and say that. Either we have a free country where people can express their opinions or not. Pace doesn't owe anyone an apology anymore than the people who disgree with him owe Pace an apology for calling him an idiot. I hate this "you must apologize for every non-PC opinion you ever express" environment. Bullshit. You say something, you run the risk of people calling you out for it, but there is nothing that says you should have to apologize for what you believe.
|3.13.07 @ 1:41PM|#
I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1
in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they
don't feel comfortable with asking a bit much?
Substitute "black people" or "ethnic minorities" for "homosexuals."
Would anybody argue for a segregated army based on that poll?
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 1:42PM|#
I wonder what percentage of soldiers in WWII and Korea felt
the same way about sleeping and serving with black soldiers, and
does it really matter? We segregated our military in those
conflicts to accommodate the sensibilities of bigots. That was a
mistake.
It was already segregated then. Perhaps I missed your
meaning.
Barry Goldwater got the Arizona Air Guard desegregated before
Truman did anything like that with the active forces.
|3.13.07 @ 1:42PM|#
All right, now I'm kind of stuck on the fact that we court martial people for adultery. How is that right--or, for that matter, justified vis a vis the purpose of the military?
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 1:44PM|#
crimethink | March 13, 2007, 1:33pm | #
a December 2006 Zogby poll which found that almost three-quarters
of military folks were "comfortable" serving with gays and
lesbians.
Doesn't that mean that over a quarter of our military folks don't
feel comfortable serving with pubic homosexuals?
I hate to get all "half empty" on y'all, but isn't forcing 1 in 4
of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe with people they don't
feel comfortable with asking a bit much?
Crimethink, Do you think that forcing atheists to say the pledge of
allegiance is asking a bit much?
Do you think that forcing them to use money that contains the words
"in god we trust" a bit much?
I have no facts, but I'm sure the military does not discriminate
against atheists, right? What of the people that feel uncomfortable
serving with atheists? With women for that matter? With
blacks?
If that 1/4 doesn't like it, they can stay at home. There's still
another 3/4 that will proudly serve with them.
|3.13.07 @ 1:44PM|#
However, engaging in sexual acts is a choice, and since most
heterosexuals are not serving with their spouses, it's a case where
anyone engaging in sexaul activity while deployed is subject to
prosecution.
stop it crimethink. That isn't what is happening. The policy of the
army isn't "no sex allowed" is it? Pace isn't saying that its wrong
for anyone in the army to be having sex. They are throwing out
people who are found to have significant others waiting for them
who happen to be of the same sex.
Single heterosexual soldiers aren't banned from having sex on leave
or whatnot. In fact many hetero soldiers even form relationships
with the locals where they are deployed and marry them or whatever.
None of that is punished. Nor is it considered "immoral" -- So
please spare us the bullshit
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Single heterosexual soldiers aren't banned from having sex
on leave or whatnot.
Ahem, it depends on where you do it.
Penry|3.13.07 @ 1:47PM|#
"isn't forcing 1 in 4 of our fighting forces to sleep and bathe
with people they don't feel comfortable with asking a bit
much?"
Whereas asking them to get their nuts blown off in Iraq is a
perfectly reasonable request.
I'm perplexed by the idea that the American fighting men who
valiantly battle Iraqi insurgents are in dread terror of someone
fruity in the shower.
|3.13.07 @ 1:47PM|#
This is quite different from racial segregation. Despite our enlightened views of gender equality, we still segregate bathrooms and dressing rooms between men and women, so as to avoid forcing people to expose themselves in view of those who may be sexually aroused by one's naked body. I don't know how more enlightened men feel, but if I'm in a locker room shower with a guy I know is homosexual, I won't feel comfortable, just like I wouldn't feel comfortable with a random woman next to me.
|3.13.07 @ 1:47PM|#
However, engaging in sexual acts is a choice, and since most
heterosexuals are not serving with their spouses, it's a case where
anyone engaging in sexaul activity while deployed is subject to
prosecution.
That assumes that all the heterosexuals serving are married or that
the military routinely prosecutes married soldiers who discreetly
visit prostitutes, neither of which is true.
|3.13.07 @ 1:48PM|#
John,
People are free to ask for the apology. He is free to do so or
not.
Frankly he was an idiot for saying what he believed about the
morality of gay sex when he had a perfectly acceptable response in
the form of "Our civilian leadership sets the policy for acceptable
behavior within Constitutional bounds. My job is to implement that
policy."
|3.13.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Either we have a free country where people can express their
opinions or not. Pace doesn't owe anyone an apology anymore than
the people who disgree with him owe Pace an apology for calling him
an idiot.
I dunno if he should apologize, but the government should issue an
apology. He was speaking as a government representative, not merely
about his personal beliefs. The government should not be
discriminating against homosexuals.
I don't care what Pace or anyone else personally believes. But when
they are speaking in the capacity representing the government then
they should keep their morality to themseleves. The government is
supposed all Americans not just the "moral" ones, no?
|3.13.07 @ 1:51PM|#
It was already segregated then.
So? Did I ever indicate that our troops weren't segregated prior to
WWII, and why does that matter?
Perhaps I missed your meaning.
No kidding.
Barry Goldwater got the Arizona Air Guard desegregated before
Truman did anything like that with the active forces.
No one said anything about Barry Goldwater or Truman. What the hell
are you talking about, and why can't you ever make relevant
comments?
|3.13.07 @ 1:51PM|#
we still segregate bathrooms and dressing rooms between men
and women, so as to avoid forcing people to expose themselves in
view of those who may be sexually aroused by one's naked
body.
Uhmm..that's not true. There is no special locker room for gay men
at the gym. That "segregation" happens based on which parts people
have not who gets aroused by those parts.
Even in your own locker room example....you may not "feel
comfortable" (poor baby) but there really isn't anything you can do
about it right?? Either you can switch gyms and try to find one
that has no gays (good luck) or you can suck it up
IMDB.com|3.13.07 @ 1:52PM|#
Captain Nathan Brittles: You're not quite "Army" yet,
miss... or you'd know never to apologize... it's a sign of
weakness.
Olivia Dandridge: Yes, but this was your last patrol and I'm to
blame for it.
Captain Nathan Brittles: Only the man who commands can be blamed.
It rests on me... mission failure!
shouldn't it be "mission akkomplishd". what with the liberul media
'n' all?
|3.13.07 @ 1:52PM|#
It always amuses me when someone brings out the "it will make
people uncomfortable to serve with gay people." Some members of the
military are no doubt uncomfortable with:
The purpose of their missions
Being separated from their families from months on end
Serving alongside women
Serving alongside people of different racial, ethnic or religious
groups
However, no one rushes in to say "Oh, you poor baby" to these.
|3.13.07 @ 1:52PM|#
The government is supposed all Americans not just the
"moral" ones, no?
Should have read:
The government is supposed represent all
Americans, not just the "moral" ones, no?
|3.13.07 @ 1:53PM|#
This is quite different from racial segregation. Despite our
enlightened views of gender equality, we still segregate bathrooms
and dressing rooms between men and women, so as to avoid forcing
people to expose themselves in view of those who may be sexually
aroused by one's naked body. I don't know how more enlightened men
feel, but if I'm in a locker room shower with a guy I know is
homosexual, I won't feel comfortable, just like I wouldn't feel
comfortable with a random woman next to me.
Do you feel better being naked in a locker room with closeted and
repressed gays?
|3.13.07 @ 1:53PM|#
"I don't know how more enlightened men feel, but if I'm in a
locker room shower with a guy I know is homosexual, I won't feel
comfortable, just like I wouldn't feel comfortable with a random
woman next to me."
Get over yourself. You're not that hot.
|3.13.07 @ 1:57PM|#
The reason for separating on the basis of which parts you have,
though, is because it is presumed that each gender is attracted to
the other's parts. Obviously, the possible presence of homosexuals
is going to screw up the implementation of that principle, but it
remains the underlying principle.
The reason men are not allowed in women's locker rooms is not
because their parts don't match, but because they are presumed to
want to ogle at naked women.
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 1:57PM|#
I think Crimethink is just afraid these big muscular gay men are
going to force him on his feeble, weak, pasty knees and...
'nuff said.
|3.13.07 @ 1:58PM|#
And everyone...make sure that no one brings up crimethink's
religious beliefs.
They are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. His religious
beliefs have no bearing on his position
|3.13.07 @ 2:00PM|#
de stijl / damaged justice,
All right, I'm a little chubby...and a little hairy...but you never
know, there's some weird fetishes out there...
|3.13.07 @ 2:01PM|#
The reason men are not allowed in women's locker rooms is
not because their parts don't match, but because they are presumed
to want to ogle at naked women.
Maybe, but I think it's just as fair to assume that the reason we
are segregated by sex and not sexual orientation is that people
aren't as intriguied by the parts they currently have.
By your logic, you would be completely comfortable with lesbians in
your locker room, right?
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 2:01PM|#
John,
If Pace has any say in continuing or changing or eliminating "Don't
ask, don't tell", then it's absolutely an issue if he's injecting
his personal morality into the debate. Otherwise, yes, who gives a
shit?
|3.13.07 @ 2:03PM|#
I think this is really a generational thing. I know very few
people under the age of 40 in the military who care if homosexuals
are allowed to serve openly. In addition, this is much more of a
female issue than a male issue. The percentage of gay men who want
to serve in the military is very low. Gay men in the military are
few and far between. Women on the other hand are a different story.
There are a lot more gay women who want to join than gay men. If
anyone is going to be effected by openly serving gays, it will be
straight women not straight men.
As far as the morality of homosexuality, that has no bearing on the
policy. Gambling, drinking and going to strip clubs is in many
people's view just as immoral as homosexuality, yet we don't kick
people out for that stuff. The issue is what would lifting the
policy do to moral and readiness and I really can't see how it
would make a dime's worth of difference to moral and readiness if
you lifted the policy.
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 2:03PM|#
What about guys that claim to be heterosexual, and lead normal, heterosexual lives, but foray into homosexual acts on occasion. Surely, they might be turned on in the showers as well. What then, do you kick them out as well?
|3.13.07 @ 2:04PM|#
As for my personal feelings, it's not a matter of fear; I'm not worried about most women being able to harm me, for instance, but I still wouldn't expose myself in front of them. I don't really have a rational explanation for such inhibitions, but they're present in me (and in almost everyone else) just the same.
|3.13.07 @ 2:04PM|#
"If Pace has any say in continuing or changing or eliminating
"Don't ask, don't tell", then it's absolutely an issue if he's
injecting his personal morality into the debate."
So no one can ever inject their moral thoughts into any law or
policy? Would you apply this to other areas? Should a legislator
who beleives gambling is immoral recuse himself from voting on
gambling legislation? Are policy makers suppose to check their
morality at the door when going to work? If so, how exactly are
they supposed to make decisions?
|3.13.07 @ 2:06PM|#
The reason men are not allowed in women's locker rooms is
not because their parts don't match, but because they are presumed
to want to ogle at naked women.
I think one reason might be that lots of "moral" heterosexual men
act abominably towards women, that sexual crimes by heterosexual
servicemen against servicewomen is out of control, and that's
without them even showering together.
Men who aren't comfortable showering with someone they know is gay
will get over that discomfort after about the third or fourth
shower in which nothing happens. I was uncomfortable showering with
any guys before I got to junior high. The discomfort passed after a
short time.
Army men are tough. If it takes a few uncomfortable showers to end
the official bigotry against homosexuals, so be it.
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 2:09PM|#
John,
Most times they make decisions based on which lobbying group pays
the most...morals be damned.
I am curious to know how many land based casinos backed the anti
internet poker legislation. Surely not because of morals, even
though that is what's claimed.
|3.13.07 @ 2:09PM|#
By your logic, you would be completely comfortable with
lesbians in your locker room, right?
Wouldn't you have to have a rule of one lesbian per room, though?
Otherwise they'd get uncomfortable.
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 2:09PM|#
it's not a matter of fear
Yes, in this case, the "phobia" refers to "hatred" or "disgust",
not fear.
So no one can ever inject their moral thoughts into any law or
policy?
Of course not. If the morality is wrong, they should be roundly and
loudly condemned for it. That's what makes it an "issue".
Dan T.|3.13.07 @ 2:10PM|#
"Don't ask don't tell" seems like a good compromise to me.
It disallows bigotry but maindates a certain set of behaviors -
which is what the military is all about.
What's the problem?
|3.13.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Didnt Churchill, a hero of Pace's I'll wager, say something like "Don't blather on about military tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy and the lash."
|3.13.07 @ 2:11PM|#
ChicagoTom,
I'm not so sure that asexual curiosity about other people's parts
is as much a problem; even heterosexual guys look at each other to
"compare" etc., and if a guy has something weird about his privates
in a school locker room he might be made fun of for it, but these
things aren't at the same level as someone with a sexual interest
in your privates.
jimmydageek,
What about guys that claim to be heterosexual, and lead normal,
heterosexual lives, but foray into homosexual acts on occasion.
Surely, they might be turned on in the showers as well.
As long as no one else knows about it, they won't have reason to
feel uncomfortable. Hence "don't ask, don't tell" works just fine
in that regard.
Jeff P.|3.13.07 @ 2:14PM|#
If they reinstate the draft, we should all demand that gays be
banned. Watch how many gays pop up then.
Gay will be the new Canada.
|3.13.07 @ 2:15PM|#
What's the problem?
There are lots of problems with it.
It institutionalizes bigotry. "Gays are bad so keep quiet about it"
Now if the policy were expanded so that anyone who talks about
their sexuality at all can get shit-canned then that would be more
acceptable. making a groups of people lie/hide the truth about
yourselves is discriminatory.
It forces gays to pretend to be something they are not. Not the
best way to build relationships with people whose lives are in your
hands and vice versa.
Also, if someone else outs you, despite your going to great lengths
to conceal your homosexuality you still can get shit-canned
|3.13.07 @ 2:15PM|#
By your logic, you would be completely comfortable with
lesbians in your locker room, right?
No, because if she's hot, I'd...I mean, the other guys would... be
ogling her. And if she's unoglable, I definitely don't
want to see her naked.
Anita Dickens-Hyde|3.13.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"I don't know how more enlightened men feel, but if I'm in a
locker room shower with a guy I know is homosexual, I won't feel
comfortable, just like I wouldn't feel comfortable with a random
woman next to me."
Crimethink, would you feel more "comfortable" showering with
someone who is openly gay, or with someone who was in fact gay but
had not disclosed his orientation?
I for one worry that one who gets heebie jeebies at the thought of
showering may lack the basic courage that society expects of its
service members.
|3.13.07 @ 2:15PM|#
"Most times they make decisions based on which lobbying group
pays the most...morals be damned.
I am curious to know how many land based casinos backed the anti
internet poker legislation. Surely not because of morals, even
though that is what's claimed."
All of that is true. That doesn't mean that one's moral beliefs
should never come into play.
"Of course not. If the morality is wrong, they should be roundly
and loudly condemned for it. That's what makes it an
"issue"."
Why don't you just admit the truth that you don't like what he said
and drop the part about objecting to moralizing? You don't object
to moralizing, you just object to moralizing you disagree with.
|3.13.07 @ 2:16PM|#
ChicagoTom, Chris S, NotThatDavid,
I was about to say, Damn, you're all faster than me, then I
remembered.
Ha!
|3.13.07 @ 2:17PM|#
"Don't ask don't tell" seems like a good compromise to
me.
It disallows bigotry but maindates a certain set of
behaviors
Except for that whole "equal treatment under the law" dealie.
rum, sodomy and the lash
Plus, a hell of a good album by The Pogues.
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Chris S.,
Because this phrasing
We segregated our military in those conflicts to accommodate
the sensibilities of bigots. reads like it was something
special we did for those conflicts.
Tossing a little fit about this really does not help the
discussion.
|3.13.07 @ 2:19PM|#
A man can be absolutely stouthearted in battle and still not like the idea of a gay man staring at his naked rear end. The two are completely independent.
|3.13.07 @ 2:19PM|#
I'm not so sure that asexual curiosity about other people's
parts is as much a problem; even heterosexual guys look at each
other to "compare" etc., and if a guy has something weird about his
privates in a school locker room he might be made fun of for it,
but these things aren't at the same level as someone with a sexual
interest in your privates.
Actually, to people who aren't homophobic, these things are exactly
at the same level. In fact, I would be much more uncomfortable if I
thought straight men were judging me for the size (or lack) of my
pecker than a gay man looking at me and thinking "wow he's
hot".
And I noticed you ignored my question about lesbian women in the
male locker room.
Dan T.|3.13.07 @ 2:20PM|#
It institutionalizes bigotry. "Gays are bad so keep quiet
about it" Now if the policy were expanded so that anyone who talks
about their sexuality at all can get shit-canned then that would be
more acceptable. making a groups of people lie/hide the truth about
yourselves is discriminatory.
It forces gays to pretend to be something they are not. Not the
best way to build relationships with people whose lives are in your
hands and vice versa.
It's the military. The whole idea is to lose your individual
identity and do what you're told. If you don't want to conform,
find something else to do.
|3.13.07 @ 2:21PM|#
With all the money spent on the military, is it true that we
still don't have separate shower stalls for the troops?
I don't want to shower with anyone (other than my wife). I don't
give a crap whether they are gay, straight, or purple.
|3.13.07 @ 2:22PM|#
It's the military. The whole idea is to lose your individual
identity and do what you're told. If you don't want to conform,
find something else to do.
The point, trolly, is that only a small segment of the enlisted men
are expected to lose their individuality. Like I said. If everyone
had to conform to a don't ask don't tell that would be different.
but singling out certain members of a class like that is
problematic.
|3.13.07 @ 2:22PM|#
It's the military. The whole idea is to lose your individual
identity and do what you're told. If you don't want to conform,
find something else to do.
Dan T.,
It's our military. We can decide what kind of military we have.
|3.13.07 @ 2:22PM|#
The general must believe homosexuality to be a choice for him to
believe it immoral. Every gay man and lesbian woman I have ever
known, (about 25 total)were molested sexually as children. I tend
to believe it is a chosen lifestyle as a result of a horrific
experience as a child.
The general is entitled to his opinion, but is he entitled to
express an opinion if it is contrary to army doctrine?
|3.13.07 @ 2:25PM|#
Homosexual orientation is not a choice.
Engagement in sexual activity is, however, regardless of the
genital combinations involved.
|3.13.07 @ 2:26PM|#
"All right, now I'm kind of stuck on the fact that we court
martial people for adultery. How is that right--or, for that
matter, justified vis a vis the purpose of the military?"
The reasoning behind this, at least from my perspective, is that if
you can't abide by the contract you swore to keep faithful to the
one you love, your ability to abide by the oath to protectserve a
country that sends you off to die in some godforsaken deathhole is
suspect.
Frankly I think the military should consider the willingness to
engage in marriage prior evidence that a recruit is unfit due to
mental illness.
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Why don't you just admit the truth blah blah blah
Maybe I misspoke. When I said "of course not" I was rejecting your
entire sentence, not agreeing with it. I DON'T object to moralizing
in general.
|3.13.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Ooh, Bad General! Bad!!
You're supposed to pretend that discriminating against homosexuals
has absolutely nothing to do with your personal beliefs. Repeat
after me: "It's about unit cohesion and readiness. It's about unit
cohesion and readiness."
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Don't ask don't tell policy: While in battle,
extremely homophobic man learns that one of his fellow servicemen
is gay! Thoughts run through his head about how betrayed he feels
after all the times he had to shower with that fudge-packer
probably staring at his ass the whole time. Rage ensues, friendly
fire at said homosexual, or fail to protect said homosexual as he
should be doing.
No "don't ask don't tell" policy Everybody that
really cares is aware of everybody else's sexual orientation. They
either get used to it or they transfer units or they get ousted. No
possible betrayal at the battle lines.
Extreme case scenario? Maybe. But I'd rather it not happen
once.
|3.13.07 @ 2:29PM|#
"Frankly I think the military should consider the willingness to
engage in marriage prior evidence that a recruit is unfit due to
mental illness."
AMEN!
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I wonder if crimethink's high school gym class segregated openly
gay and straight students. It would seem since students are
essentially forced to shower in that environment (and ALL the males
are looking everywhere at that age and doing "comparisons") there
is a fairly clear parallel.
In any case, on DADT generally I find it fascinating that Israel
Italy, and Japan (among many other countries) allow open
homosexuals to serve in the military. I don't believe studies in
these or other countries have noted a signifigant drop in either
morale or military service. Nor did I note any friction between gay
soldiers from other countries such as Australia, Britain, Ireland
etc. and American troops serving in Iraq. Perhaps I missed that
story.
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 2:32PM|#
Every gay man and lesbian woman I have ever known, (about 25
total)were molested sexually as children.
How is that anecdote even remotely relevant? (By the way, the
implication your drawing is completely untrue.)
The Wine Commonsewer|3.13.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Frankly I think the military should consider the willingness
to engage in marriage prior evidence that a recruit is unfit due to
mental illness.
The USMC made it clear to us that wives weren't welcomed with open
arms by the military. I heard this said by DI's more than
once:
Private, if this Man's Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife, we
would have issued you one.
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 2:35PM|#
And I noticed you ignored my question about lesbian women in
the male locker room.
Many don't even want guys in "their" bars, what would they be doing
in a guy's locker room?
Accidentally walk into "Phase 1" in DC if you don't believe
that.
|3.13.07 @ 2:36PM|#
I don't think any of my classmates were openly gay, for the simple reason that no one got beaten up in the showers. Not my doing, I merely foretell.
|3.13.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Homosexual orientation is not a choice.
Engagement in sexual activity is, however, regardless of the
genital combinations involved.
So the military should regulate ALL sexual activities of ALL
soldiers? How could this be accomplished?
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 2:37PM|#
ALL the males are looking everywhere at that age and doing
"comparisons"
Speak for yourself. I never once looked, for fear of getting the
shit beat out of me.
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 2:38PM|#
How is that anecdote even remotely relevant? (By the way,
the implication your drawing is completely untrue.)
Well, it does track with Loveline callers. But Drew and (when he
was on ) Adam do caution that it was only from callers to their
show and should not be assumed about the general population.
Hey! I think you two could put on a show! What is a catchy name for
Libertarian . . .
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Rhywun | March 13, 2007, 2:37pm | #
ALL the males are looking everywhere at that age and doing
"comparisons"
Speak for yourself. I never once looked, for fear of getting the
shit beat out of me.
I never looked because the sheer size of my package obstructed my
view :)
|3.13.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Rhywun,
"It's like the sun. You don't stare, you just take a glimpse, get a
general impression, and quickly look away."
Everything I know I learned from Seinfeld...
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 2:39PM|#
So the military should regulate ALL sexual activities of ALL
soldiers? How could this be accomplished?
Page through the UCMJ sometime.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 2:42PM|#
crimethink,
Having sex is as much a part of our biology as taking a shit.
|3.13.07 @ 2:42PM|#
I never looked because the sheer size of my package
obstructed my view :)
I think you're confusing yourself with me.
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 2:42PM|#
I don't think any of my classmates were openly
gay
None of mine were, either (this was 20 years ago). "Don't ask,
don't tell" is basically the default childhood policy - and much as
in the military, it's a way for the majority to pretend that the
minority doesn't exist, while the minority either makes do in
secret or not at all.
|3.13.07 @ 2:43PM|#
The relevance is this: it supports the argument that being gay
is a choice. For something to be immoral, as the general said of
homosexuality, it has to be a choice.
Does the general's statement contradict military code? If so, is he
forbidden from issuing that opinion publicly? If so, then the
action taken against him is justified.
|3.13.07 @ 2:43PM|#
jimmydageek,
We don't want to hear about your locker room erections...
That, of course was the real fear of showering with other guys,
since at that age they happen spontaneously a lot of the time. But
the guy next to you might get the wrong idea.
dhex|3.13.07 @ 2:45PM|#
"If it takes a few uncomfortable showers to end the official
bigotry against homosexuals, so be it."
i agree with your sentiment, but taken out of context this sentence
is quite hilarious.
D.A. Ridgely|3.13.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Pace's greatest offense here is being dumb in a No-Dumb Zone. Contra John's comments -- and as any, oh, say, JAG officer would know -- there are all sorts of expressions of personal opinion commissioned officers are prohibited from expressing and an even larger number that general officers in particular are admonished against uttering publicly. As I have noted elsewhere, homosexuality is a political issue, whether Pace realizes it or not. Moreover, again contra John's comments, Pace was making the argument, at least implicitly, that it was the immorality of homosexuality that justified it being banned by the military. That he did so ineptly, comparing it to adultery, only makes matters worse because the best arguments the armed services have in opposition to such behavior (joe, note I am saying "best," not "sufficient" here) are pragmatic arguments, not moral ones.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 2:46PM|#
brotherben,
The more time goes on the more unsustainable the ban on gays in the
military will be. Just as it has become less and less popular in
our society for prejudice to be exhibited against gays.
|3.13.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Holy crap, Rhwuyn's a guy?!
Damn, this internet thing is hard. Next you'll tell me that that
guy in Chicago isn't actually a moose.
|3.13.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Having sex is as much a part of our biology as taking a
shit.
That's true as far as it goes, I guess. But is it normal to share
the idiosyncracies of their defecation habits with others, as some
homosexuals insist on sharing their sexuality?
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 2:48PM|#
it supports the argument that being gay is a
choice
Huh? Unless these people "chose" to be sexually abused, I'm not
following your logic.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 2:49PM|#
crimethink,
The point of course is that sex often isn't about choice; it is
often a response to various unthought out biological factors. The
fact that most of the population masturbates without any sort of
planning is evidence enough of this.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 2:53PM|#
crimethink,
Newton also suffered a mental breakdown. I wonder if it was because
he didn't get some from time to time.
Anyway, asexuality is part of the continuum of human sexuality.
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 2:53PM|#
Grotius,
As a soon to be married man, I must say that masturbating when the
future missus is on her inactive pill takes a lot of careful
planning...so as to not let her know that this takes place...:/
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 2:53PM|#
some homosexuals insist on sharing their
sexuality
Those damn gays, always talking about sex and love. Why can't they
be more like straights?
jimmydageek|3.13.07 @ 2:54PM|#
I think 'crimethink' just wrote the funniest thing I've ever
read on this forum...
crimethink | March 13, 2007, 2:51pm | #
Isaac Newton went his whole life without sex, but he defecated many
times.
|3.13.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Newton also suffered a mental breakdown. I wonder if it was
because he didn't get some from time to time.
It's more likely he was just severely constipated.
|3.13.07 @ 2:56PM|#
"If it takes a few uncomfortable showers to end the official
bigotry against homosexuals, so be it."
i agree with your sentiment, but taken out of context this sentence
is quite hilarious.
I'm still laughing...
|3.13.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Isaac Newton went his whole life without sex, but he
defecated many times.
Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza abstained and
became a genius?
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 2:58PM|#
thoreau,
I dunno, Abelard was a genius and he never abstained - well, until
he was castrated.
mediageek|3.13.07 @ 2:59PM|#
"But is it normal to share the idiosyncracies of their
defecation habits with others, as some homosexuals insist on
sharing their sexuality?"
For some, evidently it
is.
But then again, things are different on teh intartwebs vs. real
life.
|3.13.07 @ 3:00PM|#
crimethink,
All right, I'm a little chubby...and a little hairy...but you
never know, there's some weird fetishes out there...
What's weird about it? I like bears. They're manly! Twinks look
like women, and women are disgusting.
|3.13.07 @ 3:01PM|#
What do you call a man masturbating on Valentine's
Day?
Marriage.
I'm going to give my woman a big hug and kiss when she gets home.
Not only does she think all the hype surrounding Valentine's Day is
stupid, but she is almost never "not in the mood."
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:01PM|#
crimethink,
Anyway, I hate to break it to you; heterosexuals get their freak on
with all manner of bodily fluids, etc.
|3.13.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza
abstained and became a genius?
Heh, that's a whole nother topic. Denying your essence may not
preserve the purity of your precious bodily fluids, but I wouldn't
be surprised if it allows your so-called "creative juices" to build
up. Further study needs to be done.
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza
abstained and became a genius?
Yes, some fans call that episode "The Bet". Elaine was supposed to
have a date with JohnJohn Kennedy, but he did Jerry's virgin
girlfriend instead.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:05PM|#
The Real Bill,
What is or isn't icky about sex depends on what two (or more)
consenting adults think is cool and is not cool. Generally none of
that is going to undermined military preparedness.
|3.13.07 @ 3:06PM|#
But is it normal to share the idiosyncracies of their
defecation habits with others, as some homosexuals insist on
sharing their sexuality?.
crimethink: Hey craig, what did you do this weekend?
craig: Not much. My boyfriend and I went to Pottery Barn to look
for a new couch. Then we took the dog to the park for the
afternoon. It was a beautiful day!
crimethink: Please don't share your sexuality with me.
|3.13.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza
abstained and became a genius?
I read a short story once about a physics genius boy who was about
to solve a great scientific question. He hooked up with a woman
before it was completed and became dumb. It always made sense to
me. Puberty hit me like a ton of bricks. I don't think I ever
recovered. ; )
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:08PM|#
BTW, I'd like to note that wife swapping was common amongst the
Greek Spartiates - the elite Spartan warrior citizens. Or so
Plutarch tells us.
|3.13.07 @ 3:08PM|#
crimethink,
No, I'm a man. But I'm not gay. I just like masturbating other guys
with my mouth and my butthole. It's a hobby.
|3.13.07 @ 3:08PM|#
Real Bill,
My wife has never made me see a movie I didn't want to see. Ever.
Not one. She's awesome. And she laughed at that joke when I told
her.
|3.13.07 @ 3:10PM|#
What is or isn't icky about sex depends on what two (or
more) consenting adults think is cool and is not cool. Generally
none of that is going to undermined military
preparedness.
I agree. I didn't say sex was icky; I said that you made it sound
icky. It's nothing to do with the military. I don't care if the
soldiers have bisexual orgies; I just want them to be able to kick
ass when necessary.
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 3:13PM|#
It is "sharing" your sexuality to hold your boyfriend's hand in
public. It is NOT "sharing" your sexuality apparently to have a
picture of your girlfriend on your desk at your office. It is not
"sharing" your sexuality to wear a wedding ring. it is not
"sharing" your sexuality to speak of marriage plans.
Notice anything? Its not that gays talk about their sexuality more
than heterosexuals, its that any mention of normal intimate gay
relationships in any context is considered promoting an agenda.
|3.13.07 @ 3:13PM|#
Basically, I think that the creative abilities of humans are
ultimately geared towards survival and reproduction, as all traits
developed thru natural selection must be. The brain's activity is
very expensive from an energy standpoint, so when these urges are
satisfied, the body doesn't divert as much of its resources to the
brain.
Of course, I have no evidence of this, but it seems like a fruitful
area for someone to study.
|3.13.07 @ 3:13PM|#
My wife has never made me see a movie I didn't want to see.
Ever. Not one. She's awesome. And she laughed at that joke when I
told her.
Sweet, SugarFree!
My wife loves sci-fi/action movies and cares less for chick-flicks
than I do. (It's a personal shame of mine, but I like a good
chick-flick from time to time.)
|3.13.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Grotius,
It may have been "freak on" and "bodily fluids" in the same
sentence. I'm not sure. Now that I read it again, it doesn't seem
that icky. Oh, no! I've been desensitized!
|3.13.07 @ 3:15PM|#
wife swapping was common amongst the Greek Spartiates - the
elite Spartan warrior citizens
Yes, and burning homosexuals at the stake was common in the Middle
Ages...that doesn't mean it's a good idea now.
|3.13.07 @ 3:17PM|#
Gays in the military fight for a country that does not recognize their right to marry. That reminds of the Tuskegee airmen... patriotism more authentic than that claimed by many.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:20PM|#
The brain's activity is very expensive from an energy
standpoint, so when these urges are satisfied, the body doesn't
divert as much of its resources to the brain.
Given the number of geniuses who gorged themselves on wine,
women/men and song there have got to be at least a few major
exceptions to that claim.
Anyway, the notion that going without sex leads to piety or some
other good has a long history in human society. Indeed in the
middle ages certain Christian monks monkeyed around with the idea
of jerking off into various mixtures in order to create babies so
as to cut women (and thus lust!) out of the picture.
|3.13.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Basically, I think that the creative abilities of humans are
ultimately geared towards survival and reproduction, as all traits
developed thru natural selection must be. The brain's activity is
very expensive from an energy standpoint, so when these urges are
satisfied, the body doesn't divert as much of its resources to the
brain.
I would assume the opposite. That it's very difficult to
concentrate with an unfulfilled need for sex. Sort of like being
hungry. Once the need is satisfied, you can attend to other
things.
|3.13.07 @ 3:23PM|#
Grotius,
Well, I think masturbation would "drain the batteries" in my theory
just as much as sex with a partner. I don't see how the male body
would even be able to tell the difference. Like I said, I'm just
conjecturing, don't believe me until there's evidence.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:24PM|#
crimethink,
Yes, and burning homosexuals at the stake was common in the
Middle Ages...that doesn't mean it's a good idea now.
I'm not quite sure why I should compare the two.
See, homosexuals were being burned by a bunch of ignorant, bigoted
religiously motivated folks.
Wife-swapping today would be a voluntary practice (as it was I
guess amongst the Spartiates).
The Real Bill,
One of the best things I think folks can do is desacralize sex.
Look, we're animals. We screw.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:25PM|#
crimethink,
Actually I was trying to get at the fact that celibacy has often
been as part of an effort to treat women like, well, depraved
creatures.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Personally I've always wonder what those monks were thinking about as they masturbated. It is almost too humorous to consider. ;)
|3.13.07 @ 3:27PM|#
One of the best things I think folks can do is desacralize
sex. Look, we're animals. We screw.
That makes sense, as such a view of sex is conducive to your
atheist materialism. For those of us who aren't of your ilk, such
talk is disgusting.
|3.13.07 @ 3:28PM|#
celibacy has often been as part of an effort to treat women
like, well, depraved creatures.
What about female celibacy? Was that an effort to treat men like
depraved creatures?
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:33PM|#
crimethink,
What about female celibacy?
Given that so many of the Christian fathers had so many really bad
things to say about women that ought not be surprising.
|3.13.07 @ 3:36PM|#
That makes sense, as such a view of sex is conducive to your
atheist materialism. For those of us who aren't of your ilk, such
talk is disgusting.
I agree, treating humans as just another animal is disgusting. It's
misanthropic.
That doesn't mean man on man sex is wrong though. In fact, it's
teriffic fun. Plus, you never have to sit through one of those
god-damned Hugh Grant movies.
|3.13.07 @ 3:36PM|#
"The fact that most of the population masturbates without any
sort of planning is evidence enough of this."
Trust me on this one, G. They're not so far apart.
|3.13.07 @ 3:37PM|#
"Yes, and burning homosexuals at the stake was common in the
Middle Ages...that doesn't mean it's a good idea now."
Aha! So THAT'S why they're called faggots!
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:39PM|#
Loundry,
Well, we're not just another animal, we have our special traits
just like giraffes, but it also the case that we likely aren't the
only sentient critters with culture on this planet either.
|3.13.07 @ 3:41PM|#
One of the best things I think folks can do is desacralize
sex. Look, we're animals. We screw.
Sacred sex always sounded horribly boring to me. It's also stupid.
There ain't no way that bumpin' uglies is holy, ever. Also, I agree
wholeheartedly with the "we're animals" statement.
I agree, treating humans as just another animal is disgusting.
It's misanthropic.
No; it's honest. Also, it's only misanthropic if you hate all
nonhuman animals.
|3.13.07 @ 3:46PM|#
I like the sacred sex in Ancient Greece, where the priests and priestesses doubled as prostitutes.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:46PM|#
BTW, here's a question:
Do any religious organizations ever take away the sainthood from
someone who was sainted for either something we consider to be vile
today, or who led a life that was otherwise vile?
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:47PM|#
Zombie FinFangFoom,
There was plenty of sacred sex in the Old Testatement.
|3.13.07 @ 3:48PM|#
I don't know about for something they did, but the Pope did declare, about 20 years ago I think that there is no Santa Claus!
|3.13.07 @ 3:49PM|#
You and me, baby, we're nothin but mammals
So let's do it like they do it on the Discovery channel
Ursus|3.13.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Crimethink:
All right, I'm a little chubby...and a little hairy...but you
never know, there's some weird fetishes out there...
As noted by de Stijl, chubby, hairy guys are called "bears" in the
gay community. So you think it a "weird fetish" that anyone would
be attracted to this body type? Does that apply to your
wife/girlfriend?
And if [a hypothetical lesbian in a male locker room is]
unoglable, I definitely don't want to see her naked.
So, men, who you presumably aren't attracted to are OK, but a woman
unattractive to you is a problem?
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 3:52PM|#
Zombie FinFangFoom,
Well, if so, it is a step in the right direction. :)
crimethink,
That makes sense, as such a view of sex is conducive to your
atheist materialism. For those of us who aren't of your ilk, such
talk is disgusting.
That's cool.
|3.13.07 @ 3:53PM|#
All right, now I'm kind of stuck on the fact that we court
martial people for adultery. How is that right--or, for that
matter, justified vis a vis the purpose of the military?
Shannon, it all relates to unit cohesion and its ability to
complete a mission. If a superior is having an affair with a
subordinate's wife and the subordinate finds out about it, is the
subordinate likely to follow orders from his superior?
Or, if the reverse happens, the superior could make life hell for
the subordinate.
In my previous comment regarding the pilot having an affair with
one of her subordinate's spouse, the officer was the pilot of a
bomber. The subordinate worked maintenance on the bomber. In a
worst case scenario, and the scenario the military is most worried
about, the maintence person could have sabotaged the bomber,
possibly killing all on board.
The unique nature of the military is the reason why the military
prosecutes adultery.
|3.13.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Ursus (pun intended?),
I regret to inform you that I'm not familiar with terms used by the
gay community to refer to different male body types, and the degree
of attractiveness of those types to gays.
A lot of women don't like fat, hairy men, and that's what I was
basing my comment on.
|3.13.07 @ 3:56PM|#
Do any religious organizations ever take away the sainthood
from someone who was sainted for either something we consider to be
vile today, or who led a life that was otherwise vile?
Can't speak for churches other than the RC (I know some Russian
Orthodox churches have saints and stuff), but in the True church,
canonization is just the process by which we recognize that a
person has been accepted into heaven. If there was irrefutable
evidence that person didn't belong there, the Pope might rescind
the canonization. The church de-sainted St. Christopher when
overwhelming evidence suggested that he never existed in reality.
There's been some grumbling about St. Louis because he committed
some anti-semitic acts as king of France. Don't expect any quick
actions, however. The Roman Catholic Church is the longest
continuous running government bureaucracy in the history of the
earth.
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 4:22PM|#
A lot of women don't like fat, hairy men, and that's what I
was basing my comment on.
You can feel safe in the knowledge that a lot of gay men don't
either :)
mediageek|3.13.07 @ 4:28PM|#
"Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode where George Costanza
abstained and became a genius?"
Along lines that are 180* off, there was also a section in
Cryptonomicon where one of the protagonists discovered
that after getting laid he was able to think more clearly.
This resulted in his finding and marrying a woman.
There were graphs and mathematical equations and everything. It was
hilarious.
|3.13.07 @ 4:30PM|#
The Real Bill,
No; it's honest.
That, like my calling it "disgusting", is a value judgment. I value
humans above all animals. You denigrate humans to being on the same
level of animals. If humans are "just another animal", then our
choice to live as we do is a holocaust, and the only remedy to it
is to genocide the human species. All animal-rights dogma and
environmental dogma, especially including veganism, share the same
logical conclusion of genocide. It's inescapable.
Hence, I hate all environmental dogma, all animal-rights dogma, and
especially all veganism. It's anti-human, suicidal, and it sucks.
Period.
|3.13.07 @ 4:32PM|#
You can feel safe in the knowledge that a lot of gay men
don't either :)
Speak for yourself, Mary. Woof to all the bears out there! (Not
you, crimethink. You can return to your girl-on-girl porn.)
|3.13.07 @ 4:33PM|#
If a superior is having an affair with a subordinate's wife
and the subordinate finds out about it, is the subordinate likely
to follow orders from his superior?
Well, okay, but the problem here seems not to be adultery per se,
but adultery within the ranks. What if some soldier is having an
adulterous affair with someone unconnected to the military in any
way? How does that hurt "unit cohesion"? (Which, by the by, seems
to be thrown about a bit as an excuse for all sorts of invasive
questions.)
Also, I don't work for the military, but if my superior was having
an affair with my husband, it would affect my ability to do my job
and possibly make me lash out at my superior. But my employer
doesn't make any rules about such things, and I imagine there would
be quite the hue and cry if it did. I don't happen to work in a job
where lives are at stake, but what if I worked for a fire
department? Or a police department?
The military has a tendency to use its "uniqueness" to justify all
sort of unpleasant practices, and, as an excuse, it's wearing a bit
thin.
|3.13.07 @ 4:34PM|#
Whoopsie.
If a superior is having an affair with a subordinate's wife and
the subordinate finds out about it, is the subordinate likely to
follow orders from his superior?
Well, okay, but the problem here seems not to be adultery per se,
but adultery within the ranks. What if some soldier is having an
adulterous affair with someone unconnected to the military in any
way? How does that hurt "unit cohesion"? (Which, by the by, seems
to be thrown about a bit as an excuse for all sorts of invasive
questions.)
Also, I don't work for the military, but if my superior was having
an affair with my husband, it would affect my ability to do my job
and possibly make me lash out at my superior. But my employer
doesn't make any rules about such things, and I imagine there would
be quite the hue and cry if it did. I don't happen to work in a job
where lives are at stake, but what if I worked for a fire
department? Or a police department?
The military has a tendency to use its "uniqueness" to justify all
sort of unpleasant practices, and, as an excuse, it's wearing a bit
thin.
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 4:34PM|#
I'm still trying to figure out how other seemingly more conservative countries such as Italy and Israel aren't affected by "unit cohesion" issues that keep coming up with DADT. Are we honestly saying our soldiers are not as mature or tolerant as Israel's?
mediageek|3.13.07 @ 4:38PM|#
"Well, I think masturbation would "drain the batteries" in
my theory just as much as sex with a partner. I don't see how the
male body would even be able to tell the difference."
I can't think of a way to phrase this without giving somebody a
case of the Tee-Hee's, so I'm just going to put it right out
there:
Are you a virgin?
I mean, it's totally cool if you are, I'm not going to make any
judgments about your masculinity or whatever. Just seems like it
would explain a lot.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Loundry,
Your are taking a bit too much from my statement.
Compare what you have written to what I wrote:
One of the best things I think folks can do is desacralize sex.
Look, we're animals. We screw.
I didn't write that we're like all other animals in all respects,
but we clearly are animals and we share lots of traits with other
animals. One of those traits being sexual intercourse. Of course
one could counter that argument and state that we're a species that
screws outside of specific periods often referred to as "being in
heat." But that is also true of bonobos.
Anyway, I don't value humans above all other animals. What I do
tend to value is all self-conscious creatures above
non-self-conscious creatures. Which is why I wouldn't carve up and
eat an alien who landed here on a spacecraft (not that aliens are
vistating the Earth with any regularity; I mean, it would be cool,
but there is no evidence for it that I am aware of). Of course it
is likely the case that other creatures on this planet are
self-conscious, whales for example, and that's why I abstain from
whale meat.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Loundry,
If that makes me an animal-rights activist or what have you, so be
it. I just do not think that humans are the exclusive practitioners
of self-consciousness.
|3.13.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Grotius,
Your are taking a bit too much from my statement.
I disagree. The logical conclusion is inescapable.
I don't value humans above all other animals. What I do tend to
value is all self-conscious creatures above non-self-conscious
creatures.
So pigs and humans are equal?
|3.13.07 @ 5:06PM|#
I don't value humans above all other animals. What I do tend
to value is all self-conscious creatures above non-self-conscious
creatures.
So pigs and humans are equal?
Oooo, can I take this one?
I value quarters and dimes above pennies, but I don't equate
quarters and dimes.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 5:11PM|#
Loundry,
Actually it is not the logical conclusion of that statement, as I
have already explained.
As to pigs, as far as I know, pigs are not self-conscious or
self-aware in the sense that humans are. These are pretty dense
philosophical concepts I realize, but still, your questions seems
odd even in light of that fact.
|3.13.07 @ 5:12PM|#
highnumber,
I value quarters and dimes above pennies, but I don't equate
quarters and dimes.
If I kill a pig and eat it, should I be prosecuted for murder?
|3.13.07 @ 5:13PM|#
If humans are "just another animal", then our choice to live
as we do is a holocaust, and the only remedy to it is to genocide
the human species.
Lucky bastard - I wish I could get high right now.
|3.13.07 @ 5:15PM|#
If I kill a pig and eat it, should I be prosecuted for
murder?
no, you should just realize that you're eating mammal meat. You
know what that is, right?
|3.13.07 @ 5:15PM|#
Grotius,
Actually it is not the logical conclusion of that statement, as
I have already explained.
I disagree, and your explanation is lacking.
As to pigs, as far as I know, pigs are not self-conscious or
self-aware in the sense that humans are.
If I kill a rhesus monkey, should I be prosecuted for murder?
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 5:16PM|#
"All animal-rights dogma and environmental dogma, especially
including veganism, share the same logical conclusion of genocide.
It's inescapable.
Hence, I hate all environmental dogma, all animal-rights dogma, and
especially all veganism. It's anti-human, suicidal, and it sucks.
Period."
Loudry, I'm curious about these assertions you made even though I'm
no vegan and I like my steaks rare and dripping juice. How is a
desire not to endorse the killing of an animal "anti-human" or
"suicidal"? I mean, just from a practical standpoint aren't humans
perfectly capable of surviving without meat/animal
biproducts?
I'm curious where the extreme animus towards veganism in particular
comes from. Although I don't agree with it as a personal matter,
I've always viewed veganism as a cogent and admirable philosophy
that requires a great deal of will power (certainly more than I
have). The only thing I would object to is militant vegans who
believe that their dietary choices should be forced onto everyone
as a way of life, but the philosophy itself I have no problem
with.
|3.13.07 @ 5:16PM|#
no, you should just realize that you're eating mammal meat.
You know what that is, right?
Delicious! Pig fat is awesome (but duck fat is better).
Is it wrong to eat mammal meat? If so, why?
edna|3.13.07 @ 5:17PM|#
I for one worry that one who gets heebie jeebies at the
thought of showering may lack the basic courage that society
expects of its service members.
or they're french.
i was pleased to see that the general's quote was quite specific
that this was his personal belief. i hope that this
doesn't cause him to get a medal of freedom or to have to enter
rehab. the whole no-gay policy is stupid, but the pc thing that
does not allow anyone's personal beliefs to be offensive to the
average resident of berkeley is even stupider.
|3.13.07 @ 5:19PM|#
That, like my calling it "disgusting", is a value
judgment.
Saying that "human are animals" is honest is simply recognizing
that I am born, eat, sleep, shit, have sex, and die. It is not a
value judgement; it is a fact.
I value humans above all animals. You denigrate humans to being
on the same level of animals.
I value my pet cat above the vast majority of humanity, just as I
value anyone I love more than anyone I don't. I don't consider all
nonhuman animals to be on the same level as human animals. Humans
are superior to most other animals. I do value some animals quite a
bit, especially those animals that have complex brains similar to
humans.
If humans are "just another animal", then our choice to live as
we do is a holocaust, and the only remedy to it is to genocide the
human species. All animal-rights dogma and environmental dogma,
especially including veganism, share the same logical conclusion of
genocide. It's inescapable. Hence, I hate all environmental dogma,
all animal-rights dogma, and especially all veganism. It's
anti-human, suicidal, and it sucks. Period.
I don't care about any kind of dogma. Dogma is the enemy of
rational, dispassionate thought. Eating other animals is not a
holocaust, and anyone who thinks so is a moron. We, humans, are
animals. We, humans, are animals that eat meat. We, humans, have a
"natural right", just like any other meat-eating animal, to kill
and eat our prey. I do think that factory farms can be nasty,
concentration-camp-like places. I also believe that using
intelligent animals for medical research is wrong.
Anyway, I don't need to denigrate humans. Humans do so much evil
shit that we denigrate ourselves every day.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Loundry,
Well, give me a good reason that shows why my explanation is
lacking and maybe I'll adopt your opinion.
I disagree, and your explanation is lacking.
If I kill a rhesus monkey, should I be prosecuted for
murder?
If you were to kill a self-aware being, and it wasn't "sanctioned"
somehow (say a war - I'll leave aside that thorny issue for later),
yeah, you should be prosecuted for murder. Whether rhesus monkeys
are self-aware I can't say. Anyway, the general scope of my answer
was pretty easy to predict so I'm not quite sure why you asked
it.
|3.13.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Hayekian Dreamer,
How is a desire not to endorse the killing of an animal
"anti-human" or "suicidal"?
It depends on the rationale behind "not endorsing the killing of an
animal". You've framed it in a very reserved context. For instance,
the other day, I slowed down to a stop in the middle of the road to
avoid running over and killing a squirrel.
I mean, just from a practical standpoint aren't humans
perfectly capable of surviving without meat/animal
biproducts?
Aren't we also "perfectly capable of surviving" without
electricity, clothing, gasoline, industry, the Internet, computers,
etc? Why stop at meat/animal by-products?
I'm curious where the extreme animus towards veganism in
particular comes from.
Because of their extreme animus toward humanity. They regard humans
as scum. Being a human, I take it personally, particularly since
they would rejoice at the mass death of humans.
|3.13.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Is it wrong to eat mammal meat? If so, why?
I don't think so. I do think it's wrong not to recognize that what
you're eating was at one time alive, and depending on what animal
it was, had SOME capacity for thought, emotion, pain, etc.
I personally don't eat mammals. I do eat birds and fish.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 5:26PM|#
Loundry,
Oh, and I am neither a vegan nor a vegetarian. I eat foie gras and
I'll more than happily draw a live lobster into a steaming pot.
mediageek|3.13.07 @ 5:26PM|#
"Delicious! Pig fat is awesome (but duck fat is
better).
Is it wrong to eat mammal meat? If so, why?"
No, it's not wrong, but it is pleasurable.
Which means that some moral scold somewhere would be happy to
outlaw it and tell us that it is, indeed, wrong.
|3.13.07 @ 5:26PM|#
If I kill a rhesus monkey, should I be prosecuted for
murder?
No, you should be prosecuted for animal cruelty, assuming it wasn't
in self defense, or sanctioned for medical reasons.
Are you for animal cruelty?
|3.13.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Because of their extreme animus toward humanity. They regard
humans as scum. Being a human, I take it personally, particularly
since they would rejoice at the mass death of humans.
What "they", did you meet some obnoxious vegan at a party once and
decide the whole lot are no good?
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 5:29PM|#
craig,
One of the basic arguments for animal cruelty laws seems to be that
needless suffering is immoral and I suppose that there is a
utilitarian argument in there as well; namely that folks who abuse
dogs or some such might be inclined as a result of that practice to
abuse other humans.
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 5:30PM|#
It depends on the rationale behind "not endorsing the
killing of an animal". You've framed it in a very reserved context.
For instance, the other day, I slowed down to a stop in the middle
of the road to avoid running over and killing a
squirrel.
just going by the standard vegan lines, it seems they believe that
eating meat or animal biproducts (milkm eggs, honey etc) is
fundamentally immoral because the animal is being unnecessarily
exploited for our personal benefit. Now, my response to that would
be something like "and..." because I don't agree with it. But I
wouldn't exactly call it anti-human.
Oh, and to your squirrel example, I suspect most people regardless
of their diet would do everything to avoid the squirrel except
compromise the safety of the vehicle. In other words, if you had
time I think most people would slow down. But I don't think a vegan
would threaten their survival to save a squirrel (or anyone) that
wandered in their path suddenly.
Aren't we also "perfectly capable of surviving" without
electricity, clothing, gasoline, industry, the Internet, computers,
etc? Why stop at meat/animal by-products?
Well, for most of those the answer would be "the Amish don't" but
in a practical sense I was responding to your assertion that
veganism is "suicidal" and I'll ask again. WHY is veganism
suicidal?
Because of their extreme animus toward humanity. They regard
humans as scum. Being a human, I take it personally, particularly
since they would rejoice at the mass death of humans.
Really? a VEGAN would rejoice at the mass death of humans? I feel a
PETA link coming forward somehow... but then I could say that all
Christians want to assassinate world leaders who disagree with US
foreign policy because Pat Robertson said Chavez should be
killed.
|3.13.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Because of their extreme animus toward humanity. They regard
humans as scum. Being a human, I take it personally, particularly
since they would rejoice at the mass death of humans.
Let it be known, when loundry says "they" he is actually speaking
on our (the collective "our") behalf. We vegans actually do hate
humananity, and loundry knows this because we beam our thoughts
directly into his head. These thoughts manifest as "voices," and we
often tell him to kill people, scream obscenities, and post
messages online.
|3.13.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Because of their extreme animus toward humanity. They regard
humans as scum. Being a human, I take it personally, particularly
since they would rejoice at the mass death of humans.
Wow. Seriously, you need to get out more.
|3.13.07 @ 5:35PM|#
The Real Bill,
Forgive me for being curt with you. Clearly you have some
intelligent thoughts about this issue and I treated you with the
contempt that vegans deserve. I loathe misanthropy, and
veganism/environmentalism is nothing but misanthropy masquerading
as morality. It's repulsive, and my disdain comes out far too
easily sometimes. Forgive me.
Saying that "human are animals" is honest is simply recognizing
that I am born, eat, sleep, shit, have sex, and die. It is not a
value judgement; it is a fact.
Yes and no. The disagreement we have is semantic. If humans are an
animal, as in, an organism, then yes, that's true. If humans are
"just another animal", then we are guilty of genocide and should
all die for our mass crimes against animality. Clearly you don't
think that humans are "just another animal" because you wrote
"Humans are superior to most other animals." Naturally, that begs
the question, which animal is superior to a human?
And, yes, I acknowledge that your cat will have more value to you
than most other humans. I value my pets more highly than I value
most other humans as well, since don't even know them. At the same
time, if I had to choose between killing my dog and killing some
stranger, then I would, of course, kill my dog. I know that is a
ridiculous hypothetical situation, but it's done to express my
committment toward the betterment of humanity.
Exception: there are some folks, such as the Ayatollahs of Iran,
would would die before my dog would. But that's not because they're
worth less than a dog, but because they pose a greater harm to
humanity alive than dead and have no chance of making amends.
Again, another ridiculous hypothetical, but it's done to explain my
values.
|3.13.07 @ 5:35PM|#
In Loundry's defense, there are some vegans out there
that want humans to go extinct.
Godwin alert!
Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian?
|3.13.07 @ 5:37PM|#
craig,
I don't think so. I do think it's wrong not to recognize that
what you're eating was at one time alive, and depending on what
animal it was, had SOME capacity for thought, emotion, pain,
etc.
Are you saying that birds lack the capacity for thought, emotion,
and pain? Congo African Gray parrots are more intelligent than dogs
and pigs.
Or are you saying that we should only eat the stupid birds?
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 5:37PM|#
I can just imagine a whole cottage movie industry based on the
threat of veganism:
"Die Vegan scum!"
"Get away from her you Vegan bitch!"
"The only good Vegan is a dead Vegan!"*
*These are of course not my real views. I ain't down with veganism,
but I don't think that vegans as a rule "would rejoice at the mass
death of humans."
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 5:38PM|#
yes TRB and there are SOME of almost every group with wacko agendas. There are islamo-fascists that want to see us killed. There are extremist Christians that want to see non believers die. There are political socialists that believe the best form of government is brutal dictatorship that controls every aspect of society. None of that has any bearing on group members generally.
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 5:38PM|#
there was also a section in Cryptonomicon where one of the
protagonists discovered that after getting laid he was able to
think more clearly
I really enjoyed that book. Is the trilogy as good?
|3.13.07 @ 5:39PM|#
Okay guys, WTF. This thread is clocking in way too long. From gays in the military to whether or not vegans are traitors to humanity? It stops . . . now!
|3.13.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Rhywun:
The trilogy is not as good. The first book is engrossing, the
second not quite as good as the first, and so on and so forth (even
though it's just one more book). Perhaps I tired of Stephenson's
writing because I read Cryptonomicon first, then read the other
three. Of course, I didn't get tired of Proust, and that dandy
writes a lot.
|3.13.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Lemme clarify: I like Stephenson's books, but by page 1,200+ in total, I found myself wandering.
mediageek|3.13.07 @ 5:44PM|#
"Is the trilogy as good?"
I have no idea. I really need to pick up the stuff he's written
since then.
|3.13.07 @ 5:45PM|#
No, you should be prosecuted for animal cruelty, assuming it
wasn't in self defense, or sanctioned for medical
reasons.
What if I did it because I was hungry? Is it only okay to kill and
eat certain animals?
Are you for animal cruelty?
Cruelty is immoral, and I understand cruelty this way: cruelty is
the taking of pleasure in causing the suffering or death in another
living thing. Hence, it's possible to be cruel to plants. For
instance, if I grew a bunch of flowers, and then poisoned them all,
taking great joy and glee in watching them wither and die, then
wouldn't you have reservations about me? The reason why cruelty is
wrong, toward any living thing, is because it casts doubts on the
individual's character in that he or she might transfer their
desire to inflict pain and death on a human being. It all comes
around to humans and the valuation of humanity.
Hence, a man who works in a slaugherhouse, killing lots and lots of
animals, is not necessarily cruel. Most likely, he's numb to the
killing. If he did that kind of job because he truly enjoyed the
killing, then I'd feel really, really worried about spending any
time with him.
Hence, eating foie gras is not cruel. I don't take pleasure in the
gavage. We do it to get a wonderful product, not for the goose, and
not because we enjoy the gavage.
I hope I've explained myself well. The notion of "animal cruelty"
must be defined before it's used.
|3.13.07 @ 5:45PM|#
If God didnt want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them taste like meat.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 5:45PM|#
FinFangFoom,
So far we've had a fairly interesting and broad ranging debate. One
of the better H&R threads ever.
|3.13.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Naturally, that begs the question, which animal is superior
to a human?
Loundry,
I should have said that most humans are superior to most animals.
My point is two-fold: 1) I don't know that some species aren't more
intelligent and caring than humans, and 2) some humans are so evil
that I consider them "monsters". I believe that some humans have
lost their humanity and do not deserve to be considered human. For
example, any person who would kidnap, torture, and rape a child. I
would exterminate them and feel happy about it. (BTW, I was serious
when agreeing with you that some vegans are people-haters. I have
know vegans that do not resemble your description in any way,
though.)
|3.13.07 @ 5:48PM|#
loundry,
I'm saying I recognize that any animal I eat was alive at one time.
Since I'm a mammal I feel more of a kinship with cows, pigs, etc.,
than I do with birds or fish. I'd also factor in the quality of its
life. For example, I'd probably feel better about eating a
free-range, grass-fed cow than I would a factor-farmed chicken.
Rhywun|3.13.07 @ 5:49PM|#
To be fair, I've heard the "humans are the enemy; there are too many of them" line from more vegans than I could shake a stick at. Plus, they're often annoyingly nanny-ish. Bit unfair to generalize, though :)
Gilbert Martin|3.13.07 @ 5:53PM|#
"The AP reports that Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, "won't apologize for calling homosexuality
immoral" in an interview yesterday with the Chicago Tribune:"
Why should he apologize for stating his opinion on the
subject?
No one has to apologize for expressing his or her moral views on
any subject, Joint Chief's of Staff included.
And how in the world did this thread morph into a long-winded
argument about vegans and animals?
|3.13.07 @ 5:54PM|#
I knew one vegan that wasn't nanny-ish at all, but she was a vegan because of an illness. It was particularly sad, because she really liked meat, especially sausage.
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 5:55PM|#
I totally agree with Rhywun. Actually my best friend happens to
be a vegan which is probably why I'm more defensive of their
dietary choice. He respects that I'm not and while we have had
discussions about why we eat what we it the discussion was more
social and informative rather than attempting to force his values
on me (or vice versa).
I do think that its fair to say that vegans are more likely than
most other dietary groups to bring up their diet as "morally
superior" than other groups but I don't think I've yet met a vegan
who truly believes the government should impose veganism on an
unwilling world.
Again though, there are extremists in any belief system and most of
the time when someone IS an extremist it is because they believe in
imposing their values on everyone, whether it is a religious or a
social choice.
|3.13.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Again though, there are extremists in any belief system and
most of the time when someone IS an extremist it is because they
believe in imposing their values on everyone, whether it is a
religious or a social choice.
I really, really hate those people.
|3.13.07 @ 6:02PM|#
Cruelty is immoral, and I understand cruelty this way:
cruelty is the taking of pleasure in causing the suffering or death
in another living thing.
That's a bit narrow. It's possible to be cruel to an animal without
taking pleasure in it.
The reason why cruelty is wrong, toward any living thing, is
because it casts doubts on the individual's character in that he or
she might transfer their desire to inflict pain and death on a
human being. It all comes around to humans and the valuation of
humanity.
I think the pain and/or fear the animal experiences should be a
factor.
I hope I've explained myself well. The notion of "animal
cruelty" must be defined before it's used.
You have, I just don't agree with your definition.
|3.13.07 @ 6:03PM|#
I only have one more comment on the general's stance on the
immorality of being gay.
I would be safer as a homophobe in the showers with gay men than as
a gay man in the showers with homophobes.
|3.13.07 @ 6:05PM|#
As to cruelty, what about the kind directed at the Israeli ambassador to El Salvador? Is that immoral?
|3.13.07 @ 6:11PM|#
Years ago, my college roommate dated a vegetarian. Naturally,
she was a very sanctimonious, pompous bitch because of it, but
that's beside the point. Being the zealot she was, she invited her
boyfriend (my roommate) to a vegetarian rally at the university. My
roommate returned from this event horrified, saying that the hatred
for meat-eaters was palpable and, at one point, one of the vegans
in his vicinity turned to his friend and spit with venom, "Things
would be better if all the meat-eaters just DIED!" And that view is
in no way controversial in veganism.
I recently read an article in National Geographic in which the
environmental author recoiled with "horror" at the prospect of
human development, any of it, in the United States. In his view,
the human population must necessarily decrease so that the precious
mother Gaia can be returned to her natural state. Do you think he
would give a shit if a plague killed off a few million human
beings? Of course not. He thinks humans are trash!
Need I mention that virutally all vegans are environmentalists?
Search for "vegan misanthrope" on google and see what you find.
Mind you, many vegans are now aware that people are turned off by
their blatant hatred for humanity (they get really defensive about
"misanthropy" because the truth hurts) so they try to hide it.
|3.13.07 @ 6:12PM|#
"I really, really hate those people."
Extremist! Heh...
Seriously, I think that most people who lean libertarian have a
very low opinion of "extremists in any belief system and most of
the time when someone IS an extremist it is because they believe in
imposing their values on everyone, whether it is a religious or a
social choice."
To be honest, it's one of the reasons joe pisses me off as often as
he does.
|3.13.07 @ 6:17PM|#
"I never looked because the sheer size of my package obstructed
my view :)"
I think….viewing from such an angle….might bring into play…..other
issues….package being the least of such….
|3.13.07 @ 6:19PM|#
craig,
I'm saying I recognize that any animal I eat was alive at one
time. Since I'm a mammal I feel more of a kinship with
cows
The truth comes out. You FEEL the kinship. Animal rights notions
come from feelings, not from reason.
|3.13.07 @ 6:30PM|#
The Real Bill,
1) I don't know that some species aren't more intelligent and
caring than humans
I think that's a skeptical argument (and I'm using "skeptical" in
the negative sense). I'll treat humans as supreme and special until
another species comes along with indoor plumbing.
2) some humans are so evil that I consider them "monsters". I
believe that some humans have lost their humanity and do not
deserve to be considered human.
I don't think that they lose their humanity, but that they do lose
their right to live among the rest of us in a peaceful society. We
who do not wish to deprive other people of life, liberty, and
property are not morally obligated to cater to the whims and needs
of those who wish to kill, rape, and steal. Instead, we are morally
obligated to remove them from society.
For example, any person who would kidnap, torture, and rape a
child. I would exterminate them and feel happy about it.
Yeah, that's where my rules on cruelty get a little soft. I love it
when some dickhead tries to rob someone, and the potential victim
pulls a gun and lays waste to the human garbage. I love to see
murderers, gangsters, and thieves get justice. I have to remind
myself that they are humans too, as much as I despise what they do
and hate the fact that they were permitted to walk as free humans
for any point in time.
(BTW, I was serious when agreeing with you that some vegans are
people-haters. I have know vegans that do not resemble your
description in any way, though.)
I do, too, but they don't seem to be doing a good job of kicking
the misanthropes out of the ranks of veganism. That's a common
problem among all sorts of religious people. The Christians don't
seem intent on kicking Fred Phelps out of Christendom. Likewise,
"moderate" Muslims seem awfully content to let the mujahedin walk
and worship freely in their mosques. Am I preaching
"guilt-by-association"? You bet I am!
|3.13.07 @ 6:36PM|#
The truth comes out. You FEEL the kinship. Animal rights
notions come from feelings, not from reason.
I never said anything about animal rights. I was talking about
cruelty to animals.
My FEELING was about my preference for one animal over another, and
why that is. Similar to your preference for your dog over the
Ayatollahs of Iran.
|3.13.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Loundry,
For being part of a group that people like to make broad, negative
and inaccurate statements about you sure seem to do the same.
Yes, SOME vegans and SOME environmentalists are whackos- just like
some queers are child molesters.
Your willingness to villify large groups of humanity, frankly,
frightens me.
"The truth comes out. You FEEL the kinship. Animal rights notions
come from feelings, not from reason."
Not necessarily. A being doesn't have to be able to perform
calculus to be able to feel, suffer, love and think. The average
dog is more sentient than a retarded baby. Why, other than the
anthropocentric inherent in Western culture for thousands of years,
shouldn't we value the dog more?
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 6:42PM|#
I do, too, but they don't seem to be doing a good job of
kicking the misanthropes out of the ranks of veganism. That's a
common problem among all sorts of religious people. The Christians
don't seem intent on kicking Fred Phelps out of Christendom.
Likewise, "moderate" Muslims seem awfully content to let the
mujahedin walk and worship freely in their mosques. Am I preaching
"guilt-by-association"? You bet I am!
Wait a second though, all humans are individuals, what makes one
person morally responsible for the actions or beliefs of someone
else? And who exactly should do the condemning for the extremist?
You mentioned Phelps, yet Phelps does NOT consider himself a
mainstream normal Christian, he considers himself separate from
Baptists or other Christian groups. I don't think then that it
follows the president of the SBC should be obligated to do more
than ignore his hate speech because Phelps is not a member of the
SBC.
You also mentioned Muslim extremists, but again there I don't see
the obligation of every Muslim to do more than live their lives
peacefully as they see fit. I'd rather not have to apologize for
the actions of every white male that ever lived either.
|3.13.07 @ 7:06PM|#
If I kill a pig and eat it, should I be prosecuted for
murder?
No. Why would you eat a pig though?
Have you not seen Babe?
"That'll do, pig." sniff.
You want to know what's weird? I'm half serious. I don't eat the
pig, and I very sincerely love that movie. Just a
coincidence.
|3.13.07 @ 7:09PM|#
"Yes, and joe isn't even that bad compared to some."
True!
Hayekian Dreamer's right - you can be vegan without being crazy.
Not all vegans are crazed about other people's dietary habits....
You can be
Muslim/Christian/fill-in-the-blank-depending-on-who-your-imaginary-friend-is
and tolerant of other religions groups. But nearly all belief
systems have intolerant extremists in their ranks. It doesn't mean
they're all nuts...
|3.13.07 @ 7:19PM|#
And for the record, Pace has the right to his opinion, but he's
still an unenlightened knuckle-dragger who is apparently completely
uninformed about what it actually looks like to have gays serve in
a modern military.
Or to put it the way a friend of mine did: "Gay, straight, or bi,
they can take a bullet as well as I."
|3.13.07 @ 7:31PM|#
Wait a minute, the thread made the transition from gays to animals without me even posting? I feel sooooooo useless now.
|3.13.07 @ 7:37PM|#
Are you a virgin?
My degree of sexual experience has nothing to do with my
argument... ;-)
edna|3.13.07 @ 7:37PM|#
my goodness, i don't get any criticism for supporting pace's
right to express his personal opinion, but now i find that i hate
humanity because i don't eat animals. whiskey tango foxtrot indeed.
i'm not gay, so maybe that got me a free pass, i dunno.
intersection with biotech: how many vegetarians would eat meat if
the animals in question were genetically altered to be
anencephalic? show of hands, please.
Hayekian Dreamer|3.13.07 @ 7:40PM|#
my goodness, i don't get any criticism for supporting pace's
right to express his personal opinion, but now i find that i hate
humanity because i don't eat animals. whiskey tango foxtrot indeed.
i'm not gay, so maybe that got me a free pass, i dunno.
Did you really expect to be criticized for supporting Pace's right
to express an opinion? This is a LIBERTARIAN BLOG, not Democratic
Underground (or Free Republic for that matter)
mediageek|3.13.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Loundry, go smoke a bowl, have a beer, eat a pulled-pork
sandwich, get laid, or sit on a veranda and watch the sunset.
Whatever it takes.
Because you *seriously* need to chill out.
|3.13.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Loundry,
Woof to all the bears out there!
I don't think bears woof. Or is this part of the secret gay code
that I'm not in on?
|3.13.07 @ 7:56PM|#
crimethink had the "Asshole of the Thread" award in the bag for
a while there... then Loundry showed up.
Sorry, crimethink, maybe next time.
|3.13.07 @ 8:09PM|#
wingnut, if people aren't calling me an asshole on abortion and homosexuality threads, I'm not doing my job.
edna|3.13.07 @ 8:10PM|#
Did you really expect to be criticized for supporting Pace's
right to express an opinion?
actually, yes, especially with the crypto-democrat contingent
around here.
so, fellow vegetarians, would you or would you not eat meat if it
were created and raised without consciousness?
|3.13.07 @ 8:15PM|#
highnumber,
On most issues, my opinions coincide with the great libertarian
milieu, so no one gets the urge to call me an asshole.
dhex|3.13.07 @ 8:37PM|#
i had an interesting argument with a bunch of dudes from
brooklyn a few years back, where the whole "they're forcing their
parade upon my eyes" thing was laid out. it's hard to argue against
because it's so clearly laden with a complex web of fear, political
and social clashes and no small degree of fuckfacery.
a la:
"That's true as far as it goes, I guess. But is it normal to share
the idiosyncracies of their defecation habits with others, as some
homosexuals insist on sharing their sexuality?"
1) old people talk about the state of their bowels like [group x]
talks about [witty comparison].
2) stop being such a pussy.
dhex|3.13.07 @ 8:47PM|#
"One of the best things I think folks can do is desacralize
sex."
fear and taboo != sacred.
there are very few people who treat sexuality as a sacred thing,
religious or otherwise.
|3.13.07 @ 8:59PM|#
259 comments and nobody's said it yet...ok I will: The General doth protest too much, methinks!
|3.13.07 @ 8:59PM|#
"intersection with biotech: how many vegetarians would eat meat
if the animals in question were genetically altered to be
anencephalic? show of hands, please."
How many meat-eaters would eat other humans if they were
genetically altered to be anencephalic? Would they still be humans
if they were?
edna|3.13.07 @ 9:03PM|#
jw, the "long pig" issue will come up next. mmmmmm, long pig, hrggggggghhhhh (homer simpson sound).
Guy Montag|3.13.07 @ 9:24PM|#
Or to put it the way a friend of mine did: "Gay, straight,
or bi, they can take a bullet as well as I."
I heard the Apache drivers prefer having them in the gunner's seat
in combat, especially if they are on the heavy side.
|3.13.07 @ 9:24PM|#
"How many meat-eaters would eat other humans if they were
genetically altered to be anencephalic? Would they still be humans
if they were?"
Finally! we are now back on the homersexual thread.
|3.13.07 @ 10:16PM|#
Why wouldn't you eat people? Are you saying that there is something wrong with the Eucharist? Why is it, in America in 2007, that anti-Catholic bigotry is the last acceptable prejudice?
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 10:41PM|#
Loundry,
I'll treat humans as supreme and special until another species
comes along with indoor plumbing.
I realize that this is a tongue and cheek response of yours, but
the technology of a species doesn't say anything definitive about
this matter.
|3.13.07 @ 10:44PM|#
I don't know about that Grotius. The ability to get rid of our poop is the absolute height of civilization. Would you rather live in Egypt with its grand monuments or Rome, where you would't have to deal with your poo? Think about it.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 10:46PM|#
FinFangFoom,
Well, from that perspective we'd be judging the merits of
particular groups of humans based on their technology, which is
likely a perilous path (as Montaigne so brilliantly argued).
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 10:48PM|#
FinFangFoom,
Then again, some population of beings not originating on the Earth
might not have any need for flush toilets or sewage systems.
|3.13.07 @ 10:50PM|#
I don't think it would be very comfortable to have to hold it for your entire life, so those aliens can keep their advanced technology.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 10:50PM|#
crimethink,
Why are you even interested in homosexuality? I mean I realize that
you think that embryo, fetus, etc. is a person and that's your
angle on why you're interested in the abortion issue, but with
homosexuality, I just don't get why you're interested.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 10:52PM|#
FinFangFoom,
Well, maybe they excrete their wastes in a gas form. The point is
possessing a bit of technology than some other society lacks is not
by itself a paticularly convincing argument re: who is more
advanced.
|3.13.07 @ 10:57PM|#
Excrete their wastes in gas form? To get the same amount of mass out, they'd have to fart all the time. How could they possibly be scientifically advanced? With that much farting they'd either have to live under the open skies or never develop flame or electric based lighting. Otherwise they'd cause an explosion that could destroy their entire civilization. Not that they could be very social, what with all that farting.
Grotius|3.13.07 @ 11:02PM|#
FinFangFoom,
Maybe what they eat is high in energy and low in overall mass.
Anyway, I am sure that you get my point by now.
|3.13.07 @ 11:21PM|#
I love it when folks who murder people in foreign countries and torture those who are captured tell us how they don't want to be associated with any "immoral acts"
|3.14.07 @ 1:25AM|#
c'mon dave , get with the program!
If we dont do it over there, the terrorists will come over here
again!
Homophobia is a Christian duty!!!
Hate is the new love.
can I get an amen?
|3.14.07 @ 1:35AM|#
On most issues, my opinions coincide with the great
libertarian milieu, so no one gets the urge to call me an
asshole.
Don't sell yourself short. You can be a "good" libertarian and an
asshole.
|3.14.07 @ 1:39AM|#
edna,
Sorry I'm so late in replying - there was a lightening storm and I
thought it best to disconnect my computer for awhile.
The point of my question was this: Your question about vegans (or
vegetarians?) implies that they, or some of them anyway, refrain
from eating meat because it comes from sentient or conscious
beings. You wish to know if they would still refrain if the meat
came from beings that were not conscious.
I think most of them would still refrain, and I think the reason
why is akin to the fact that most meat-eating humans would not
engage in canabalism even if the main course was from someone who
was brain dead. And it is not a thing about killing something -
people don't eat others even when that other has died of natural
causes or by another's hand. Likewise, most vegetarians I've ever
known, or heard of, will not eat animals or by-products even when
the animals died under similar circumstances. I don't think it
matters whether the animals in question are capable of
consciousness or of feeling pain.
edna|3.14.07 @ 7:15AM|#
I think the reason why is akin to the fact that most
meat-eating humans would not engage in canabalism even if the main
course was from someone who was brain dead.
ahh, the "ick" factor. trumps logic every time.
personally, this vegetarian is lickin' chops just thinking about
all that vat-raised long pork. i'm somewhat conflicted about wine
matching- the canonical "fava beans and chianti" has a cinematic
resonance, but i suspect that gamay might do better. yes, that's
it, gamay. maybe an edmunds-st john bone-jolly from california or
perhaps the michel tete julienas...
mediageek|3.14.07 @ 1:29PM|#
"I love it when folks who murder people in foreign countries
and torture those who are captured tell us how they don't want to
be associated with any "immoral acts""
EVERYBODY DRINK!
*slams a shot*
|3.14.07 @ 2:33PM|#
andy,
For being part of a group that people like to make broad,
negative and inaccurate statements about you sure seem to do the
same.
Broad? So what. Saying that "Christians believe in the gospel" is
also a broad statement. The question is whether or not it is
accurate.
Negative? Of course. What's wrong with making a negative statement
about people if it's accurate?
Inaccurate? That is the point in dispute.
Yes, SOME vegans and SOME environmentalists are whackos- just
like some queers are child molesters.
I ignore all "You're generalizing!" comments.
Your willingness to villify large groups of humanity, frankly,
frightens me.
The reason I am so down on veganism is because of the attitudes
that were displayed at that vegetarian rally that my college
roommate went to -- the one where the vegan turned to his friend,
and, dripping with hatred and venom, stated, "Things would be
better if all the meat-eaters just DIED!"
Now, tell me, does his willingness to wish for the deaths of the
vast majority of humanity frighten you?
Do you agree with me that his attitude is not controversial among
vegans? I bet I could go to any vegan board, post that comment, and
get kudos for saying it.
Not necessarily. A being doesn't have to be able to perform
calculus to be able to feel, suffer, love and think. The average
dog is more sentient than a retarded baby. Why, other than the
anthropocentric inherent in Western culture for thousands of years,
shouldn't we value the dog more?
You've raised a valuable point, and it touches on a question which
is not related to the bogus notion of "animal rights". What you are
talking about is the answer to the question, "What is a human?"
That is a complex question with no easy answer.
A handicapped human is worth more than a dog. I love my dogs more
than I love handicapped human strangers, but if I had to choose
between killing my dog and killing a handicapped human stranger,
then I would kill my dog without reservation. Mind you, that's a
ridiculous hypothetical situation that would never happen. I'm only
using it to show you where my values lie: Rights are not derived
from an organism's capability to feel, suffer, or think. ("Love" is
a combination of feeling and thinking.)
|3.14.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Hayekian Dreamer,
what makes one person morally responsible for the actions or
beliefs of someone else?
1. When the actor and the non-actor adhere to the same
ideology
2. When the non-actor gives aid and support to the actor in full
knowledge that the actor is depriving other individuals of life,
liberty, or property in the name of that ideology
3. Whent he non-actor fails to condemn or stop the actor from
depriving other individuals of life, liberty, or property in the
name of that ideology
For example, Eric Robert Rudolph was able to evade capture for so
long because of like-minded Christians who shielded him and aided
him. If Rudolph had managed to kill again, the people who provided
him aid would be complicit in the deaths of Rudolph's future
victims just as they are obviously in support the murders of
Rudolph's past victims.
And who exactly should do the condemning for the
extremist?
1. Anyone who doesn't wish to appear as if they are in support of
depriving others of life, liberty, or property as part of an
ideology
2. Anyone who doesn't with that their ideology be regarded as one
that is in support of depriving others of life, liberty, or
property
|3.14.07 @ 6:02PM|#
Peter Pace: He got a silly porn-sounding name, but realistically, who cares whether he hates homos or not? The left seems to think that he doesn't have a right to his opinions.
edna|3.14.07 @ 10:36PM|#
The reason I am so down on veganism is because of the
attitudes that were displayed at that vegetarian rally that my
college roommate went to
well, there ya go, unassailable logic. we were all there that day,
every blessed one of us.
in 40+ years of vegetarianism, it never occurred to me to go to a
rally.
|3.15.07 @ 3:29PM|#
The military will be ready for openly gay service members when we have gender neutral living spaces; I suggest that across the board, in the military and civilian world that all gender lines are erased, everyone uses the same bathrooms (we've all seen what the others have, no surprises). Currently, gays are allowed to serve, what the don't ask don't policy creates is a compromise between two very different views. The military does not deny any benefits that are federally reconized. The last time I checked the military is an all volunteer service, if you don't like the rules (and we have a lot of them) don't volunteer.
Hayekian Dreamer|3.19.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Anthony - You mentioned a lot of fallacies. No where else (public or private gyms, high school gym class, etc) do we force together both genders, but neither do we separate based on orientation. For that matter, other countries (the UK, Israel) didn't go through your total gender neutrality program first, why not? I personally believe our military is even BETTER than theirs and is mature enough to deal with it.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245