Comments on: An Army of ___ http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:23:54 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: dolphin http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/comment-page-1/#comment-3392 dolphin Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:56:43 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2628#comment-3392 <blockquote><i>Arguing that no criminal is likely to make a good soldier is logically equivalent to arguing that no gay person would make a good soldier.</i></blockquote>These ARE not logically equivalent. Knowing someone is a criminal shows that they have disobeyed authority (not necessarily a bad thing, but the military would think so) and violated the law at least once. Knowing that someone is gay shows only the gender of the people they find attractive. <br /> <br /> I agree that there are some criminals that would make good soldiers and some not, just as there are some gay people who would make good soldiers and some not. That does not mean however that a universal ban on criminals would be the logical equivalent to a universal ban on gays and lesbians.

Arguing that no criminal is likely to make a good soldier is logically equivalent to arguing that no gay person would make a good soldier.

These ARE not logically equivalent. Knowing someone is a criminal shows that they have disobeyed authority (not necessarily a bad thing, but the military would think so) and violated the law at least once. Knowing that someone is gay shows only the gender of the people they find attractive.

I agree that there are some criminals that would make good soldiers and some not, just as there are some gay people who would make good soldiers and some not. That does not mean however that a universal ban on criminals would be the logical equivalent to a universal ban on gays and lesbians.

]]> By: vps hosting http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/comment-page-1/#comment-3391 vps hosting Sat, 23 Sep 2006 12:26:40 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2628#comment-3391 <BR />Well, i think its not about who is a gay or who is straight, the question lies that how a person quality reflected in bieng a responsible soldier. Well, i think its not about who is a gay or who is straight, the question lies that how a person quality reflected in bieng a responsible soldier.

]]> By: Dave http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/comment-page-1/#comment-3390 Dave Sat, 23 Sep 2006 11:13:22 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2628#comment-3390 Arguing that no criminal is likely to make a good soldier is logically equivalent to arguing that no gay person would make a good soldier. <BR /> <BR />There are people convicted of crimes who nonetheless would make good soldiers, just as there are gays who would make good soldiers. There are also people convicted of crimes who would not make good soldiers, just as there are gays who would not make good soldiers. <BR /> <BR />I doubt either Martha Stewart (convicted of a crime) or Elton John (gay) would make good soldiers. <BR /> <BR />So, the question remains: which crimes, which formerly precluded one's joining the military, are now permissible? If the military now allows murderers and rapists to serve, that would be a problem. If, on the other hand, the military has decided to allow people convicted of minor and/or non-violent offenses, that is another issue entirely, and would weaken the argument originally posted on this blog. <BR /> <BR />Imbuing this question with issues of whether it is right for gays to serve or not serve in the military is missing the point of the question entirely. Arguing that no criminal is likely to make a good soldier is logically equivalent to arguing that no gay person would make a good soldier.

There are people convicted of crimes who nonetheless would make good soldiers, just as there are gays who would make good soldiers. There are also people convicted of crimes who would not make good soldiers, just as there are gays who would not make good soldiers.

I doubt either Martha Stewart (convicted of a crime) or Elton John (gay) would make good soldiers.

So, the question remains: which crimes, which formerly precluded one's joining the military, are now permissible? If the military now allows murderers and rapists to serve, that would be a problem. If, on the other hand, the military has decided to allow people convicted of minor and/or non-violent offenses, that is another issue entirely, and would weaken the argument originally posted on this blog.

Imbuing this question with issues of whether it is right for gays to serve or not serve in the military is missing the point of the question entirely.

]]> By: The Phalanx http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/comment-page-1/#comment-3389 The Phalanx Sat, 23 Sep 2006 03:27:36 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2628#comment-3389 I dont come to that conclusion, I simply ask the question. Criminals on the other hand, even non-violent ones aren't likely to make good soldiers I dont come to that conclusion, I simply ask the question. Criminals on the other hand, even non-violent ones aren't likely to make good soldiers

]]> By: Dave http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/comment-page-1/#comment-3388 Dave Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:30:31 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2628#comment-3388 Phalanx how do you conclude from my comments that I am saying anything against gays serving in the military? Phalanx how do you conclude from my comments that I am saying anything against gays serving in the military?

]]> By: Alec http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/comment-page-1/#comment-3387 Alec Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:10:45 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2628#comment-3387 What I find interesting about DODT is that RAND, a centrist think tank if ever there was one, did a study and concluded that gay soldiers would not have an impact on unit cohesion. <BR /> <BR /> Moreover, we have readily-available empirical data from the rest of the Anglosphere, Europe and even some Asian and South American countries. <BR /> <BR /> The argument just doesn't hold up. <BR /> <BR /> Maybe it's all about the children. What I find interesting about DODT is that RAND, a centrist think tank if ever there was one, did a study and concluded that gay soldiers would not have an impact on unit cohesion.

Moreover, we have readily-available empirical data from the rest of the Anglosphere, Europe and even some Asian and South American countries.

The argument just doesn't hold up.

Maybe it's all about the children.

]]> By: The Phalanx http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/comment-page-1/#comment-3386 The Phalanx Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:59:20 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2628#comment-3386 Are you saying criminals with dubious backgrounds and questionable loyalties are more reliable than a soldier who's only offense is being a homosexual? <BR /> <BR /><a href="www.thephalanx.com/2006/07/war-on-terror-or-no-war-on-terrorgays.html" rel="nofollow">Gays not welcome in Army </a> Are you saying criminals with dubious backgrounds and questionable loyalties are more reliable than a soldier who's only offense is being a homosexual?

Gays not welcome in Army

]]> By: Dave http://www.kipesquire.net/2006/09/an-army-of-___/comment-page-1/#comment-3385 Dave Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:43:41 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=2628#comment-3385 What kind of criminal record ordinarily disqualifies one from serving? <BR /> <BR />A felony? <BR /> <BR />Someone convicted of insider trading should still be able to serve. <BR /> <BR />A misdemeanor? <BR /> <BR />Someone who gets caught with a DUI should still be able to serve. <BR /> <BR />Etc. What kind of criminal record ordinarily disqualifies one from serving?

A felony?

Someone convicted of insider trading should still be able to serve.

A misdemeanor?

Someone who gets caught with a DUI should still be able to serve.

Etc.

]]>