"Flaming" guys in uniform?

[Rmarsh]

So what I'm gathering here (from some of you) is that I should not be denied the right to walk around in this country nude since I am not actually victimizing anybody? Roger that! Out.

There are groups out there arguing just that point actually...

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

[WAG]

There are groups out there arguing just that point actually...

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Topfreedom

But not you, right?

[Rmarsh]

But not you, right?

No, not me. I wasn't trying to relate it back to the original topic, just boobs.

[matmacwc]

You liked you own quote?? Timeout son!

[Rmarsh]

You liked you own quote?? Timeout son!

ha, yeah, I was scrolling and hit like by accident instead of the scroll bar. Was hoping nobody noticed before it refreshed, but alas.

[HerkFE]

So what I'm gathering here (from some of you) is that I should not be denied the right to walk around in this country nude since I am not actually victimizing anybody? Roger that! Out.

I don't know you but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I would feel victimized if I saw you walking around nude

edit to fix typo

Edited July 3, 2013 by HerkFE

[El-Fist]

Not sure why I chose this thread as my first post, but here it goes:

The problem isn't sexual orientation. It's military bearing. If male SrA Sugarpants feels comfortable rolling into work sporting a finely trimmed goatee and nail polish, we have failed. The fact that this kid wasn't sent home by the first NCO in his chain is a foul.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if this kid can simultaneously process a travel claim, un###### DTS, and play Freebird on the piccolo flute through his anus, he needs to uphold basic uniform standards. He's in the military for shit's sake. You represent much more than yourself when you wear the uniform. We all know this.

If you want to roller skate through the Castro district armed with a battle Prius and a fannypack full of dicks, that's awesome... Just not in uniform. We need to maintain the image of the US military as a force to be respected and instill the confidence in the general public that we are ready to fight defend at all cost. I can't see where man nail polish fits into that image.

I was going tie in the whole argument how really fat people in uniform is basically the same thing, but I've lost the desire to fight.

AFA ladies, you can keep your mustaches. That shit is scary and commands respect.

[Rmarsh]

The problem isn't sexual orientation. It's military bearing.

Agreed.

If you want to roller skate through the Castro district armed with a battle Prius and a fannypack full of dicks, that's awesome

Now that's just funny right there.

AFA ladies, you can keep your mustaches. That shit is scary and commands respect.

Not really sure how this fits in, perhaps you are a recent grad...

[pawnman]

You and I are actually discussing a topic that is a bit more complex than either of the simple Bible quotes we've used. It's easy to take quotes from the Bible out of context to make a particular point - that's why so many people in history were able to misuse and misinterpret the Bible resulting in the terrible actions some people have made reference to here. I have an excellent website that can address James 2 and the faith/works issue (and many other if you're interested): http://carm.org/grace-or-works Before you write off God, take a look at the site and use it to answer some of the questions you may have. It's certainly better than me, I'm no Bible scholar. God's actions in our life aren't always what we expect or think we need - just because he didn't do what YOU think he should of done in a particular situation isn't a good reason to disregard him. Take a look at the site.

I don't have a dog in the faith-or-works fight. I was raised in the Lutheran church, and one of the major tenets was "faith alone". I spent years believing this, studying this, and defending this. I'm just saying, the bible provides plenty of ammo to both sides. I argued this for days with my Catholic buddy. It's only one of a few dozen places where the bible has contradictory guidance. Ultimately, I really don't care, as long as we aren't using the bible as our source for legal rulings and legislative precedent.

Someone said that the bible talking about slavery and keeping women silent was a reflection of the time period it was written in. I'd agree, but that means that all the homosexual passages are also a reflection of the time period it was written in. Either you think that the bible provides guidance, or you don't. Too often, people tend to pull out the one or two verses that suit their argument, and claim they represent God's will.

[Darth]

And I thought this thread was going to get back on track.......guess not.

[Troublemaker]

If you want to roller skate through the Castro district armed with a battle Prius and a fannypack full of dicks, that's awesome... Just not in uniform.

Aren't we supposed to be held to a higher standard and represent the military both in and OUT of uniform? Maybe that's changed, I don't know.

[WAG]

I don't know you but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I would feel victimized if I saw you walking around nude

edit to fix typo

Why? Because it's "icky"?

[joe1234]

Why? Because it's "icky"?

The point you're trying to prove here is obvious, but if you think homosexuality is gross, wouldn't you be advocating for the outright ban of homosexuality, rather than gay marriage? After all, ones marital status is irrelevant if it's the homosexuality itself that disgusts you. But then again, in a public place, there would be no way to know if someone is homosexual (hence becoming victimized) unless they had a public display of affection, such as holding hands, kissing, etc.

So, really, you would be against PDA. But to be logically consistent, a homosexual could be victimized by a heterosexual couple showing PDA, so then all PDA everywhere would banned. Or all PDA is allowed. That's where you get the polygamy and marriage to animals argument from. Either none of it is okay, or it's all okay. It's logically consistent.

A logically consistent solution fails to please anyone, because one is unreasonably intrusive and unenforceable, and the other violates a lot of our social customs, norms, and values, so you must inject a little subjectivity, based on society in which you live. In this case, as of the year 2013, public nudity greatly offends the vast majority of the people, and only a tiny minority of people advocate for it, so it doesn't pass the test. In this case, the right for gays to marry, let alone exist or exhibit PDA, offends far fewer people, and a sizable chunk of the population advocates for it, therefore you have laws made from a different time being struck down in accordance to the shifting norms and customs of today's society. The right to vote, abolition of slavery, child labor laws, and interracial marriage are all things that were unheard of until society shifted.

So, the only logical conclusion here is that you find yourself going against an unstoppable societal shift, which is why your strawmans and slippery slopes sound ridiculous, because you're trying to apply a logical, objective solution to your subjective victimization. Thats absurd for obvious reasons, therefore when we apply a sensible subjective solution to your subjective victimization, you find yourself still on the losing end.

So, TL/DR; youre on the losing side of this issue, better settle in for a lifetime of disappointment

[WAG]

A logically consistent solution fails to please anyone, because one is unreasonably intrusive and unenforceable, and the other violates a lot of our social customs, norms, and values, so you must inject a little subjectivity, based on society in which you live. In this case, as of the year 2013, public nudity greatly offends the vast majority of the people, and only a tiny minority of people advocate for it, so it doesn't pass the test. In this case, the right for gays to marry, let alone exist or exhibit PDA, offends far fewer people, and a sizable chunk of the population advocates for it, therefore you have laws made from a different time being struck down in accordance to the shifting norms and customs of today's society. The right to vote, abolition of slavery, child labor laws, and interracial marriage are all things that were unheard of until society shifted.

Cultural relativism and situational ethics: So technically slavery was "right" before it was decided to be "wrong." Yet in the future, society (the moral democracy we can call it) can dictate that slavery is "right", again. Uh oh.

So, the only logical conclusion here is that you find yourself going against an unstoppable societal shift, which is why your strawmans and slippery slopes sound ridiculous, because you're trying to apply a logical, objective solution to your subjective victimization. Thats absurd for obvious reasons, therefore when we apply a sensible subjective solution to your subjective victimization, you find yourself still on the losing end.

If relativism is true, then all choices are equally "good." If all choices are equally good, then even intolerance toward other beliefs can be morally correct. Why then should anyone practice tolerance? Bottom line: Moral relativism is self-refuting

So, TL/DR; youre on the losing side of this issue, better settle in for a lifetime of disappointment

....and wouldn't it suck for you to be on the wrong side of the "moral majority" one day? I know I said this earlier but your ethical thought process dictates that you will become a slave to the majority opinion regarding right and wrong. Be careful what you wish for Joe.

Edited July 3, 2013 by WAG

[pawnman]

Aren't we supposed to be held to a higher standard and represent the military both in and OUT of uniform? Maybe that's changed, I don't know.

Pretty sure we haven't instituted rules for dress code off-duty, so far.

Cultural relativism and situational ethics: So technically slavery was "right" before it was decided to be "wrong." Yet in the future, society (the moral democracy we can call it) can dictate that slavery is "right", again. Uh oh.

If relativism is true, then all choices are equally "good." If all choices are equally good, then even intolerance toward other beliefs can be morally correct. Why then should anyone practice tolerance? Bottom line: Moral relativism is self-refuting

....and wouldn't it suck for you to be on the wrong side of the "moral majority" one day? I know I said this earlier but your ethical thought process dictates that you will become a slave to the majority opinion regarding right and wrong. Be careful what you wish for Joe.

And what do you propose we base ethics on? What is your unchanging ethical standard that you believe will be just as valid in 500 years as it is today?

[WAG]

Pretty sure we haven't instituted rules for dress code off-duty, so far.

And what do you propose we base ethics on? What is your unchanging ethical standard that you believe will be just as valid in 500 years as it is today?

I have my own belief with regard to the truth. I will not and absolutely should not dictate yours. All I know is that moral relativism is not the answer and I am certain the people that founded this country knew it would not survive based on the principles of that philosophy.

Edited July 4, 2013 by WAG

[pawnman]

I have my own belief with regard to the truth. I will not and absolutely should not dictate yours. All I know is that moral relativism is not the answer and I am certain the people that founded this country knew it would not survive based on the principles of that philosophy.

Ah. So what is it you believe moral relativism actually is, if you are saying that everyone should find their own source for moral guidance?

[WAG]

if you are saying that everyone should find their own source for moral guidance?

Never said that. Read my words carefully. I am saying there is a source that is not your own. How you make that connection is your own path.

[joe1234]

I have my own belief with regard to the truth. I will not and absolutely should not dictate yours. All I know is that moral relativism is not the answer and I am certain the people that founded this country knew it would not survive based on the principles of that philosophy.

I'm not saying you must agree with moral relativism, but that is simply the truth of how things progress. Arguing against it is like arguing against the merits of converting oxygen to carbon dioxide. Thats the burden you bear when you choose to participate in society.

And, honestly, they DID found this country partially on the principles of that philosophy, which is why the Constitution has been changed so many times already. That's why we have a SCOTUS to interpret laws, and an amendment process, because they knew that times would change, and people would eventually rip up the Constitution if it got too out of touch with that era's value system. The process provides just enough friction to prevent knee jerk reactions, but enough flexibility to ensure its survival.

[WAG]

I'm not saying you must agree with moral relativism, but that is simply the truth of how things progress. Arguing against it is like arguing against the merits of converting oxygen to carbon dioxide. Thats the burden you bear when you choose to participate in society.

Please explain. Is this an evolutionary "survival of the fittest" (Social Darwinism) argument to explain ethics? This philosophy is flawed and the endgame of it is not pretty. And no, I'm not even a fundamental creationist.

And, honestly, they DID found this country partially on the principles of that philosophy, which is why the Constitution has been changed so many times already. That's why we have a SCOTUS to interpret laws, and an amendment process, because they knew that times would change, and people would eventually rip up the Constitution if it got too out of touch with that era's value system. The process provides just enough friction to prevent knee jerk reactions, but enough flexibility to ensure its survival.

We have the amendment system for a reason. I see you have a very pragmatic opinion on this process (which is why the system is breaking). The original designers of the Constitution provided for the process of changing it, they never intended for their original words to change meaning. If the Constitution was up for interpretation, it would have been written specifically in the Constitution for it to be that way. Judicial activism is destroying this country and is setting terrible precedents...

"[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things.... [Proponents of the living constitution want matters to be decided] not by the people, but by the justices of the Supreme Court .... They are not looking for legal flexibility, they are looking for rigidity, whether it's the right to abortion or the right to homosexual activity, they want that right to be embedded from coast to coast and to be unchangeable." - Justice Antonin Scalia

Edited July 4, 2013 by WAG

[Homestar]

[Darth]

We could only be so lucky that this thread would just DIE.

[pawnman]

Never said that. Read my words carefully. I am saying there is a source that is not your own. How you make that connection is your own path.

Ah. So religion is the only way to ethical behavior. Seems I've spent a lot of time fighting a group of guys trying to put that into practice.

[WAG]

Ah. So religion is the only way to ethical behavior. Seems I've spent a lot of time fighting a group of guys trying to put that into practice.

You DO realize you don't have to follow a religion for that to hold true? C'mon man...

As an individual, you have a right in this country not to subscribe to that philosophy. An individual may benefit from moral order and unalienable rights around which society functions while still rejecting their Divine origin. However, the civil society cannot organize itself that way. We're not talking about America becoming a theocracy, dude. The founders refused to build this country on the basis of the abandonment of "Natural Law" because doing so would lead to tyranny in one form or another.

This is especially fitting today:

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

Edited July 4, 2013 by WAG

[Catbox]

I started the ######ing thing and have had a pistol in my mouth since page 3.