Kwea was being a bit snarky - hence the grin - but c'mon, can't you tailor your response to the perceived offense? He basically said, "Gotcha!" and you called him an idiot for it.
Anyway.
quote:You are talking about people evaluated on their individual merits as to whether or not they can perform the task required for the job. There is no blanket legal classification that limits them from serving, if they can demonstrate they can perform the job.
What I'm talking about is whether or not, as you claim, permission to serve in the armed forces of a country is part of the equation that equals full citizenship in that nation.
Now the truth is, as evidenced by the examples I've given, that plainly that permission is not necessary for full citizenship, else you'd have to admit that obese people aren't full citizens, because they cannot serve. You're including qualifiers now, which is fine, but you weren't so much before is my point.
quote:I am not sure what is so difficult to grasp about that distinction.
There's nothing remotely difficult to grasp about it, nor did I ever suggest there was a distinction. I was only ever challenging the notion that full citizenship must entail the permission to serve in the armed forces.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul, enough with the personal attack, please."
Dude. Read your post I was responding to again. You started it AGAIN.
"Considering your definition varies by a wide margin from the traditional definition of one,"
As I said above, its fairly basic social contract theory.
"but it seems overly restrictive to me."
No, it identifies what it is that makes citizenship citizenship, and not mere residency. Having access to the functions of state and government is really the only reason that citizenship matters, compared to non-citizenship.
"We don't have a second tier citizenship....in this country you don't have to be in the service to get a tax break, to get elected to public office (well, most of them), to drive, to vote, or to work. If we did, the way that some of those other countries do, then perhaps you'd be right. But none of the privileged associated with citizenship have any service requirement attached to them at all."
We do have a second tier citizenship. Gays are not allowed to serve in the military. EVERYONE else is. Some of them are disqualified because they, as individuals, can't perform the job. So gays do NOT have all of the privileges associated with citizenship... aside from the direct privilege of protecting their country friends and family from foreign threats, there are a number of federal benefits that gays do not have access to because those benefits are extended only to past or present members of the military, for example the educational funds that come through the GI bill.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Kwea was being a bit snarky - hence the grin - but c'mon, can't you tailor your response to the perceived offense?"
Sure. I said he's an idiot if he really thought that.
"You're including qualifiers now, which is fine, but you weren't so much before is my point."
Go look at my third post on the thread, which is my first explanatory post. Or my first post on page two, if that is easier. Then please retract the above statement.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are gays full citizens, or not? Answer that question, and you've answered the question as to whether or not they should be able to serve openly in the military.
There might be logistic issues in terms of preventing sexual harrassment. But those aren't reasons to prevent gays from being full citizens, and preventing them from serving in the military is denying access to full citizenship.
quote: I'm sorry, but full citizenship requires the ability to serve in the military.
It took you awhile to start including qualifiers, and even then, my point still stands: is someone who is deemed to lack the ability to serve not a full citizen, on a case-by-case basis?
posted
Well, I was wondering when you were going to take a swing at me too, Paul. Calling me a liar is a bit harsher than I expected, but it's definitely sufficient to burn through the remaining interest I had in this discussion.
If you ever become interested in answering my question - why is permission to serve in the armed forces a key element of full citizenship, and if it is, are those who are denied that permission less than full citizens? - lemme know.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You WERE lying. Stop it, and I'll stop taking swings at you.
I have answered your question. "why is permission to serve in the armed forces a key element of full citizenship"
This one like 5 times,
"and if it is, are those who are denied that permission less than full citizens? - lemme know. "
Yes. But there's a BIG distinction between denying someone permission to serve because they can't do the job, and because the law just doesn't like a person. Same reason that being excused from jury duty because of an inability to be impartial on a particular case is different from being excused from jury duty because a person is asian.
Citizenship is a legal thing, not a social thing. Where the law makes arbitrary distinctions based on group membership, the law is creating classifications of citizenship.
If there is a law that says people who weigh over 250 lbs are forbidden from serving in any of the armed forces, regardless of whether or not they can do the job, then I would agree with the statement "heavy people are not equal citizens." I do not believe that is the case, though.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
No, I wasn't lying. Say I was as many times more as you like, this last denial will have to serve for all.
quote: Yes. But there's a BIG distinction between denying someone permission to serve because they can't do the job, and because the law just doesn't like a person. Same reason that being excused from jury duty because of an inability to be impartial on a particular case is different from being excused from jury duty because a person is asian.
Yes, there is a distinction. No, that was never the point. My point was that your claim that permission to serve in the armed forces is a key element to full citizenship was wrong, plain and simple, because there are exceptions.
If it's not a key component of full citizenship for the fat dude, it's also not a key component of full citizenship for the gay dude. It's not a key component of full citizenship for anyone, simply because it would be wrong to deny full citizenship to all the millions of exempt exceptions brought about by chance.
That doesn't mean it's not wrong to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, though.
quote: If there is a law that says people who weigh over 250 lbs are forbidden from serving in any of the armed forces, regardless of whether or not they can do the job, then I would agree with the statement "heavy people are not equal citizens." I do not believe that is the case, though.
Oh, c'mon. That is such a cop-out. There was never a law about dozens of forms of discrimination that the Civil Rights Act dealt with, either. Didn't mean it wasn't happening, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
If there is a law that says people who weigh over 250 lbs are forbidden from serving in any of the armed forces, regardless of whether or not they can do the job, then I would agree with the statement "heavy people are not equal citizens." I do not believe that is the case, though.
It's in the admissions requirements for entering the service, although it is also phrased as a BMI percent for some branches. You will also be kicked out of most branches if you go over it even after being accepted, even if you can get perfect scores on the PT tests.
I wasn't being snarky, I was saying that your definition, which is not common and has been disputed by more than one person in this thread alone, didn't match the common definition (or any of the 10 dictionary definitions I looked up) of citizanship, and I wondered half seriously if it had been developed for specific arguments like this one. That in itself wouldn't mean it was without merit, you know.
Your arguments are oversimplifications at best, your attitude is dismissive at best and disrespectful at worst, and I think I am done. It's obvious you can't hold a conversation in good faith with anyone who disagrees with you without relying on personal attacks to "prove" your points.
You've even gone as far as to blame other people for your bad attitude and your history of lashing out at other people.
posted
I've given this thread a few days for myself to cool off, and emailed links to some people whose opinion I trust, and they've more or less agreed with me about how this thread has gone. I'm not saying I've been an angel, but I also think that I was provoked and then fingers were pointed
"Ah ha! we provoked him and he responded in kind! look at what a bad person he is!"
Fine. It is what it is. I know that rakeesh is a liar, and kwea is a baiter. You guys should be at least as ashamed of yourselves as I am of myself.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fine. It is what it is. I know that rakeesh is a liar, and kwea is a baiter. You guys should be at least as ashamed of yourselves as I am of myself.
Whew! Glad you cooled off, Paul.
That was baiting, btw. And seriously, what exactly were you hoping to accomplish with this post?* You claim you've calmed down and are now being reasonable, then with the insults. You cite authority, then hide it in anonymity. You claim to be ashamed of yourself, and though you later contradict yourself there, all the other contradictions make that a dubious claim at best.
What a joke, man.
*That was a rhetorical question, actually. You were last-wording.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having re-read the thread now myself, I'll engage in some last-wording of my own now, Paul. For using an objectionable - to you - definition of 'a while', you called me a liar.
Yeah, my shame-quotient here is pretty damn low. It used to be enjoyable to discuss things with you, even in disagreement. I don't know what the hell happened, but you've certainly gotten a lot more bitter in the half-dozen years or so I've been on Hatrack. I'll try to just ignore you to avoid acrimonious discussions like this in the future. I say 'try' because honestly, I'm about as good at avoiding that sort of thing as you are.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If by baiter you mean I disagree with you, you might be right.
You know, since you seem to have this problem with most of the people who do dare to disagree with you ... multiple times, with multiple people, over multiple subjects, through multiple years....
...here's an idea.
Grow up, take responsibility for your OWN actions and the way you react to people who disagree with you, and stop arguing things in bad faith. Stop making blanket statements that overreach, and stop getting pissy with people who object to those blanket statements.
No one can make you react like you do Paul, and it's no ones elses fault when you do.
I could care less what your hand picked friends think of my interaction with you.
Read it again. This entire disagreement started because I objected to you dismissing the opposite side of this issues by claiming it was a simple issue, clear as day.
I said I personally supported people I knew in the Army while I was in, that I didn't care what peoples sexual orientation was, and that I hoped this policy would change in my lifetime.
But I also said that you were wrong in assuming the Armed Services had not looked at these issues, and that you were overlooking a lot of the issues because of your lack of experience. I said that I had personal experiences with one of the people who helped make this decision, and explained SOME of the issues they had to consider that may have not been obvious to someone on the outside of this issue.
And I objected you your misuse of the word citizen, and gave examples of other, non-related situations where other people were not allowed to serve in the armed forces but still retained all rights of citizenship to show why I objected to your definition.
Paul, take responsibility for your own actions. You are going to meet all sorts of people who disagree with you in your life, and blaming them because they dare disagree with you isn't smart, honest, mature, or effective. Stop arguing in bad faith, and don't assume the people disagreeing with you are uninformed, ignorant, or stupid.
Maybe then you'd actually be able to have a conversation without looking like a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
At this point, we've said what we think, and anything further would just make things worse, so I am done with this conversation.....at least with you. I have posted links to BOTH sides of this argument since this started, and I would be glad to discuss this some more, particularily since I have mixed feelings about it.
Providing my opinion matters...you know since I am related to people who worked on this, and was in the Army myself, I might not be entitled to one.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
