Fundy Islam vs White Supremacy

[baron]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Your breathless hyperbole is always a source of amusement. Please don't stop.

https://www.sfu.ca/cmns/130d1/HOWTODEBATE.htm

HTH

[applecorped]

Fundy Islam is closer to hardcore socialism actually

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by baron

https://www.sfu.ca/cmns/130d1/HOWTODEBATE.htm

HTH

Irony?

[baron]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

Irony?

Just trying to be helpful. You have posted three times in this thread and all three posts have been trolling. I wondered if you having trouble addressing the topic.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Donal

They aren't blind to it. They use it as an excuse.

"Why do you get so up in arms about the transsexual ban in the military when [Country X] is still stoning gays?"

As if "nominally better than theocratic despots" is a high enough bar.

This is probably a waste of time since I think you're just making up an example that is close enough to what you're trying to show, but "being in the military" isn't a right

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ranb

The point is both groups of people just want to deny basic human dignity to people they don't like. While some American members of this forum are all up in arms about muslim antics that largely happen overseas, it seems they're completely blind to the people who want to deny rights to others based on their skin color.

But they are denying them to the right groups of people, IE those who are not real americans(TM) vs the wrong groups of people.

Kind of like who having to serve blacks or gays is also totally religious oppression against real christians.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ranb

I do believe it happens. Just because I don't buy your opinions on the matter doesn't mean I don't think it happens.

You think white supremacy isn't a thing anymore? Tell that to all of the tiki torch wielding idiots who marched for the neo-nazi cause.

You haven't listened to the leader of the free world, those are fine people now. That is as wrong as when that hag hillary called them deplorable. You can't denigrate fine upstanding americans like they, real americans(tm) will not stand for it.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by pharphis

This is probably a waste of time since I think you're just making up an example that is close enough to what you're trying to show, but "being in the military" isn't a right

Isn't it? Isn't seeking employment you are qualified for? (I mean, if we think FDR is qualified to discuss what a right is). But that is a whole other conversation.

But discrimination, especially by a government agency, certainly is not.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Yes.

It's almost as though it's the fundamentalism part that is the problem.

I probably know equal numbers of devout Muslims and Christians, but the only fundamentalists I know are Christians and they hold some scary beliefs.

I got a feeling that is because most of the Islamic Fundies try to keep themselves apart from the "Corrupt evil" western society they live in as much as possible.

But no doubt Islamic extremist do get some slack from some on the left that they should not get.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I got a feeling that is because most of the Islamic Fundies try to keep themselves apart from the "Corrupt evil" western society they live in as much as possible.

But no doubt Islamic extremist do get some slack from some on the left that they should not get.

That's probably it. The Christian fundamentalists* are closer to what had been considered mainstream fifty years ago - in the UK, I'd say there was a general unthinking acceptance of Christianity even if not many actively believed or thought much about it.

Islam never was in that position in the UK.



*a couple of whom would fit right in in the Bible Belt, whereas the other has more of a religious vocabulary from the Seventeenth, or even Sixteenth Century.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by jimbob

That's probably it. The Christian fundamentalists* are closer to what had been considered mainstream fifty years ago - in the UK, I'd say there was a general unthinking acceptance of Christianity even if not many actively believed or thought much about it.

Islam never was in that position in the UK.



*a couple of whom would fit right in in the Bible Belt, whereas the other has more of a religious vocabulary from the Seventeenth, or even Sixteenth Century.

And Protestent Christianity at that.....
Just got through reading Lady Antonia Fraser's "The King and the Catholics" about the long fight Roman Catholics had for political equality in the UK even after the most blatent Anti Catholic laws were repealed.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Donal

Isn't it? Isn't seeking employment you are qualified for? (I mean, if we think FDR is qualified to discuss what a right is). But that is a whole other conversation.

But discrimination, especially by a government agency, certainly is not.

Being a part of the military isn't your regular job contract, and "qualified" is up to the military to decide. They use good and bad reasons to rule people out at the first selection stages because it saves money from having to do more expensive assessments.

For example, iirc there is a rule that if you have taken medication as a child for things like ADD/ADHD you are automatically disqualified, despite this not reasonably making any sense.

Banning trans folk (people who are at extremely high risk for suicide/depression) from the military is a good way to save yourself from a lot of suicide/depression which puts the entire team at risk, and at minimal cost (no need for assessments). I don't like it, but money resources aren't infinite and there are plenty of people who are still signing up who are more qualified on average, so why dip into other riskier demographics?

and let's be clear here: it's not just a minor difference in suicide and depression, it is a massive discrepancy and we're talking about a very tiny demographic.

edit: and "seeking employment" is fine... but being rejected based on the military's best interests is also fine

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Being a part of the military isn't your regular job contract, and "qualified" is up to the military to decide. They use good and bad reasons to rule people out at the first selection stages because it saves money from having to do more expensive assessments.

Hell this is the army, people found it shocking to have to work for a colored officer, in 2003.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/m...est-point.html

"“Sir, I never thought I’d see the day I’d be working for a colored officer.” These were not words I expected to hear, in 2003, from a senior enlisted soldier."

Maybe we need to do a bit more work on all kinds of bigotry in the military.

[baron]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hell this is the army, people found it shocking to have to work for a colored officer, in 2003.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/m...est-point.html

"“Sir, I never thought I’d see the day I’d be working for a colored officer.” These were not words I expected to hear, in 2003, from a senior enlisted soldier."

Telling that those words are immediately seen as a racist observation as opposed to a celebration of progress.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Being a part of the military isn't your regular job contract, and "qualified" is up to the military to decide. They use good and bad reasons to rule people out at the first selection stages because it saves money from having to do more expensive assessments.

For example, iirc there is a rule that if you have taken medication as a child for things like ADD/ADHD you are automatically disqualified, despite this not reasonably making any sense.

Banning trans folk (people who are at extremely high risk for suicide/depression) from the military is a good way to save yourself from a lot of suicide/depression which puts the entire team at risk, and at minimal cost (no need for assessments). I don't like it, but money resources aren't infinite and there are plenty of people who are still signing up who are more qualified on average, so why dip into other riskier demographics?

and let's be clear here: it's not just a minor difference in suicide and depression, it is a massive discrepancy and we're talking about a very tiny demographic.

edit: and "seeking employment" is fine... but being rejected based on the military's best interests is also fine

In the US Military, you can be dropped during Basic Training for just about any reason the military..or to be more precise, the Senior Drill Sergeant and the Training Officers ..see fit.
When I was in, it was called ELS..Entry Level Seperation.
If you graduate basic, then they have to go through more formal court martial procedures to get rid of you.
And some forms of discrimination that are lllegal in civilian life are necessary for the military.....like the disability rules. Physical fitness is considered vital whatever your job is in the military.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Banning trans folk (people who are at extremely high risk for suicide/depression) from the military is a good way to save yourself from a lot of suicide/depression which puts the entire team at risk, and at minimal cost (no need for assessments).

Gee, I wonder what causes the increased suicide risk.

Quote:

I don't like it, but money resources aren't infinite and there are plenty of people who are still signing up who are more qualified on average, so why dip into other riskier demographics?

Lots of folks were "riskier graphics". And the military has been missing recruitment goals.

Quote:

and let's be clear here: it's not just a minor difference in suicide and depression, it is a massive discrepancy and we're talking about a very tiny demographic.

There's no evidence that a trans service member is more likely to commit suicide than a binary service member. Suicide studies in the military are a mess in general. You have to break it down by branch, rank, MOS, service time etc etc

Quote:

edit: and "seeking employment" is fine... but being rejected based on the military's best interests is also fine

the generals don't seem to think the ban serves the best interests of the military.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Donal

Gee, I wonder what causes the increased suicide risk.



Lots of folks were "riskier graphics". And the military has been missing recruitment goals.



There's no evidence that a trans service member is more likely to commit suicide than a binary service member. Suicide studies in the military are a mess in general. You have to break it down by branch, rank, MOS, service time etc etc



the generals don't seem to think the ban serves the best interests of the military.

I don't. It's quite obvious that having your brain chemistry conflict with the rest of your body is a big part of it. I would also add that social factors and things like discrimination would also play a role, but I think it's quite foolish to frame the cause as strictly a lack of social acceptance. Unless you have really strong evidence for that (I've heard mixed things).

It is a reasonable inference without evidence more specific evidence that they are a higher risk. Not to mention possible confusion/non-acceptance of those around them, which would weaken the strength of a group (morale, teamwork, etc. though I doubt as much as suicide itself would).

Anyway... this thread isn't about trans military ban stuff. I just thought it was a silly comparison to use "being in the military" as a human right.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Donal

Gee, I wonder what causes the increased suicide risk.



Lots of folks were "riskier graphics". And the military has been missing recruitment goals.



There's no evidence that a trans service member is more likely to commit suicide than a binary service member. Suicide studies in the military are a mess in general. You have to break it down by branch, rank, MOS, service time etc etc



the generals don't seem to think the ban serves the best interests of the military.

And that’s the issue.

The posotus doesn’t give a **** about veterans whom a few Christian taliban ***** have issued a fatwah against because they aren’t worthy of human rights.

If you support trump you do not, and can never claim to, support veterans.