Homosexuals in the military demand special privileges

[PKT_VOL]

Human beings inherently want what is in their own self-interest; self-interest, upon reflection and according to game theory, most often aligns with non-violence. Human beings are also prone to sympathy and empathy, however, the strength of these emotions often correlates with the strength of relation.

Over the course of history, violence (as a percentage of total population) has dropped while for the past 3,000 years, at least, governments, generally, have become less authoritative and totalitarian. Thus, government cannot explain the drop in violence. The three advances that I feel are the leading candidates for the drop in violence are (1) the evolution in farming and storage techniques/technology which has allowed many individuals to move beyond the state of bare subsistence, (2) trade and capitalism, and (3) the republic of letters (the invention of the printing press and spread of ideas).

(1) If one is barely meeting the necessary conditions for existence, then any theft of property is, potentially, a life or death occurrence. Thus, individuals in such a state had to guard their property with violent urgency. Moving beyond that state allows for the possibility of forgiveness and mercy.

(2) It would not be in your best interest to kill those you trade with; likewise, it would not be in your best interest to live in a society that is so dangerous that merchants and traders will not visit your society (Adam Smith has a great historical example regarding just this in Wealth of Nations). Thus, as trade increases, violence decreases (especially, inter-tribal violence, as opposed to intra-tribal violence).

(3) The republic of letters. With the invention of the printing press, books and ideas could be spread far, wide, and cheaply. Moreover, reading literature plays on the sympathy/empathy mechanism; as well, individuals are able to form relationships and sympathize with others that are from different areas and cultures. I think the internet will, ultimately, do much to decrease violence, as now the notion of a 'global community' has some real legs to it.

Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but your first statement in bold doesn't make any sense.

If I understand you correctly, you posit that violence has decreased over the last 3,000 years. I am aware of similar statistics from the mid 15th century til the present day. I will assume you are right on that. The puzzling thing is that you dismiss the type of government as a part of the reason why there has been such a drop off in the rate of violence. As if authoritative and totalitarian governments are more peaceful as a whole than republics. I take issue with that notion.

Secondly, although I believe your three advancements are valid points, I don't believe they tell the whole story. I believe you are way to dismissive, either explicitly or implicitly, of the advancement and proliferation of military technology; chiefly nuclear weapons. There many charts out there which show a staggering drop-off of nation-state war (conflict) causalities since 1945. The trend decreases pretty much every years since then minus relatively small spikes for the Korean and Vietnam wars.

 

[therealUT]

Maybe I am misinterpreting you, but your first statement in bold doesn't make any sense.

If I understand you correctly, you posit that violence has decreased over the last 3,000 years. I am aware of similar statistics from the mid 15th century til the present day. I will assume you are right on that. The puzzling thing is that you dismiss the type of government as a part of the reason why there has been such a drop off in the rate of violence. As if authoritative and totalitarian governments are more peaceful as a whole than republics. I take issue with that notion.

I did not make it that clear. I will try to clarify (but, it will still remain less clear than hoped for).

Authoritative/totalitarian governments are not more peaceful than republics, either internally or externally. However, this is counter-intuitive, since they possess the coercive force to ensure absolute compliance. Adding to that, I would say that a republic is, in some sense, a lesser form of government (better read as opposed to big government). Thus, it appears that less government equals more peace, to some extent. But, if governments are what make individuals behave peacefully, then there is some kind of tricky math (not necessary opposed to math, since there can exist an optimum amount of government for peace on a curve).

Secondly, although I believe your three advancements are valid points, I don't believe they tell the whole story. I believe you are way to dismissive, either explicitly or implicitly, of the advancement and proliferation of military technology; chiefly nuclear weapons. There many charts out there which show a staggering drop-off of nation-state war (conflict) causalities since 1945. The trend decreases pretty much every years since then minus relatively small spikes for the Korean and Vietnam wars.

There has been an incredibly steep decreasing saw-tooth since the middle of the seventeenth century and, surprisingly, WWI and WWII do not upset the trend. Thus, while I think nuclear weapons have helped, to some extent, in further deterring major powers from going to war with each other, the resistance to violence was, for the most part, already well in place.

Pinker's book is very enlightening and covers down on all of these issues. A truly fascinating read that provides plenty of hope for the future.

 

[KoachKrab127]

Love this thread. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[n_huffhines]

No government in Somalia..I here its quit peaceful there.

You're missing the boat. You can't compare Somalia to the US because Somalia was not anywhere near where the US was when they did have government.

The Rothbardian [anarcho-capitalist] doesn't claim that the absence of a state is a sufficient condition for bliss. Rather, the Rothbardian says that however prosperous and law-abiding a society is, adding an institution of organized violence and theft [government] will only make things worse.

Anarchy in Somalia - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily

 

[n_huffhines]

1) Government does not inherently create violence. This is not to say that government can't provoke violence.

2) Humans are not inherently good. Humans are a life form, thus they are chiefly interested in survival. A lot of times this is translated as "self-interest".

(1) Really? I don't know what you mean by that, but I can't think of a single government that hasn't acted violently.

(2) We are inherently good precisely because it is mostly in our self-interest to be good. Once you give someone power of force you create perverse incentives. The ties between self-interest and good behavior start to deteriorate.

 

[n_huffhines]

TRUT, you're too heavy, bro. It may be a copout, but I don't have time to get into stuff that deep this week. I'm on vacation. Would love to address that stuff when I have more time....next week.

 

[VOLatile]

One of the many problems I see in your idea huff is that it doesn't account for the people who don't care about their "reputation." It's like how I can't get a loan because I've never had a credit of any kind, and I don't want to get a credit card. However, the one time I applied for one I was denied because I have no history of credit.

Maybe that isn't the analogy I was looking for. Either way, the system in the US only supports those that are in pursuit of riches. It is inherently against those that are content to live a modest and self-fulfilling life.

 

[therealUT]

TRUT, you're too heavy, bro. It may be a copout, but I don't have time to get into stuff that deep this week. I'm on vacation. Would love to address that stuff when I have more time....next week.

No rush; I've still got a lifetime ahead of me.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I did not make it that clear. I will try to clarify (but, it will still remain less clear than hoped for).

Authoritative/totalitarian governments are not more peaceful than republics, either internally or externally. However, this is counter-intuitive, since they possess the coercive force to ensure absolute compliance. Adding to that, I would say that a republic is, in some sense, a lesser form of government (better read as opposed to big government). Thus, it appears that less government equals more peace, to some extent. But, if governments are what make individuals behave peacefully, then there is some kind of tricky math (not necessary opposed to math, since there can exist an optimum amount of government for peace on a curve).

On paper, there shouldn't be any difference between any form of government with respect to violence. As I was point out to Baker, government does not inherently create violence.

However, when authoritarian/totalitarian governments follow the political philosophy of Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince, there is definitively more violence created.

I am not sure a buy into your curve model. The only way I could buy into that model would be for it to be extremely complex and include just about every contributing factor one can imagine.

There has been an incredibly steep decreasing saw-tooth since the middle of the seventeenth century and, surprisingly, WWI and WWII do not upset the trend. Thus, while I think nuclear weapons have helped, to some extent, in further deterring major powers from going to war with each other, the resistance to violence was, for the most part, already well in place.

Pinker's book is very enlightening and covers down on all of these issues. A truly fascinating read that provides plenty of hope for the future.

These are taken straight from a lecture given on International Relations (what I focused on in my Political Science minor). The lecture was entitled, Is war obsolete?

Battle Deaths Worldwide (1945-2000)

Probability of Death in Battle (1946-2005)

Probability of Death in Battle (1946-2005)

Great Power Wars (1500-2000)

Communication enhancements and globalization have definitely helped curb violence. However, those graphs provide pretty strong evidence for the theory of deterrence from mutually assured destruction.

 

[PKT_VOL]

(1) Really? I don't know what you mean by that, but I can't think of a single government that hasn't acted violently.

I am sure there are many small governments that have. Like I said before, government does not inherently create violence.

How could it? That is just as dumb as stating that guns kill people when in fact people kill people. The government, just as the gun, is a mere tool for the murderer.

(2) We are inherently good precisely because it is mostly in our self-interest to be good. Once you give someone power of force you create perverse incentives. The ties between self-interest and good behavior start to deteriorate.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would one freely enter into a social contract if their neighbors were inherently good?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

You should read the Amendment that just passed in North Carolina.



Churches should pay taxes.



Pledge should be banned, and my stance has nothing to do with the fact that "God" was added to it in the 1950s. The pledge should be banned because we should not be forcing our children to pledge blind loyalty to anything.



Wrong.

TRUt_ I just have finally read enough of your ridiculous regurgitated garbage that despite every effort not to tell you how I really feel..I have to at least a little. The only human being whose opinion I could possibly respect less than yours would be a child molester. You represent yourself to have absolutely no traditional morals. You are a coward, in the manner of the coward in Saving private ryan who sat and cried while a brave man was stabbed in the throat. You resigned an officers post so you could go hug a shrub right? You were a little puss when you went in the military (I've seen pics) and even more of a puss when you cowered away. You are a closet muslim, and have posted some of the most absolutely unbelievable garbage I have ever seen or heard. You quote every philosopher of the last 1000 years but have no rational thought of your own. I disagree with every thing you think, say, quote or steal. I find it hard to believe that any sane and responsible adults outlook on life could be your spineless, immoral, "Look the other way or you might get hurt" nonsense. It is absolutely sinful for me to be as disgusted by your opinions as I am. I'm disappointed in myself. If you believe half of what you write here...you should ashamed of yourself too.

 

[PKT_VOL]

TRUt_ I just have finally read enough of your ridiculous regurgitated garbage that despite every effort not to tell you how I really feel..I have to at least a little. The only human being whose opinion I could possibly respect less than yours would be a child molester. You represent yourself to have absolutely no traditional morals. You are a coward, in the manner of the coward in Saving private ryan who sat and cried while a brave man was stabbed in the throat. You resigned an officers post so you could go hug a shrub right? You were a little puss when you went in the military (I've seen pics) and even more of a puss when you cowered away. You are a closet muslim, and have posted some of the most absolutely unbelievable garbage I have ever seen or heard. You quote every philosopher of the last 1000 years but have no rational thought of your own. I disagree with every thing you think, say, quote or steal. I find it hard to believe that any sane and responsible adults outlook on life could be your spineless, immoral, "Look the other way or you might get hurt" nonsense. It is absolutely sinful for me to be as disgusted by your opinions as I am. I'm disappointed in myself. If you believe half of what you write here...you should ashamed of yourself too.

This might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here.

I would trust my life and my to be born children with TRUT over any other poster I have has seen on VN. He is the most rational poster on here.

No spine? Bashing on his military service? Seriously? We're you ever a Ranger that pulled duties in a combat zone?

Your post is utterly absurd.

 

[o3marine52]

You are a sad pathetic human being.

Well Chief I believe your a sad pathetic exuse. I am out in the middle on the ocean on one of your ships this very second and it amazes me how open these people are. They are absolutly aloud to flaunt it, in uniform or not.

I find it disgusting that they are allowed to shower with straight people and bunk in the same birthings, our last port there was an incedent where a drunk male sailor tried to force himself on a Marine.

Our country like Rome is being destroyed from within because we have allowed these liberal progressive to dictate moral truths for the rest of us.

I used to respect this uniform, but more and more because of the left and their 'tollerance' I am losing that respect.

 

[o3marine52]

TRUt_ I just have finally read enough of your ridiculous regurgitated garbage that despite every effort not to tell you how I really feel..I have to at least a little. The only human being whose opinion I could possibly respect less than yours would be a child molester. You represent yourself to have absolutely no traditional morals. You are a coward, in the manner of the coward in Saving private ryan who sat and cried while a brave man was stabbed in the throat. You resigned an officers post so you could go hug a shrub right? You were a little puss when you went in the military (I've seen pics) and even more of a puss when you cowered away. You are a closet muslim, and have posted some of the most absolutely unbelievable garbage I have ever seen or heard. You quote every philosopher of the last 1000 years but have no rational thought of your own. I disagree with every thing you think, say, quote or steal. I find it hard to believe that any sane and responsible adults outlook on life could be your spineless, immoral, "Look the other way or you might get hurt" nonsense. It is absolutely sinful for me to be as disgusted by your opinions as I am. I'm disappointed in myself. If you believe half of what you write here...you should ashamed of yourself too.

.Good call i absolutely agree with you. These idiots who claim to speak with some authority because they once wore a uniform disgust me. There are also large amounts of gang member who served and they make as much sense as these leftist idiots.

I truly despise the left and the idiotic rhetoric they espouse. I hate them with a deep passion. They are the destruction of our wonderful beautiful America

 

[milohimself]

Damn straight, great military force cannot tolerate homosexuality.




































Except for nearly every great military force that has ever existed.

 

[milohimself]

.Good call i absolutely agree with you. These idiots who claim to speak with some authority because they once wore a uniform disgust me. There are also large amounts of gang member who served and they make as much sense as these leftist idiots.

I truly despise the left and the idiotic rhetoric they espouse. I hate them with a deep passion. They are the destruction of our wonderful beautiful America

It's other people's America, too, bub. Including the liberals.

 

[therealUT]

TRUt_ I just have finally read enough of your ridiculous regurgitated garbage that despite every effort not to tell you how I really feel..I have to at least a little. The only human being whose opinion I could possibly respect less than yours would be a child molester. You represent yourself to have absolutely no traditional morals. You are a coward, in the manner of the coward in Saving private ryan who sat and cried while a brave man was stabbed in the throat. You resigned an officers post so you could go hug a shrub right? You were a little puss when you went in the military (I've seen pics) and even more of a puss when you cowered away. You are a closet muslim, and have posted some of the most absolutely unbelievable garbage I have ever seen or heard. You quote every philosopher of the last 1000 years but have no rational thought of your own. I disagree with every thing you think, say, quote or steal. I find it hard to believe that any sane and responsible adults outlook on life could be your spineless, immoral, "Look the other way or you might get hurt" nonsense. It is absolutely sinful for me to be as disgusted by your opinions as I am. I'm disappointed in myself. If you believe half of what you write here...you should ashamed of yourself too.

This is funny. I laughed.

Figured I should provide a quote as well, so that you may truly be set off and further disgusted:

Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of reason; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

 

[KingNick865]

TRUt_ I just have finally read enough of your ridiculous regurgitated garbage that despite every effort not to tell you how I really feel..I have to at least a little. The only human being whose opinion I could possibly respect less than yours would be a child molester. You represent yourself to have absolutely no traditional morals. You are a coward, in the manner of the coward in Saving private ryan who sat and cried while a brave man was stabbed in the throat. You resigned an officers post so you could go hug a shrub right? You were a little puss when you went in the military (I've seen pics) and even more of a puss when you cowered away. You are a closet muslim, and have posted some of the most absolutely unbelievable garbage I have ever seen or heard. You quote every philosopher of the last 1000 years but have no rational thought of your own. I disagree with every thing you think, say, quote or steal. I find it hard to believe that any sane and responsible adults outlook on life could be your spineless, immoral, "Look the other way or you might get hurt" nonsense. It is absolutely sinful for me to be as disgusted by your opinions as I am. I'm disappointed in myself. If you believe half of what you write here...you should ashamed of yourself too.

This is amazing. I've been here for a little over four years now, and I have yet to read something as . . . uh . . . as this.

 

[BearCat204]

Well Chief I believe your a sad pathetic exuse. I am out in the middle on the ocean on one of your ships this very second and it amazes me how open these people are. They are absolutly aloud to flaunt it, in uniform or not.

I find it disgusting that they are allowed to shower with straight people and bunk in the same birthings, our last port there was an incedent where a drunk male sailor tried to force himself on a Marine.

Our country like Rome is being destroyed from within because we have allowed these liberal progressive to dictate moral truths for the rest of us.

I used to respect this uniform, but more and more because of the left and their 'tollerance' I am losing that respect.

Your intolerance of people's sexual preference between two consenting adults is just as pathethic as the OPs. The problem I have with all of this is any special privileges they may have or would get, not who they choose to have sex with. If uniformity is kept, whats the damn problem?

 

[BearCat204]

These idiots who claim to speak with some authority because they once wore a uniform disgust me.

Those "idiots" have worn the uniform probably much longer than you and have seen things that would make your stomach turn. You speak just like a young marine who has yet to taste the pain and the feeling of sacrafice that many of these "idiots" have had before you even raised your right hand. Like I have said the whole time, you want to be upset at another person getting special priviledges due to their sexual preference, Im behind you. If you are upset because they choose to go sleep with a man when they are not in uniform or on duty, I cant agree with that. If a sailor, marine, soldier, or airman keeps military bearing, chain of command, and uniformity, then I dont care if they are taking 8 dicks to the face when they get home. Neither should you

 

[therealUT]

Well Chief I believe your a sad pathetic exuse. I am out in the middle on the ocean on one of your ships this very second and it amazes me how open these people are. They are absolutly aloud to flaunt it, in uniform or not.

I got out before DADT was repealed; however, while I was in, there was certainly a lot of unchecked and unregulated flaunting of heterosexual behavior and Soldiers routinely talked about the past conquests and the future conquests that they hoped for. Should that be allowed?

 

[BearCat204]

I got out before DADT was repealed; however, while I was in, there was certainly a lot of unchecked and unregulated flaunting of heterosexual behavior and Soldiers routinely talked about the past conquests and the future conquests that they hoped for. Should that be allowed?

You would see this often on a ship, especially carriers. Marine also made the comment that a gay sailor tried to force himself on a Marine while in port...........that never happened between hetero men and women before the repeal of DADT.....never {little bit of sarcasm}

 

[utvolpj]

our last port there was an incedent where a drunk male sailor tried to force himself on a Marine.

so a drunk male sailor has never forced himself on a woman?

 

[therealUT]

Yeah, but women are accustomed to being objectivized and aggressively hit on. It is just so unnatural and foul for a man to be in that situation.

 

[BearCat204]

so a drunk male sailor has never forced himself on a woman?

tailhook never happened