Trump's Ban On Transgender In The Military = Bad Move

[Devine]

What creepy advocacy of military totalitarianism. Are you suggesting that if Trump faced impeachment, the military should overthrow the government?

a coup is not an impeachment

 

[Devine]

lets move this to a different thread. although thread hijacking is commonplace on this forum, id prefer to keep this one about the military and TG. look for the new thread on this subject.

link it

 

[Devine]

LOL tell it, brother!

SJW's making outlandish claims (i.e. "gender is a social construct") is no longer recognized as insane and appears wholeheartedly accepted by an influential majority in mainstream media (getting destroyed by the American President at the moment) and academia, regardless of how those claims are opposed to nature and reason.

While leading cuckservatives in the West sit on their hands and cowtow to leftists, a culture war is raging across college campuses and throughout the media (and here in this thread). Due to the subversive nature of the SJW thought police, the responsibility of defending Western values has fallen on the average citizen.

@Kung Fu has been crushing all comers and it is brutal (brutal = really funny) - the band of SJWs on VCF have all arrived in this thread. However, it shows how it only takes one person using logic and reason to destroy the SJW mentality and reveal the inconsistencies in their pattern of thought, no matter if SJWs bring faulty logic and emotional appeals and show up in numbers or go at it solo (although, generally it is much funnier when they show up in numbers as the extent of their intellectual fragility is readily apparent).

@justjess, I believe this retarded comment
is the height of asininity and shows @Aero is as credible a source to speak about the military as CNN or MSNBC is to produce news.

Also, the term "communist" was rebranded as "socialist" which was rebranded as "liberal" and today liberal has been rebranded as "progressive". Whether you prefer one term over the next, it all describes the same ideology, redefined to fit the cultural Marxist framework to destroy Western society. "Liberal" is anachronistic, supplanted by the new leftists - Social Justice Warriors.

@mecca - you are correct, "liberals" are not necessarily SJWs. Compared to SJWs, liberals appear rational, and dialogue is still somewhat possible. SJWs, on the other hand, appear unhinged, spew nothing of substance (only rhetoric, or unverifiable anecdotes) and accept pseudo-scientific hooey as biological fact - dialogue is impossible. SJWs always lie, making communication an exercise in futility.

@Faker He-Man - your attempts at putting together an argument are adorable, please continue your uninformed line of defense...

 

[Devine]

Are you sure about those numbers? I can find no proof for the accuracy of the bolded segment above.

No data exists for the actual number of transgenders in the military. Estimates are between 2000 and 15,500. By taking the more inclusive number, you are lying.

SJWs always lie.

lol they lie! i didn't think that sounded right...

 

[Devine]

no Snopes nooo

Im a liar now ok lol.. you people all have some serious issues.

Does hyper aggression and rudeness go hand in hand with islam or something? Because thats the impression thats been given lately.

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Transgender-Military-Service-May-2014.pdf

http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/27/how-many-transgender-people-currently-serve-in-the-u-s-military/

Theyve only been able to serve openly for the last year so yeah theres going go be difficulty giving an exact number. That doesnt mean i am lying.

By taking the lowest number you are just as much "lying" to fit your own bias. Im leaning towards the higher figure or somewhere in the middle to stay on the side of caution for how this might negatively effect actual people.

 

[justjess]

I didn't lie. There aren't many studies, they have only been allowed to serve openly for a year. But the two major studies done estimate between 10-15,000. There are 1.3 million members of the military - a couple thousand isn't really too large of a group to believe.


And Yeah I know about snopes but it has the links to all the original studies. In one place. Ignore the commentary if you want.

 

[Kung Fu]

That same exact law already protects YOU as a MUSLIM. Are you also against the religious protections it affords?

If the law is protecting me by sending people to jail and or fining them because they said a couple of words then that's not protecting me in fact it'll just make it worse.

Since you seem to know Canadian law better than me tell me how bill C-16 offers me religious protection?

 

[Faker He-Man]

If the law is protecting me by sending people to jail and or fining them because they said a couple of words then that's not protecting me in fact it'll just make it worse.

Since you seem to know Canadian law better than me tell me how bill C-16 offers me religious protection?

As I've already explained, the protections are exactly the same, and the laws are actually far more specific than whatever these angry reactionary clickbait websites are claiming. If you go back and read those two articles I posted on Friday you'll see two opposite examples that will give you a general idea of how it's being handled. As far as I can tell it's not actual censorship, just establishing a necessary code of conduct for public spaces. You can still say whatever you want, you just can't organize a march in order to shout hateful rhetoric from a megaphone, or target specific groups for public harassment, publicly post hateful signs or flyers, things of that nature. If these laws are ever used as an excuse to effect actual draconian censorship, that's where I draw the line and will change my stance.

So I found this article which made me laugh at how it's exactly the same, just replace islamophobia with gender pronouns. It's from the daily wire which is another reactionary conservative clickbait site that exploits peoples' gullibility. http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war-against-free-speech-canada-close-passing-michael-qazvini

 

[Kung Fu]

As I've already explained, the protections are exactly the same, and the laws are actually far more specific than whatever these angry reactionary clickbait websites are claiming. If you go back and read those two articles I posted on Friday you'll see two opposite examples that will give you a general idea of how it's being handled. As far as I can tell it's not actual censorship, just establishing a necessary code of conduct for public spaces. You can still say whatever you want, you just can't organize a march in order to shout hateful rhetoric from a megaphone, or target specific groups for public harassment, publicly post hateful signs or flyers, things of that nature. If these laws are ever used as an excuse to effect actual draconian censorship, that's where I draw the line and will change my stance.

So I found this article which made me laugh at how it's exactly the same, just replace islamophobia with gender pronouns. It's from the daily wire which is another reactionary conservative clickbait site that exploits people's gullibility. http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war-against-free-speech-canada-close-passing-michael-qazvini

Funny you're talking about us going and shouting "hateful" things when it has been the liberal left that has been doing that non-stop when it comes to this bill. I'm assuming now you know what "public" spaces refers to when it comes to Canada? On another note you wrote whole paragraphs and you offered absolutely nothing in proving what I have said as "wrong".

 

[Faker He-Man]

Funny you're talking about us going and shouting "hateful" things when it has been the liberal left that has been doing that non-stop when it comes to this bill. I'm assuming now you know what "public" spaces refers to when it comes to Canada? On another note you wrote whole paragraphs and you offered absolutely nothing in proving what I have said as "wrong".

JFC dude why is everything ALWAYS so divisive with you? Everything has to do with taking sides I guess, and you'll never get over it if that's the limit of your thinking. I was not talking about "us/them" whatsoever, you're only projecting. I was only commenting on what you brought up, deal with it. You'll be fine.

 

[Lady]

i am not advocating anything. i am suggesting that if push came to shove and the dems, in some scenario, demanded trump step down from the presidency and somehow ordered him to be removed, his military support would keep him from being removed. if hillary was in office with the roles reversed, there is a MUCH greater chance that the military (heavily GOP slanted) would readily step in and detain her.
as of right now, the trump has the backing of the military and law enforcement, main street, USA, and in general, the internet. the liberals/dems have the backing of MSM, hollywood and TV, and the large cities.

One can only hope she would be detained!

 

[Kung Fu]

JFC dude why is everything ALWAYS so divisive with you? Everything has to do with taking sides I guess, and you'll never get over it if that's the limit of your thinking. I was not talking about "us/them" whatsoever, you're only projecting. I was only commenting on what you brought up, deal with it. You'll be fine.

Where have I been taking any sides? All I have done is explain how illogical and scary it is to make it a law to possible send people to prison or fine them if they don't use gender pro-nouns, which in itself is dubious and is always changing do to the feelings of trans individuals and has no kind of scientific backing whatsoever. Am I wrong in protesting a bill that FORCES me to use certain words or otherwise be sent to jail, fined, and or have to take some course in not using some silly unscientific made-up words?

 

[Faker He-Man]

Where have I been taking any sides? All I have done is explain how illogical and scary it is to make it a law to possible send people to prison or fine them if they don't use gender pro-nouns, which in itself is dubious and is always changing do to the feelings of trans individuals and has no kind of scientific backing whatsoever. Am I wrong in protesting a bill that FORCES me to use certain words or otherwise be sent to jail, fined, and or have to take some course in not using some silly unscientific made-up words?

Ugh, you're boring me to sleep again. We've already been over this, don't you have anything new to add? What do you think about motion M-103, the islamophobia one? Same worries?

 

[Kung Fu]

Ugh, you're boring me to sleep again. We've already been over this, don't you have anything new to add? What do you think about motion M-103, the islamophobia one? Same worries?

Does M-103 legally FORCE you to use certain words and if you don't it can be considered a hate crime?

 

[Faker He-Man]

Does M-103 legally FORCE you to use certain words and if you don't it can be considered a hate crime?

Well this site sure seems to think so.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war-against-free-speech-canada-close-passing-michael-qazvini
I remain unconvinced.

 

[Kung Fu]

Well this site sure seems to think so.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/12957/war-against-free-speech-canada-close-passing-michael-qazvini
I remain unconvinced.

I'm 100% percent against the bill. However, you should note the difference between these two. The bill I'm talking about is forcing people to use certain type of words whereas this bill simply punishes you for "hate crimes" which is unidentified in the bill making it even more subject to dangerous precendents being set. Both are equally bad.

Again, the bill you just brought up doesn't force you to use certain words. However, it's still pretty dangerous and stupid.

 

[Lurker]

One can only hope she would be detained!

^^^^
Solid gold, right there. Sorry I missed it (almost 3 yrs ago).