Ooh-rah!!!!!!!!!

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/01/marine-runs-with-boy-struggling-to-complete-5k/



It resembles a Norman Rockwell painting.

A Marine dressed in his desert camouflage looks back at a boy exerting himself as he runs toward the finish line of a 5k run in Charlevoix, Mich.
The boy had just asked the Marine, “Sir, will you please run with me?”
The Marine, identified in news reports as Lance Cpl. Myles Kerr, was home on leave last weekend. He stayed by the boy's side the rest of the race and encouraged him from that point to the finish line, WLWT.com reported. (http://www.wlwt.com/news/local-news/marine-becomes-internet-sensation-for-race-photo/-/9837878/21258520/-/5ah4fh/-/index.html)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png

The report said that Kerr posted on Twitter that the boy's parents gave him $100 gift card to a local restaurant for the gesture.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382356-1B17D987000005DC-354_634x614.jpg

[Larrymc]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/01/marine-runs-with-boy-struggling-to-complete-5k/



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382356-1B17D987000005DC-354_634x614.jpg


Wow it seems our folks in the Military never cease to rise to the occasion and make us Proud.

[Kathianne]

Yahoo has had it as a 'top story' for a few hours. Always glad to see the military or its members shown in good light! :salute::salute:

[Abbey Marie]

Wow it seems our folks in the Military never cease to rise to the occasion and make us Proud.

Except today's military might have someone take an "unhealthy" interest in a boy that age.

[Larrymc]

Except today's military might have someone take an "unhealthy" interest in a boy that age.You nailed it Abbey, Sad but true. coarse i have a hard to thinking of our military folks as any thing but admiral, but your right such is the times we live in.

[fj1200]

:shakeshead:


And not at the Marine.

[Abbey Marie]

:shakeshead:


And not at the Marine.

Oh well.

[Missileman]

Except today's military might have someone take an "unhealthy" interest in a boy that age.

Why's that? Did they enlist an exceptionally high number of Catholic priests lately?

[Abbey Marie]

Why's that? Did they enlist an exceptionally high number of Catholic priests lately?

Maybe, if they are gay pedophile priests.

[Marcus Aurelius]

any chance we can get back on topic???

[Missileman]

Maybe, if they are gay pedophile priests.

And there's a new military policy that encourages that?

[Abbey Marie]

And there's a new military policy that encourages that?

Yes, because we all know that pedophiles wait for an official policy before they start assaulting children. :rolleyes:

[Marcus Aurelius]

So... no chance we can get back on topic then?

[Kathianne]

I'm in wonder how an op giving rep to a US Marine acting as a model citizen could turn into a gay and Catholic bashing thread.

Really, kudos. Not the easiest segues to make.

[Abbey Marie]

So... no chance we can get back on topic then?

Marcus, go ahead and post "on topic" if you wish. No one is stopping you. :salute:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Marcus, go ahead and post "on topic" if you wish. No one is stopping you. :salute:

My point is... if others were to post so drastically off topic, there would likely be thread bans, or it would be Caged.

I'm asking nicely... can we please stick to the topic in the OP? Everyone?

[jimnyc]

My point is... if others were to post so drastically off topic, there would likely be thread bans, or it would be Caged.

I'm asking nicely... can we please stick to the topic in the OP? Everyone?

I fully agree that such a thread should remain on topic, and I hope it will. But no offense, but I see every other thread being "off topic" by the usual suspects, and very rarely are the threads moved to the cage, VERY rarely. And I think even you would agree that thread bans are also rarely given out.

But if some would be happy, I can thread ban Abbey, and then do the same to others each and every time they do similarly. For someone who very rarely, if ever, drags a thread in a different direction, I would think Abbey has MORE than earned a little leeway. :)

[Abbey Marie]

My point is... if others were to post so drastically off topic, there would likely be thread bans, or it would be Caged.

I'm asking nicely... can we please stick to the topic in the OP? Everyone?

I didn't want to go there since I am the subject of this, but since it isn't going away, here goes: Since I have been here since the board's inception, and a Mod or Admin for almost that long, I can say that we have not traditionally minded if posts within a thread change the topic. It is part of the natural evolution of the thread, just as a regular conversation might evolve. If things have gotten as strict as you say, that is news to me. What we do not like so much is when personal feuds get spilled over into all kinds of threads, just because two or three people can't stand each other. If you notice, no one in this thread is making personal jabs or insults, whatever he or she may be privately thinking. I know that you have not seen me, nor will you likely ever see me, chastise someone just for going off topic, unless it gets personal/ugly. So, that being said, again, if you don't like the direction the thread has taken, you should post about the OP, and if the topic has legs, people will respond in kind. (BTW, if you go back not even too far, you will see tons of rip-roaring fights all over the board, too. We used to be a less polite group, lol. That has changed).

[Marcus Aurelius]

I didn't want to go there since I am the subject of this, but since it isn't going away, here goes: Since I have been here since the board's inception, and a Mod or Admin for almost that long, I can say that we have not traditionally minded if posts within a thread change the topic. It is part of the natural evolution of the thread, just as a regular conversation might evolve. If things have gotten as strict as you say, that is news to me. What we do not like so much is when personal feuds get spilled over into all kinds of threads, just because two or three people can't stand each other. If you notice, no one in this thread is making personal jabs or insults, whatever he or she may be privately thinking. I know that you have not seen me, nor will you likely ever see me, chastise someone just for going off topic, unless it gets personal/ugly. So, that being said, again, if you don't like the direction the thread has taken, you should post about the OP, and if the topic has legs, people will respond in kind. (BTW, if you go back not even too far, you will see tons of rip-roaring fights all over the board, too. We used to be a less polite group, lol. That has changed).

Point 1... Related changes, yes. The change form a Marine helping a kid finish a race to child abuse/molestation, is a serious stretch. Also, it wasn't a slow evolution it was an abrupt, complete course change in a single post.

Point 2... The direction of the thread was set in the OP. It was then cut off at the knees, and changed completely. Essentially, it was aborted at the first off topic post.

Oh well, I've had my say. I'd rather just abandon the thread to run whatever course it was so abruptly changed to. Have at it.



BTW, so there is no confusion... there was no reporting of anyone in this thread, at least not by me (not that there were any accusations or implications posted... just setting the record). I am assuming Jim simply saw the thread and chose to comment as he did, as is his right.

Enjoy.

[jimnyc]

In reality, NO thread can go completely off topic, unless there is a back and forth and others allow it to do so. If no one cared for Abbey's reply, they should have continued to reply solely about the OP, and I could have banned her or gave her an e-spanking. :hyper:

[Marcus Aurelius]

In reality, NO thread can go completely off topic, unless there is a back and forth and others allow it to do so. If no one cared for Abbey's reply, they should have continued to reply solely about the OP, and I could have banned her or gave her an e-spanking. :hyper:

No need to ban her.... however, the spanking thing sounds... intriguing.;)

[jimnyc]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/01/marine-runs-with-boy-struggling-to-complete-5k/



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/01/article-2382356-1B17D987000005DC-354_634x614.jpg




To get us back on topic...

100% pure class. Most people wouldn't have even looked the kids way, but this guy gives him and his family a memory to live forever. The USA has easily the mightiest military in the world AND the coolest! :salute:

[Abbey Marie]

In reality, NO thread can go completely off topic, unless there is a back and forth and others allow it to do so. If no one cared for Abbey's reply, they should have continued to reply solely about the OP, and I could have banned her or gave her an e-spanking. :hyper:

Oh, so business as usual then? :laugh: My husband would probably say it's warranted for either "some trumped up reason, or for no reason at all".

[jimnyc]

Oh, so business as usual then? :laugh: My husband would probably say it's warranted for either "some trumped up reason, or for no reason at all".

If he prefers, you can spank me! :beer:

[fj1200]

To get us back on topic...

100% pure class. Most people wouldn't have even looked the kids way, but this guy gives him and his family a memory to live forever. The USA has easily the mightiest military in the world AND the coolest! :salute:

This said a lot to me:


The boy had just asked the Marine, “Sir, will you please run with me?”

It seems he knew who he could trust.

[Larrymc]

I fully agree that such a thread should remain on topic, and I hope it will. But no offense, but I see every other thread being "off topic" by the usual suspects, and very rarely are the threads moved to the cage, VERY rarely. And I think even you would agree that thread bans are also rarely given out.

But if some would be happy, I can thread ban Abbey, and then do the same to others each and every time they do similarly. For someone who very rarely, if ever, drags a thread in a different direction, I would think Abbey has MORE than earned a little leeway. :)With the implementation of Women in serving along side men open Gays, and the suppression of religious liberty, we have surge in men on women, and Men on men sexual advances, I have wondered how long our military will remain known only for it Great Power Pride and Strength. I admit i have thought it, Abbey just said it. Sorry just had to through that out there, if you must ban me so be it.

[Kathianne]

Blaming military members for politicians decisions seems as wrong to me as spitting on those that serve in a war you don't like.

In this case, some chose to imply that marines/service members in general should all be looked at as possible pedophiles. Same with Catholic priests.

For the actions of one all must pay? No, for the actions of a few? 10? What's the magic number?

[Abbey Marie]

Blaming military members for politicians decisions seems as wrong to me as spitting on those that serve in a war you don't like.

In this case, some chose to imply that marines/service members in general should all be looked at as possible pedophiles. Same with Catholic priests.

For the actions of one all must pay? No, for the actions of a few? 10? What's the magic number?
I'd like to know who "blamed the military" for the new policies?

[Kathianne]

I'd like to know who "blamed the military" for the new policies?

What would you infer from this?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42097-Ooh-rah!!!!!!!!!&p=655547#post655547

[Abbey Marie]

What would you infer from this?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42097-Ooh-rah!!!!!!!!!&p=655547#post655547

I would infer that the writer fears that military's new policy on gays may have some unintended consequences. I certainly would not infer that the writer dislikes or blames the military for its current predicament. Especially if I have known that writer for many years, and know that she is very pro-military. But maybe that's just me...

[Larrymc]

What would you infer from this?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?42097-Ooh-rah!!!!!!!!!&p=655547#post655547I don't think the implication, had any thing to do with our current Military, Only that it has begun a decay.

[Kathianne]

I would infer that the writer fears that military's new policy on gays may have some unintended consequences. I certainly would not infer that the writer dislikes or blames the military for its current predicament. Especially if I have known that writer for many years, and know that she is very pro-military. But maybe that's just me...

I understand and agree with the personal part. On the other hand you can see where it quickly was agreed with by those who've not known your previous statements over the years. It quickly went to Catholic bashing, again blaming the many for the few. It doesn't matter the lack of control for the groups being maligned, it just happened.

Do I think you meant serious disrespect of the military? No, no more than I did you.

[Kathianne]

I don't think the implication, had any thing to do with our current Military, Only that it has begun a decay.

and the lines regarding the catholic priests? No intentions meant there either? So, everyone just throwing insults around, cause of why?

[Missileman]

Yes, because we all know that pedophiles wait for an official policy before they start assaulting children. :rolleyes:

You inferred that there's an increased risk of pedophiles being in "today's military". I'm just trying to get you to explain the reasoning for that inference. I don't recall any "Be all you can be..with a 10-year-old" recruitment posters. I'm also not aware of any bases being declared NAMBLA "penalty free zones".

[jimnyc]

To get us back on topic...

Don't say I didn't try! :)

[Missileman]

and the lines regarding the catholic priests? No intentions meant there either? So, everyone just throwing insults around, cause of why?

I was throwing an ugly stereotype at an ugly stereotype, nothing more. I was hoping to provoke some thought.

[Robert A Whit]

Except today's military might have someone take an "unhealthy" interest in a boy that age.

Wot? That is my what when I really mean what.

I see a boy being mentored is all I see. Like a coach.

[fj1200]

With the implementation of Women in serving along side men open Gays, and the suppression of religious liberty, we have surge in men on women, and Men on men sexual advances, I have wondered how long our military will remain known only for it Great Power Pride and Strength. I admit i have thought it, Abbey just said it. Sorry just had to through that out there, if you must ban me so be it.

You got a link to those stats?

[Larrymc]

You got a link to those stats?I didn't search it, its been in the news. im sure you can find it, our someone on here will probably have it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We still have a great military. However the politicians are experimenting within it and many think they will degrade it by doing so. I am one of those thinking that. That soldier's actions serve to show the qualities and principles still being drilled into our military recruits. I read Abbey's comment and took it for what it truly meant. True, one shouldn't complain because a cherry pie has to many cherries in it. However if somebody starts tossing in peanuts on a whim there is room for complaining methinks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bravo for showing some of the finer qualities our military people have .-:clap:That soldier gave cause for us to admire our people even more!--:beer:-Tyr

[Missileman]

I read Abbey's comment and took it for what it truly meant. True, one shouldn't complain because a cherry pie has to many cherries in it. However if somebody starts tossing in peanuts on a whim there is room for complaining methinks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Bravo for showing some of the finer qualities our military people have .-:clap:That soldier gave cause for us to admire our people even more!--:beer:-Tyr

The military can hardly be compared to a one fruit pie...pun intended. The vast differences in ethnicity and backgrounds would make the military more like a bag of Jelly Bellys. Inferences that the Pink Lemonade ones are more likely to be toxic based on one's disdain for pink serve no purpose. They're not based in reality either.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The military can hardly be compared to a one fruit pie...pun intended. The vast differences in ethnicity and backgrounds would make the military more like a bag of Jelly Bellys. Inferences that the Pink Lemonade ones are more likely to be toxic based on one's disdain for pink serve no purpose. They're not based in reality either.
Who ever even heard of a jellybean pie!??--;) I wanted to use my favorite -blackberry pie--but was afraid racism when then rear it's ugly head into it.:laugh:-Tyr

[Missileman]

Who ever even heard of a jellybean pie!??--;) I wanted to use my favorite -blackberry pie--but was afraid racism when then rear it's ugly head into it.:laugh:-Tyr

:laugh2:

[Larrymc]

Who ever even heard of a jellybean pie!??--;) I wanted to use my favorite -blackberry pie--but was afraid racism when then rear it's ugly head into it.:laugh:-TyrWay to be safe wouldn't want to be accused of any thing, not that anyone on here would do such a thing.

[aboutime]

Whoever feels our military is even slightly leaning toward pedophile status, in any way is. Insulting Their Own Intelligence.

Shame on anyone who suggested such a thing before...mentioning the very same suggestion about OBAMA, and nearly every Liberal Member of Congress.

Sometimes, it's much more intelligent to just STAY QUIET about some things.

This is one of those cases.

[fj1200]

I didn't search it, its been in the news. im sure you can find it, our someone on here will probably have it.

News stories are stats now?

[Larrymc]

News stories are stats now?It depends on the source, what do you suggest.

[logroller]

any chance we can get back on topic???
Obliged to-- Luckily he enlisted the company of a LCpl and not a GySgt. :drillsarge:

[logroller]

The military can hardly be compared to a one fruit pie...pun intended. The vast differences in ethnicity and backgrounds would make the military more like a bag of Jelly Bellys. Inferences that the Pink Lemonade ones are more likely to be toxic based on one's disdain for pink serve no purpose. They're not based in reality either.
If that's the case then there should be a rule against buttered popcorn soldiers. Yuck. :laugh:

[fj1200]

It depends on the source, what do you suggest.

Statistics that support your premise not new stories that support your bias. :)

[Larrymc]

Statistics that support your premise not new stories that support your bias. :)Report on The Defense Department survey works for me, now give me statistics that dispute it, to show my bias. http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/military-suffers-wave-of-gay-sex-assaults/

[fj1200]

Report on The Defense Department survey works for me, now give me statistics that dispute it, to show my bias. http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/military-suffers-wave-of-gay-sex-assaults/

I think you made your bias pretty clear early on in this thread but that's OK, we all have them. I think part of the problem with statistics on this issue and sexual assaults in general is the lack of accurate reporting especially historically given that it rather unlikely that this sort of thing would even get reported going back through the years. There is also the assumption that the problem is "gay" based, from the VA:


How common is MST (Military Sexual Trauma)?VA’s national screening program, in which every Veteran seen for health care is asked whether
he or she experienced MST, provides data on how common MST is among Veterans seen in
VA. National data from this program reveal that about 1 in 5 women and 1 in 100 men respond
“yes,” that they experienced MST, when screened by their VA provider. Although rates of MST
are higher among women, because there are so many more men than women in the military,
there are actually significant numbers of women and men seen in VA who have experienced
MST.
http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/mst_general_factsheet.pdf

This was from about one year after the end of DADT so it's fairly obvious it had no bearing on their numbers.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think you made your bias pretty clear early on in this thread but that's OK, we all have them. I think part of the problem with statistics on this issue and sexual assaults in general is the lack of accurate reporting especially historically given that it rather unlikely that this sort of thing would even get reported going back through the years. There is also the assumption that the problem is "gay" based, from the VA:


http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/mst_general_factsheet.pdf

This was from about one year after the end of DADT so it's fairly obvious it had no bearing on their numbers. Yep , just add in two more entities into the mix. Women in combat infantry roles around horny heterosexual men and horny gays around straight men. Liberal dumbass thinking at it's best. Add those into the mix, disrupt discipline and the effectiveness of the military forces== no problem! Expecting no increased bad sexual behavior from such experimentation is folly and foolish liberal non-thinking at its best.. Defies common sense and reality but hey promotes diversity, division, and ineffectiveness. All of which those pushing it want for our military. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Yep , just add in two more entities into the mix. Women in combat infantry roles around horny heterosexual men and horny gays around straight men. Liberal dumbass thinking at it's best. Add those into the mix, disrupt discipline and the effectiveness of the military forces== no problem! Expecting no increased bad sexual behavior from such experimentation is folly and foolish liberal non-thinking at its best.. Defies common sense and reality but hey promotes diversity, division, and ineffectiveness. All of which those pushing it want for our military. -Tyr

A miniscule percentage of "horny gays" are going to have their way with all of those straight men? DA thinking indeed. Nevertheless we could look to all of the other countries that allow gays to freely serve and look at their data and contrast that with the thought that we shouldn't allow gays to show their patriotism by serving openly as do their straight counterparts.

[Larrymc]

I think you made your bias pretty clear early on in this thread but that's OK, we all have them. I think part of the problem with statistics on this issue and sexual assaults in general is the lack of accurate reporting especially historically given that it rather unlikely that this sort of thing would even get reported going back through the years. There is also the assumption that the problem is "gay" based, from the VA:

t
http://www.mentalhealth.va.gov/docs/mst_general_factsheet.pdf

This was from about one year after the end of DADT so it's fairly obvious it had no bearing on their numbers.So you think that repeal of DADT hasn't added another layer of sexual issues, i guess that makes you more tolerant than me, I call it like I see it so of course your right i must be bias, this report shows that despite new guidelines and training, reported sexual assaults rose by 7000 between 2010 and 2012 with ratio given us earlier that's significant, we know more and more women are joining, but why the surge in men? http://www.propublica.org/article/the-most-important-muckreads-on-rape-in-the-military

[Larrymc]

Yep , just add in two more entities into the mix. Women in combat infantry roles around horny heterosexual men and horny gays around straight men. Liberal dumbass thinking at it's best. Add those into the mix, disrupt discipline and the effectiveness of the military forces== no problem! Expecting no increased bad sexual behavior from such experimentation is folly and foolish liberal non-thinking at its best.. Defies common sense and reality but hey promotes diversity, division, and ineffectiveness. All of which those pushing it want for our military. -Tyr"What" Tyr you bias SOB :laugh: So common sense in BIAS

[fj1200]

"What" Tyr you bias SOB :laugh: So common sense in BIAS

You don't think that there is bias in common sense? Especially if common sense turns out to be wrong?


So you think that repeal of DADT hasn't added another layer of sexual issues, i guess that makes you more tolerant than me, I call it like I see it so of course your right i must be bias, this report shows that despite new guidelines and training, reported sexual assaults rose by 7000 between 2010 and 2012 with ratio given us earlier that's significant, we know more and more women are joining, but why the surge in men? http://www.propublica.org/article/the-most-important-muckreads-on-rape-in-the-military

I didn't say it didn't add another layer of issues but some are immediately claiming that it ties directly to DADT based on numbers that likely have zero to do with DADT. Common sense would suggest that the numbers you're using have little to do with DADT and the link I provided would suggest it has zero to do with it. My guess it falls between little and zero.


And why the surge in men? Because as I said before there was an unlikelihood that those would otherwise be unreported historically. Merely exposing the issue to the light of day will encourage those to report where they wouldn't before; both men and women. Your contention suggests that the extremely small amount of gays in the military would be responsible for the huge uptick in assaults which doesn't really pass the reality check. A look at all of the other countries that have gone through the same issue would be more useful here IMO.


GAO found that: (1) 11 of the 25 countries have policies that prohibit homosexuals from serving in their militaries, 11 countries have policies that permit homosexuals to serve, and 3 countries do not have any laws, regulations, or policies that cover the issue; (2) 3 countries have military policies that are consistent with civilian laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation; (3) Germany's civilian laws and military policies do not specifically address homosexuality, but its courts have allowed restrictions on homosexuals in the military; (4) military policies regarding homosexuals have evolved over time and usually follow changes in civilian attitudes and laws; (5) there are no apparent inconsistencies between foreign military policies and practices concerning homosexuals; (6) few homosexuals have openly revealed their sexual orientation because they view sexual orientation as a private matter, fear discrimination or negative reactions from peers or superiors, see no advantage in revealing their orientation, and serving near their homes allows them to maintain their private lives; (7) some homosexuals may reveal their sexual orientation after they have established their military careers, professional reputations, and respect; (8) military officials in Canada, Germany, Israel, and Sweden believe that the presence of homosexuals in the military has not created problems, since homosexuality is not an issue in the military or society; and (9) the inclusion of homosexuals in the foreign military has not adversely affected unit readiness, effectiveness, cohesion, or morale because of military leadership's support of the policies and flexibility in dealing with homosexual individuals.
http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-93-215

[Larrymc]

You don't think that there is bias in common sense? Especially if common sense turns out to be wrong?



I didn't say it didn't add another layer of issues but some are immediately claiming that it ties directly to DADT based on numbers that likely have zero to do with DADT. Common sense would suggest that the numbers you're using have little to do with DADT and the link I provided would suggest it has zero to do with it. My guess it falls between little and zero.


And why the surge in men? Because as I said before there was an unlikelihood that those would otherwise be unreported historically. Merely exposing the issue to the light of day will encourage those to report where they wouldn't before; both men and women. Your contention suggests that the extremely small amount of gays in the military would be responsible for the huge uptick in assaults which doesn't really pass the reality check. A look at all of the other countries that have gone through the same issue would be more useful here IMO.


http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-93-215Ok, the numbers, you dispute the reason for them, that's your opinion, The numbers of gays may not be as small as you think, i don't think being gay stops one from being a good or even a great soldier, but i do think being able to be open about it makes it hard to not display or impose it on others. The stigma of a Homosexual advance, which you cited is the reason men or less likely to report it, I don't think the repeal of DADT would change that, so there must be more incidents, and that is my opinion. The issue in thread was a comment made about the possibility of pedophilia in the military, my comment was of a historic view, we as a Nation have begun a great moral decline, how long has it been sense Homosexuality was against the law, in fact until very recently Sodomy was still on the books as illegal in some states, and considered as despicable, as pedophilia, so how hard is it to foresee that progression, if you have any reverence for the Bible you know man has regressed to such depravity and worse in the pass, and will again. but for our descendents we should seek to delay it.

[fj1200]

Ok, the numbers, you dispute the reason for them, that's your opinion, The numbers of gays may not be as small as you think, i don't think being gay stops one from being a good or even a great soldier, but i do think being able to be open about it makes it hard to not display or impose it on others. The stigma of a Homosexual advance, which you cited is the reason men or less likely to report it, I don't think the repeal of DADT would change that, so there must be more incidents, and that is my opinion. The issue in thread was a comment made about the possibility of pedophilia in the military, my comment was of a historic view, we as a Nation have begun a great moral decline, how long has it been sense Homosexuality was against the law, in fact until very recently Sodomy was still on the books as illegal in some states, and considered as despicable, as pedophilia, so how hard is it to foresee that progression, if you have any reverence for the Bible you know man has regressed to such depravity and worse in the pass, and will again. but for our descendents we should seek to delay it.

I dispute the reason for the numbers because they make little sense in the context in which you are placing them, I dispute the numbers themselves because of the stigma of assault and the reluctance of those who will report against their superiors, and I dispute that any conclusion can be made based on the numbers outside of "it's a problem." Even that last bit is specious because it does nothing to place them in context of society as a whole. From what I've read this morning the numbers are lower than overall society and the college environment which is arguably a better comparison. I'll also dispute your assertion that assaults are automatically a "homosexual advance."

I also don't see this issue as evidence of historical decline. I would have taken just as much issue with the opening comment if it were a young girl asking a Marine to "run with her" and somebody implying an "unhealthy" interest.

[Larrymc]

I dispute the reason for the numbers because they make little sense in the context in which you are placing them, I dispute the numbers themselves because of the stigma of assault and the reluctance of those who will report against their superiors, and I dispute that any conclusion can be made based on the numbers outside of "it's a problem." Even that last bit is specious because it does nothing to place them in context of society as a whole. From what I've read this morning the numbers are lower than overall society and the college environment which is arguably a better comparison. I'll also dispute your assertion that assaults are automatically a "homosexual advance."

I also don't see this issue as evidence of historical decline. I would have taken just as much issue with the opening comment if it were a young girl asking a Marine to "run with her" and somebody implying an "unhealthy" interest.On that last part,The reports were of sexual assaults and rapes in the Military, So whats the quiston there? and the reports show the numbers of reported assaults, and assumes the numbers of unreported ones, which you seem to agree with, and if true the problem is much greater than we know, How ever this is why i try to avoid this kind of back and forth, because, I make a comment about something i believe, based on what i perceive as common knowledge, someone incest on a basis for my opinion, which is not fact or fiction, truth or lie, I find info, they find info, we both dispute it, and it all comes down to a difference of Opinion.

[fj1200]

On that last part,The reports were of sexual assaults and rapes in the Military, So whats the quiston there? and the reports show the numbers of reported assaults, and assumes the numbers of unreported ones, which you seem to agree with, and if true the problem is much greater than we know, How ever this is why i try to avoid this kind of back and forth, because, I make a comment about something i believe, based on what i perceive as common knowledge, someone incest on a basis for my opinion, which is not fact or fiction, truth or lie, I find info, they find info, we both dispute it, and it all comes down to a difference of Opinion.

The last part? No question, just a statement I suppose. Not trying to tie the moral decline of the country to this issue. But overall it seems that you are attempting to tie in the issue of sexual assaults into the repeal of DADT; I don't see that as having any bearing because the data points don't coincide with reality other than coincidence. In short I don't believe it to be a matter of opinion as you've based your opinion on flawed data; that last part is my opinion of course. :poke:

[Larrymc]

The last part? No question, just a statement I suppose. Not trying to tie the moral decline of the country to this issue. But overall it seems that you are attempting to tie in the issue of sexual assaults into the repeal of DADT; I don't see that as having any bearing because the data points don't coincide with reality other than coincidence. In short I don't believe it to be a matter of opinion as you've based your opinion on flawed data; that last part is my opinion of course. :poke:You say coincidence, I say expected results, Uh Oh that might be my bias? :lol:

[fj1200]

You say coincidence, I say expected results, Uh Oh that might be my bias? :lol:

Maybe. :laugh: