From: jhb@calmasd.prime.com (Jim Bishop)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:12:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: -

In article <1992Dec16.060103.7598@anasazi.com>, 
john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <daj20.724440585@junkers> daj20@amdahl.com 
>(Daniel A Jatnieks) writes:
> >>In article <1992Dec13.222013.25233@anasazi.com> 
> >>john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> 
> Unlike today's liberals, some of us believe that it is possible to
> have a position based on logic rather than emotion.

This is an very emotional comment, John.  You seem quite emotional
about liberals and suspected liberals.  I personally don't see that
either liberals or conservatives have a lock on logic or emotion. 
Both traits seem equally divided between both groups to me.

> I'll say it again: I have no personal fear of gays in the military. I
> will never serve in the military again, due to age; even if I was, my
> response to a gay pass would just be a "no thanks" - not a fist or
> a knife that many in the military (and some on this net) would
> respond with. 

So, you can behave in rational fashion.  Big deal.  This is the
minimum to be expected.  It hardly passes for tolerance.

> If all the touchie-feelie social engineering stuff worked, we would have
> a lot fewer social problems. 

OK, give us your solutions then.  You want to argue leave the world
alone in spite of all the problems.  However, the more you argue the
more you sound like "Leave it alone.  It all works in my favor. 
Everyone else be damned."

> In fact, it ain't that simple. Modification
> of behavior is difficult even in people who want to modify their
> behavior.  

Phobias are usually the easiest to cure.  Of course, wanting to modify
your behavior does help.  Other more rational or addictive behaviors
are much more difficult to modify.

> Schools are finding that the huge amount of PC instruction
> that now passes for education at some institutions is resulting in
> anti-PC students. 

What?  So people were pro-PC before PC instruction?  I don't think so. 
In fact, I'll bet you can't define PC other than to say it is
touchie-feelie stuff that you don't want to confront.  Certainly what
is PC to you, isn't PC to me and what is PC to me isn't PC to you. 
I'll even go so far as say that PC doesn't exist.  No, I take that
back.  It does exist.  It exists whenever you are out on a limb and
can't think of any other arguments.  They we get; "Ooo, that's PC.  PC
bad."  Give it up.
 
> Funny, but people are just not clay that you can          
> mold to your idealistic model.

So, then I suppose you don't believe that ideals and ethics can't be
taught and we're all just defeated humans subject to our personal whims
and prejudices with no hope of ever changing or improving.  Can you 
say defeatist?

> >>I see no difference between an irrational fear of skin color and
> >>irrational fear of getting fucked in the ass.
> 
> Obviously. However, these days of AIDS an undesired ass-fucking is something
> that is fearful indeed. 

I think most people feared an "undesired ass-fucking" prior to AIDS
too and these days a desired ass-fucking can lead to AIDS as well.
        
> However, realistically, as far as I can tell 
> homophobia (used in a more correct sense - FEAR of homosexuals or 
> homosexual activities) seems to be based on an insecurity about 
> one's masculinity - not uncommon among adolescents (such as the 
> folks joining the military) - and apparently especially common among 
> the more "macho" folks(such as those who want to join the combat arms).  

John, I think you are dating yourself here.  Believe it or not people
and society values do change and ones you just stated show the views
of your time.  (Though I'll agree we still have a long way to go.) In
the the results from interviews of people in the military, the older
you where, the more likely you where to be opposed to ending the ban. 
In one interview I saw, they even interviewed  a young recruit that
was everything you described above.  He said he didn't see what the
big deal was.  He thought the all the opposition to lifting the ban
was just a bunch of old fogies that didn't get it.

> Now, you can spend all day arguing about how irrational that fear is.
> I don't deny it's irrationality, and, in spite of the assertions of the
> homophiles on the net,  

John, you seem to be stooping to name calling and you've been so good
at drawing the line on it.

> I don't share that fear - at 44 years of
> age I know who I am - even if you folks don't. 

Uh John, no one knows who anyone is on the net.  We only know the
parts of you that you reveal in your posts.

> However, the moment you take the leap of logic from "the fear is irrational" 
> to "therefore we should bring gays into the military" - we part company
> in our views. You leap from what is to what you wish should be, assuming
> that what you wish should be is something that can simply be created.
> That is typical logic of the social engineer, 

A what?  Didn't you make up social engineer to add to your arguments? 
Also, this argument just doesn't stick.  I think your arguments are
just as full of what you call "social engineering" as anyone else's. 
You've certainly been defending the current social engineering system
as vehemently as you can.

> and the failures of the resulting policies are legion.

I'll say.

Jim
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh