You may be right. I should have said Ft Bragg

To what extent does this convention reflect a set of core beliefs that have been established over time through a consensus building process versus a self-reinforcing construct imposed by those whose interests are advanced by the imposition?

Are the long term interests of this country best served when it holds to conventions that can never be re-appraised, reconsidered, and, potentially, reformulated?

QP Pete--

I was pointing to the overall construction of the concept of competition in Doc's post. He placed physical prowess as the first criteria of evaluation more than once even though in some cases--such as in the competition for academic scholarships--physical ability might not be of primary importance.

To what extent does this convention reflect a set of core beliefs that have been established over time through a consensus building process versus a self-reinforcing construct imposed by those whose interests are advanced by the imposition?

Yeah baby, finally the quote of the year.... and maybe the longest sentence of the year.

Dusty please translate the historian's comment..... (where's Megamind when you need him?)
TS

Nm...

I'll let you expound on this to yourself, as I'm sure you are much more fascinated in this area of research than I am (and I suspect many others on here are). I'm not saying that I feel all should have equal standards, but if "they" want to preach equality "they" should understand what it truly means.

Physical prowess is the major criteria for sports/athletic competition, as I had stated in the original rant.

When discussing the academic scholarships, I intended to state (regardless of execution) that all scholarshpis should be given solely on merit/need without consideration of gender, race, orientation, etc. if true equality was applied.

If this was done, I have a feeling that some scholarships for which white males were not previously eligible may end up being awarded to them based solely on merit (I'm sure you'll argue, "How do you know this would happen?" To that, I say, law of averages and many of the scholarships will also go to those who aren't white males, but who were deserving based upon merit.)

If you go back and look at my first post, I never stated that physical prowess should be the standard for whch to award academic scholarship, nor did I imply it. The sports/physicality and scholarship comments were intended to be seperate concepts revolving around the same theme of true equality.

Are you arguing for the sake of argument, or do you have an alternative position and evidence/concepts to back it up?

Point One
 

Point One - he started with athletic subjects. In addition to the required skill for the activity there is a level of physical prowess that is required. Because physical prowess is required you don't see too many female linepersons in the NFL. I think he proved his point one.

Point Two - he went on to everything else. If everybody wants to be equal why do we have targeted scholarships?

See, lots of folks don't want to be equal. They want special treatment. They just don't want it to be called "special treatment".

Hey, I'm up for doing away with male and female sport programs and just have "sport program" with no quotas - everything is based on ability. But that wouldn't "be fair".

Edit - I need to learn to type faster or wait until Doc has had plenty of time.

I think what Sig was trying to say was, "WTF? BS!"

My translation was, "Is your argument in parallel with long-held American ideals, or more along the lines of an "Old Boys Club" looking out for their own?"

But I like yours better. :cool:

Or as Tim Allen used to say on "Home Improvement"....."UUUEEGGHH?!?!"

I second that motion..........;) :D

Big Teddy :munchin

Rainbow sherbert, anyone?
 

Doc--

First, your efforts to dismiss my questions by making the issue one of popularity does not change the fact that you still have not answered my central questions: Who decides what defines "equality"? Is the process used to define concepts like "equality" and "fairness" based upon disinterest or self interest? How can dissenting views be addressed in a way that best advance the nation's values and the effectiveness of its institutions?

Second, if one believes that all scholarships should have the same basic criteria, then how does one square that view with the notion that people should be allowed to spend their money as they see fit? If a donor wants to endow a scholarship slanted towards a specific group, should notions of "fairness" and "equality" justify the application of socialism to that donor's contributions?

Third, your statement that physical prowess is the major criterion for athletic competition is overly broad. On many basketball teams, one can find that the strongest, quickest, and fastest players rarely get on the court. (As Pete Carril says, "In this life, the strong take from the weak and the smart take from the strong.") Moreover, in some sports, such as American football, the least athletic players (place kickers) are often pivotal to a team's fortunes.

Fourth, thank you for clarifying your rant.

Two additional points. First, I don't think you should put words in my mouth. As I've frequently demonstrated, I am quite capable of butchering American English without your assistance.:p

Second, to answer your question, my position is this. Throughout America's history, the definitions of key principles such as equality, fairness, and freedom have always been hotly contested. For better and for worse, these debates have reflected an ever shifting matrix of idealism, consensus-building pragmatism, and self-interest.

These debates have informed the policies of the armed services. While one can sustainably argue that these debates have not always increased the effectiveness of our military institutions, accusations of "social engineering" and political advantage have often backfired upon those who have made such claims.

It is my growing concern that the current debates over the places of women and the LGBT community in the armed forces is heading in this direction.
FWIW, my question was closer to QP Dusty's interpretation (but without the "BS") than to yours.

I was hoping for a 3/3, gosh! :D

I never said anything about "fairness" - you introduced that word into this conversation. I do not believe that equality = fairness. And life ain't fair - come stop by my children's cancer ward some time to argue on that one with me.

I have yet to see a dissenting view from you - I've only seen questions that suggest disagreement. I'm still waiting for an alternative position with backing.

When did I bring up freedom (or fairness)? You keep adding stipulations and additional conditions? What if someone wanted to fund a scholarship to put monkeys through college, but only to study inconsistencies in Shakespearean grammar? Do you think that he/she should?

Here's a (very slightly) less ridiculous question: How warmly do you think a privately-funded scholarship at Howard University (or any other historically black university) exclusively available to KKK and Neo-Nazi members be received?

The discussion was on equality, plain and simple. You keep bringing up fairness (and now freedom) - not me. Stop changing the subject. :D

Your definition of prowess apparently does not include skill (and only includes strength and speed). Mine does.

Your welcome. The color font you used for that particular comment was, "lemon chiffon." Is this a throwback to the original DADT conversation? ;)

I never mentioned fairness or freedom in my arguments - these are things you're adding to the mix. All the big fancy, words you provide in support of your position are only after adding interpretations and conditions onto my position.

Duly noted.

+1 That is some elegant question. It seems almost self-answering even in the current context if the underlined element above is defined. I'm probably one of those who define it with such terms as "accomplishing the mission." Does that count still, as an influence to the self-reinforcing construct?

Heading up river for big smallies. Don't ask 'cause I won't tell.

I think we have different goals.

I want the debates over LGBT and women in the armed services to center primarily around military effectiveness.

To the extent possible, I want to separate temporarily those debates from similar discussions over LGBTs and women in American society.

Here's why. "Equality" is a construct that means different things to cohorts of Americans. (Such as equality before the law and equality of opportunity.) To some, equality is inexorably intertwined with the issue of fairness. That is, America is unfair because certain groups have been systematically denied various types of equality. In this sprawling debate, cultural sensibilities, collective memory, political ideology, and personal beliefs are going to push the margins of the conversation. If you throw American military history into the mix, the boundaries extend even further (i.e. to the Seven Years' War).

By contrast, "military effectiveness" can be narrowed down to the here and now. This winnowing, if left where it belongs--in the hands of armed service professionals and a small handful of civilian experts, can focus this debate. From this discussion, America's political leadership will be able to make informed choices. Yes, domestic political considerations are going to influence the choices, but in my view, these considerations will less likely to be the driving force in the debate. By "keeping it professional," America will have the opportunity to balance what is politically desirable with what is necessary in a geostrategic sense.

IMO, when a civilian rants about military policy and makes linkages to sports and other forms of social activity, the rant changes the focus of the conversation. Trying out for a sports team, competing for an academic scholarship, and serving in the American armed forces are three different activities. Conflating different activities to make a broader point about "them" has two negative consequences. First and foremost, it detracts from the ongoing efforts of professionals to focus our attention on the potential short, medium, and long term consequences of having openly gay Americans serving in the armed forces.

Second, conflating and ranting is exactly what "they" want you to do. They want you to back yourself into a corner so they can say to each other with a knowing nod, "See, this is exactly what I'm talking about." The name of the game these days is "Gotcha!" For those of us who want to advance a specific vision of twenty first century America, we must, at all times, avoid falling into the "Gotcha!" trap.

One last comment. When you point out that I'm asking questions and not articulating a specific position on the issue of DADT, you're right. I'm of the view that, as a civilian, I need to balance my own policy preferences when it comes to issues of manpower with the received wisdom of those who have been there and done that. As this wisdom is still being transmitted, it seems prudent to hold my views as provisional, and to hold those views in silence.

My $0.02.