SiouxChef comments

BBQbugyou - LOL!!

Great story, but the movie with Gere sucked.

The Richard Gere Hamutaro movie on the other hand . . .

Yes, the one that was being fed by the restaurant daily.

Greyfriars Bobby, who remained on his master's grave for 14 years.

You mean the dog that was being fed by the restaurant next to the graveyard?

You're right; that is very similar to Hachiko's story.

It is extremely arrogant of humanity to think we are the only entities that feel emotions, loyalty, love or devotion. Especially when there is ample evidence to the contrary.

Are you auditioning for Juilliard or what? You're talking about a dog.

Just because you are too cynical to see something positive in this story, does not mean the story is wrong or untrue.

I never said the story was untrue; he was being fed and there were two bad movies made about it.

I for one will take the voice of the generation who saw the dog's behavior over that of nay sayers invoking unfounded limitations on the behavior of animals they have never observed.

You mean the people that saw him coming for the yakitori or those feeding it to him?

After all what gives humans the right to believe that we are the only creatures in the world with feelings, emotions or capable of caring?

Laying it on a bit thick there, don't you think?

eigokun. It is precisely this kind of bland negativity that is undermining Japanese society. Why would it be so impossible to believe that one creature could care enough about another to demonstrate such devotion.

When did "reality" become synonymous with "bland negativity"?

Dogs like chicken. Who'd have thunk it?

eigokun your comment reflects your ignorance about mammal behaviour, or more specifically canine psychology.

Because a dog would never hang around somewhere because they are being fed there. That's just unheard of.

j4p4nFTW,

I also love the store but after being told to stand in line to exit the store I vowed to never return. I refuse to be given orders by shop staff (or any civilian for that matter).

You refuse to stand in line? You agreed to having your receipts checked when you became a member; if you don’t want to comply, you’re not allowed to shop there.

Surely you don't think you’re any better than everyone else that was also trying to exit the store?

Go look at his Youtube site. There is nothing political about this, guy, there is only lunacy.

As Lizz correctly points out above, his rants on YouTube don't stem from his imagination; they come from various radical right-wing fringe figures.

"B-b-b-but he read the Communist Manifesto!"

The cognitive dissonance on the right must be agonizing.

There are many Arizonans against the unconstitutuional Democrat healthcare debacle.

"Unconstitutional" doesn't mean whatever you want it to.

Elekiban Z are small magnets attached to the skin in the belief that they aid blood circulation

No, Elekiban Z are small magnets sold under the fraudulent claim that they aid blood circulation and Ebizo should be glad to have ties with this company severed.

Iron in the blood is non-ferrous; if this product could interact with your blood, an MRI would be fatal.

I'm gonna sue . . .

And get nowhere with it. But then again, you already know this, too.

TheQuestion,

Soldiers make mistakes and it only makes sense that procedures should be put in place to encourage gay servicemen to keep their sexual preference under wraps even in nations in which they are not actively fighting due to national laws forbidding homosexual intimacy.

Perhaps you unaware of it (or didn't catch it when skipthesong described it in his 08:55 AM JST - 22nd December post) but familiarizing service members with host nations' laws and customs before they are let out on liberty/leave is not only not a new idea, it is a procedure already firmly in place.

This was a non-starter raised by someone who already knows better under the guise of "just asking questions".

Because now they just open about it and no problems?

So it is self-control that you think is somehow affected by a law changing in their home country.

Pure nonsense.

oldiers break regulations off duty all the time, difference is that in some countries two gay men displaying affection might get them killed. It's a legitimate concern and a potential international spit storm.

I understood the question the first time.

How are things any different for the two gay men TAD/TDY to the ME because a law in their home country was was repealed?

Oh boy, clown time . . . you are still a freckle face w... boy playing on XBOX

Ad hominems already? Disappointing…

But not now. But there is my question. If its illegal to be gay in an allied country where military is stationed and this happens, what is to be done?

Your question is a non-starter as far as I can see; nothing relevant is different now. It was illegal before when gay service members had the same opportunities to “slip up”. The only difference between now and then is that they don’t also face non-judicial punishment.

Homosexuals either suddenly have less self-control than they did before and are at risk because of the repeal . . . or nothing relevant has changed. I ask again: which is it?

Maybe you should do the same and raise the issue to someone who's against it, I'm not.

I didn’t raise any issues with you. I took you task for your straw men.

I have not seen that happen and where do you get off posting to me as though I raised the question on that? Can't you read?

Can I read? I admitted that someone might take issue with being treated by a known homosexual (precisely the issue you raised) but that I personally think it’s nonsense as normal people don’t ask for another doctor when they don’t like their race or perceived sexual orientation.

So, I guess you want me to salute you? I mean, you're so good at these internet forums.. maybe I should pay you a consulting fee and teach me.

Does "good at these forums" mean "winning the argument"?

I didn’t say you’re bad at the internets*, Skip. What I was pointing out is that your experience isn’t as rare as you seem to think it is and that it’s rather silly to assume things about someone online who you don’t know because you're bound to be wrong (like today).

*But I would recommend you use the right arrow to signify others’ quotes; your posts can be really hard to read.

I take it you may have traveled to the middle east on business, not military...

I'm not sure why my occupational travels are relevant.

Your proposal that there is risk in having gay soldiers in the middle east is pretty ridiculous...especially considering that we deploy gay soldiers, sailors, and marines there already. Or are you convinced that they're suddenly not smart enough or don't have enough self control to conduct themselves accordingly in those places now that DADT has been repealed?

Lets say two guys grab a hotel room and the clerks get suspicious... how do we deal with it on such a case?

You've just described a post-DADT hypothetical scenario in which there are no new relevant variables. How would we have dealt with it before? Exactly the same way as now but the 'two guys' would have also faced discharge for being gay . . .

As for your concern at sick call, I see a mole crawling out of that mountain, too. Again, there are already homosexuals treating heterosexuals (and vice versa). How does DADT change the professional behavior of medics/corpsmen/nurses/doctors? If someone was being attended to by someone they knew to be gay and had a problem with it, I suppose they could request someone else . . . someone else who could gasp also be gay without the patient's knowledge.

Personally, I just think anyone that has problems like that should engage in a little personal growth; normal people don't question the sexuality of their doctors and nurses as if it's relevant to their healthcare.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't put much faith in your ability to sniff out who is/was military and where they've been in an internet forum (you're not very good at it, as it turns out).

skipthesong,

Again, as a medic, I was only allowed to males... will there/can there be a cause to make a third category and if its not made in due time, will that be enough reason to call for a discrimination suit?

Surely you're not suggesting that male medics/corpsmen don't currently treat wounded females (and vice versa) on the battlefield now?

If they are out in the open, and they go to an allied country, say Saudi Arabia, how is that going to go over?

What do you mean by "out in the open"? Are you suggesting they won't be able to resist public displays of affection which are offensive even for heterosexual couples to engage in? Or are you concerned about them holding hands like Arab men already do?

Or are you imagining they'll be issued rainbow-colored badges for their uniforms?

Wolfpack.

Thank you for the response. However, I must confess I'm still waiting for a logically sound argument for homosexuality being immoral and the repeal of DADT being wrong.

Along with traditional religious morality, America's Founders based their governing principles on Natural Law. Since most of the Founders were very well educated and well read individuals, this popular view of the world put forth by certain philosophers became infused into America's founding documents. Despite the ridicule from the Left, there could be no America without the founders belief in Natural Law. This is the cultural and historic tradition that I grew up in.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem....a history of discrimination--no matter how long--and your personal nostalgia for it aren't logical arguments.

That the founders may have believed in the theory of natural law is also irrelevant; conclusions do not logically follow from false or unproven premises. And natural law theory--which might be to divine command theory what Intelligent Design is to creationism--is anything but sound.

I do not accept homosexuality because it has no basis in my cultural or historic tradition

Again, argument from antiquity... The conclusion that homosexuality is immoral doesn't follow from the premise that homosexuality has been condemned in the past.

or in how I see a properly functioning natural world

You admit that homosexuality exists naturally but then label it improper without offering a logical reason for doing so; your personal opinions on propriety don't qualify. It's either "unnatural" or it isn't...and if you are appealing to natural law then we must also assume that you find masturbation, birth control, and post-menopausal sex to be equally improper.

Furthermore, studies that suggest homosexuality is naturally selected for also hurt your position here; nature can't "function" more "properly" than that.

The moral guidelines of Christianity and most other religions by themselves are not mystical, they are more apt to be influenced by thousands of years of human experience and observation of the world we live in.

This is patently false; see Levitican law and all of the divinely-sponsored slavery, genocide, infanticide, and rape prevalent in the so-called good book.

Also, I was asking how you logically arrive at your position. Answering that you don't believe in the mysticism but think the ideas--once again, even those that are really old--are correct doesn't explain why they are correct.

If one man and one woman are no longer the standard, then what about all of the other arbitrary limitations put on relationships? If you think about it, there are many. A bisexual person can't marry two other people, marriage to a close relative is not allowed, relationships with people under 18 are forbidden, and there are many others.

This slippery slope is a distraction from the issue at hand: whether or not the U.S. government should be allowed to discriminate against some of its citizens based on their sexual orientation. This isn't about incest, polygamy, nor statutory rape.

So the bottom line is, I can support the values and moral teachings that have been a traditional part of American culture, but have not been able to accept the mysticism associated with religion (miracles, wine from water, rising from the dead, etc.).

The bottom line seems to me to be that you illogically accept religious moral teachings.

Your argument--which includes non sequitur religious talking points like "[those who would accept homosexuality as moral] . . . undermin[e] the committed relationships [of heterosexual people]"--causes me to wonder if you're really as unsure as you claim to be about the man behind the curtain (you know, the one defining all the "purposes" that natural law theory requires).

Will the Ivy league schools, who refused recruiters or ROTC because of DADT, continue to draw taxpayer funds without allowing ROTC or recruiters access to their campuses?

You're in serious need of a history lesson if you think university ROTC bans--many of them forty years old--are based "solely on DADT".

Watch for more homosexuals to be drummed out of the service for violating provisions of the UCMJ.

The answer is self-delusion then?

Wolfpack,

You shouldn't assume that everyone that considers morality to be important to be a Christian or a member of any other religion. Yes, in my opinion homosexuality reflects a decline in Western cultural morality

I'm very curious. If you're truly agnostic, how do you logically arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral and that repealing DADT is indicative of the "decline of American values"?

If a non-fallacious argument exists, I have yet to hear it. If you have one, please share.

Strange how those banging on so much about gays are always the right wingers and religous.

This can be explained by the Haggard Theorem whereby the degree of one’s homophobia is directly proportional to the depth of one’s closet.

Romeo,

Pure nonsense. DADT was a way of allowing gays to serve. Now that it's being overturned, we're at last returning to the days when gays were discharged for being homosexual.

I can't tell if this is satire or self-delusion.

OneForAll,

However, why good people are fooled into saying it is a civil rights issue is beyond me because it is really evident, before our eyes, that that behavior is an abomination.

Thankfully, your silly notions of what is abominable are irrelevant.

And really...who tries to argue from the theory of natural law and expects to be taken seriously in the 21st century?

6bncapitalists

"The upside of this is that army recruiters can no longer be banned from our university campuses on the grounds that they 'discriminate'"

Wrong. The Supreme Court decided six years ago that the federal government can withhold funding if Army recruiters are banned from a university campus--even if they're banned because of a discriminatory practice.

Universities can still ban them on any grounds they like. They just can't expect federal funds if they do so.

Surely you already knew this. Or was that just your smarmy way of insinuating that repealing DADT was a bad thing?

CO deaths are usually accidents: using a hibachi indoors can do it.

Not here, they're not. They're frequently used here for just that purpose...which is the reason I ask.

"Asphyxiation using CO2" is also a weird way to describe killing yourself with a plastic bag if that's what the sentence is referring to.

According to statistics, the top three methods for males were hanging, asphyxiation using CO2 and jumping from a high place.

Are you sure that's not CO vice CO2?