Thread: It never happened.

DG, unless you were there for a statistically significant portion of the cases, it is anecdotal. Look it up on the wiki dictionary.

And I'm not expecting rapes or anything to go away completely. It's just not possible. However, the current number of incidents is abnormally high.

What would happen if we separate the boys from the girls? Male on male rape and Female on female rape will be handled for the power grab it really is.

Military personnel can lose a career based-on a pissed-off ex-lover fabricating a lie.

It may be interesting to study, IMHO, young men, with high levels of testosterone (due to age) all stressed out around young women whose hormones are also projecting (even though most humans cannot smell pheromones directly) sexual readiness.

It may be found that there are biological contributors that are not as "controllable" by everybody, as we would hope. Raping is a complex act that involves power, control and rage. There are more key-words to add, but we get the picture.

I am not against men and women both serving in the military, however, there may need to be a greater divide in certain capacities.

Hitch

Terrible things happen to people every day. This doesn't mean they are ALL not capable of doing their job. Saying ALL rape victims are a liability is just stupid. How would you like to have something terrible happen to you, then find out you also lose your job? You wouldn't like it, now would you?

I am sure there are some cases that are very traumatic and cause some sever mental damage, but those should be evaluated by a professional, and not given a "check the box" diagnosis like DG recommends.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

In combat they are a liability. I have had something terrible happen to me and i did lose my job.

I don't follow? If they can pass a mental evaluation, how are they a liability? Personally, I don't agree with having barely educated kids fresh out of high school using firearms and explosives, but that is just my opinion... doesn't mean they are a liability or any more or less capable of doing a job.

Sorry something bad happened to you and it caused you to lose your job, but that doesn't make it right. It still doesn't mean people should be discharged based on checking boxes.

Killed people? (Y/N) Y
Watched fellow soldiers get killed? (Y/N) Y
Watched civilian children get blown up (Y/N) Y
Raped by fellow soldier? (Y/N) Y - ***LIABILITY*** PROCEED TO AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL

It still doesn't connect to me how they are a combat liability, unless combat involves a lot of raping, in which case sure. But since it doesn't, then I fail to see the connection as trauma is trauma. People can either deal with it, or they cannot, and they should be evaluated on circumstance, regardless of statistical "liabilities" Perhaps the statistics would not be so skewed with outliers if proper evaluations had been done in the first place.

Originally Posted by HeavyG

I don't follow? If they can pass a mental evaluation, how are they a liability? Personally, I don't agree with having barely educated kids fresh out of high school using firearms and explosives, but that is just my opinion... doesn't mean they are a liability or any more or less capable of doing a job.

Sorry something bad happened to you and it caused you to lose your job, but that doesn't make it right. It still doesn't mean people should be discharged based on checking boxes.

Killed people? (Y/N) Y
Watched fellow soldiers get killed? (Y/N) Y
Watched civilian children get blown up (Y/N) Y
Raped by fellow soldier? (Y/N) Y - ***LIABILITY*** PROCEED TO AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL

It still doesn't connect to me how they are a combat liability, unless combat involves a lot of raping, in which case sure. But since it doesn't, then I fail to see the connection as trauma is trauma. People can either deal with it, or they cannot, and they should be evaluated on circumstance, regardless of statistical "liabilities" Perhaps the statistics would not be so skewed with outliers if proper evaluations had been done in the first place.

Here at a normal job they would most likely have no issue. There being shot at under the rigorous stresses of war that mental instability could get them or worse yet other around them killed.

I would love to make the argument that people shouldn't be discharged based on checking boxes but i cant. Even with my condition i would be a liability in combat. Its not that i would break under the pressure but my inability to perform at peak potential due my lack of ability to run would get myself or someone else killed. It sounds cold blooded but there is a method to the madness. It is simply a use of better judgement to remove those that could be detrimental to the mission from that mission. We arent talking about cops where a desk job can be assigned to every issue to fit the needs of the group and the person.


I feel i should also add we use the check box method to exclude people from service every day.