Hiku said:
Aeolus451 said:
Do you not know the definition of statement? It's definitely not " meant to be taken factually". Here it is for ya to remind you. "A definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing". A statement is still an opinion. Also, you're singling out sentences that were meant to be read with other sentences. It changes their meaning without the rest of it.
My point about my stated opinions still being opinions still stands.
|
A statement can be an opinion. But it can also be purely factual, void of any opinion. You didn't write it as if it was something you believed. I happened to ask you about it, but someone else may just read it and take it for face value.
What other sentences in the post changed the meaning of "They were allowed in because they were trans, not because they were qualified per se."?
|
I guess I should have worded it differently but it was an opinion and to me I stated it in that way but I can see how others might see it as I meant it in a factual sense.
"A regular person who has their level of mental health issues wouldn't be allowed in. Isn't that how identity politics work?"
Hiku said:
Aeolus451 said:
Do you not know the definition of statement? It's definitely not " meant to be taken factually". Here it is for ya to remind you. "A definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing". A statement is still an opinion. Also, you're singling out sentences that were meant to be read with other sentences. It changes their meaning without the rest of it.
My point about my stated opinions still being opinions still stands.
|
A statement can be an opinion. But it can also be purely factual, void of any opinion. You didn't write it as if it was something you believed. I happened to ask you about it, but someone else may just read it and take it for face value.
What other sentences in the post changed the meaning of "They were allowed in because they were trans, not because they were qualified per se."?
|
The majority of the roles are not so dramatic as life or death situations. Alot of them are support related but alot of them are vital. I agree that there's no way they would hire someone for a role involving life or death situations if they were drastically unfit for that role or duty in general but if they had problems that would normally get them turned down, they'd might be let in anyway. That's why I brought up them lessing standards during times they need alot of troops or when they really need certain roles to show that they do that sometimes. They could get waivers for things that others might not get for as easily like criminal charges or health issues. There will likely never be any data or studies on this but I would like to see one. Anyway, I I think I'm done with this thread for a bit at least. I've been glued to my laptop, replying to people instead of watching hunter x hunter like I intended. Later, Hiku.
edit. i don't watch stuff like infowars or ancient aliens. 
|
Apparently the recruitment process in the US is as follows: Meeting with a recruiter, taking the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), going to a Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), choosing a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), completing Basic Training as well as Advanced Individual Training (AIT).
So you chose your field after you've already been evaluated.
In other words, it seems they don't know if someone they accept will chose a role that has more responsibilities than others.
Though I don't know which military roles wouldn't be important during war deployment.
Hunter X Hunter is better than alien stories though.
|
Yes, that's the summarized version of the process. You're not quite choosing your roles but the roles you would like. Availability could change and you might not get the role ya want. It also depends on the branch of the military. It's been awhile since I checked into that stuff so that might have
