US Marines recommended for trial for urination video - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789564]don't tell me you have noticed the snarky back and forth commenting that is common place here in SH. do i need to draw you a diagram?[/QUOTE] being rude and abrasive isn't the same as being 'snarky/funny/epicwitlmaoowned'

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37789824]being rude and abrasive isn't the same as being 'snarky/funny/epicwitlmaoowned'[/QUOTE] holy fuck dude calm down at worst i said a guy smokes pot and his opinion is crazy chill out, i'll put my kindness hat on jeez

Soldiers do this shit all the time. Still not justified.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789854][B]holy fuck dude calm down [/B] at worst i said a guy smokes pot and his opinion is crazy chill out, i'll put my kindness hat on jeez[/QUOTE] ? ? ? ok?

I bet they are [i]pissed[/i] off though.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37789931]? ? ? ok?[/QUOTE] yes okay you must really like question marks ????????

[QUOTE=MedicmanV500;37788622]Who cares? So they pissed on some dead insurgents... big deal.[/QUOTE]gunfox why are you on an alt account

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789974]yes okay you must really like question marks ????????[/QUOTE] for someone who asks someone else to be calm you sure do act rude and unsavory are you aware of what you communicate to other people?

apparently, if you're telling parents of fallen soldiers their son or daughter are fags and is going to hell in their own funeral, it's freedom and speech & disrespect / hurting feelings is totally okay and should be legal but god forbid if soldiers in a highly stressed environment who had to murder another human being urinate on dead corpses, fucking court martial those fucks!

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;37790241]apparently, if you're telling parents of fallen soldiers their son or daughter are fags and is going to hell in their own funeral, it's freedom and speech & disrespect / hurting feelings is totally okay and should be legal but god forbid if soldiers in a highly stressed environment who had to murder another human being urinate on dead corpses, fucking court martial those fucks![/QUOTE] what are you arguing

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37790256]what are you arguing[/QUOTE] who said i am??? im just noting how stupid it is that pissing on corpses is grounds for trials cause it's disrespectful while verbally abusing funeral goers of their dead sons / daughters is not because even if it's disrespectful, it's free speech!!

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789765]yeah. no. all I see is the abstract which concludes this.[/quote] LinkOut More Resources -> Full Text Sources This is right under the first link (the full study in .pdf format): [url]http://web.ebscohost.com/chc/pdf?sid=04c948fd-97eb-41a2-984e-60efcacbe048%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=107[/url] Not at all hard to find. [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789765]and this is mentioned its a medical study that deals exclusively with STI's among female Marines,[/quote] That also examined all participants' sociodemographic circumstances and presented results and conclusions about them in relation to venereal diseases and the Marine Corps' level of preparedness and education on the matter (which it found, needless to say, to be extremely lacking), specifically: their ages, races/ethnic backgrounds, marital statuses, levels of education, geographic locations (both what region of the country they were from and whether the area was rural or urban), age and race/ethnicity of their last sexual partners, and the differences between their ages and the ages of their last sexual partners. [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789765]no where does it mention any of the conclusions you've pulled out of your ass like[/quote] I fixed that part of my post, but I didn't pull it out of my ass. I forgot to add "infected". Simple misunderstanding. [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789765]or uh no it doesn't conclude anything of the sort[/quote] Actually, it does. Where venereal diseases are concerned, it notes that the recruits only possess a "sub par average level of knowledge". It points out that the Marine Corps currently lacks during recruit training sufficient educational programs to provide accurate information and resources to female recruits regarding such diseases, and that further developing them is necessary. It goes on to state that the results show [i]"young women entire recruit training for the military with high levels of STIs and increased risk for acquisition of STIs under the influence of alcohol or drugs, sex with a risky partner, and infrequent condom use. [b]The persistence of these behaviors after the completion of recruit training undermines the combat readiness of these young women early in their military service"[/b][/i]. In a nutshell: low standards. Yes, you can argue that they didn't directly say that they have low standards, but that's what they're describing. I don't think anyone else is going to contest this. [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789765]btw its based off of data from 1999-2000 so over a decade old, and clearly out of date considering the wars in 2001 and 2003 have drastically changed the military since then.[/quote] The Department of Defense, which supported the study, didn't seem to think the fact that it was already almost a decade old when the study was actually done back in 2008 made it inadmissible... [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789765]Agree with the mental stuff, but you clearly never heard of MEPS.[/QUOTE] Biggest problem with MEPS is that they don't tie much of the physical screening to the mental screening except when body modifications or suspected self-inflicted injuries are detected. It's extremely basic and is done with quickly. This issue is what I was referring to when I said they needed to improve upon what types of checks they do. And not just the types, but also how comprehensive they are. [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37789765]i don't even think you read the abstract, and i doubt you even read the full study.[/QUOTE] I did read it. But I know for a fact that you didn't. You apparently didn't even look that hard to find it in the first place. [editline]25th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Disotrtion;37788985]not only did they lay some lead in them, they then pissed on their corpses fucking balling[/QUOTE] Wow I can't believe I missed this post of yours. You seem like an absolutely [i]oustanding[/i] individual to be having this discussion with.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;37789816]Court Marshal? Nah. Reprimand, sure, as our armed forces are supposed to hold themselves to the highest of standards. Urinating on the corpses of what are essentially animals isn't really something to be tried over, and possibly face jail/prison time[/QUOTE] Seriously? Just because our enemy doesn't fight the way we do doesn't make them animals

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;37790613]LinkOut More Resources -> Full Text Sources This is right under the first link (the full study in .pdf format): [url]http://web.ebscohost.com/chc/pdf?sid=04c948fd-97eb-41a2-984e-60efcacbe048%40sessionmgr114&vid=2&hid=107[/url] Not at all hard to find.[/QUOTE] Clicked both the links you provided and the links on the abstract's page [URL="http://search.ebscohost.com/Login.aspx?authtype=cookie,ip,uid&URL=http%3a%2f%2fopenurl.ebscohost.com%2flinksvc%2flinking.aspx%3fgenre%3darticle%26sid%3dPubMed%26issn%3d0026-4075%26title%3dMil%2bMed%26volume%3d173%26issue%3d11%26spage%3d1078%26atitle%3dRelationships%2bamong%2bsociodemographic%2bmarkers%252c%2bbehavioral%2brisk%252c%2band%2bsexually%2btransmitted%2binfections%2bin%2bU.%2bS.%2bfemale%2bMarine%2bCorps%2brecruits.%26aulast%3dBoyer%26date%3d2008%26isbn%3d0026-4075&redirect=true"]brought me to a login page demanding an account and password[/URL] googled the title of the study, found it and also found [URL="http://ihatetheusmc.com/tag/behavioral-risk/"]this[/URL] encouraging [QUOTE] That also examined all participants' sociodemographic circumstances and presented results and conclusions about them in relation to venereal diseases and the Marine Corps' level of preparedness and [B]education on the matter[/B] (which it found, needless to say, to be extremely lacking), specifically: their ages, races/ethnic backgrounds, marital statuses, levels of education, geographic locations (both what region of the country they were from and whether the area was rural or urban), age and race/ethnicity of their last sexual partners, and the differences between their ages and the ages of their last sexual partners.[/QUOTE] yeah they don't teach sex ed during basic, big surprise. Would you like them too? But you missed the point of my quote and filled your response with almost no retort and mostly filler. (seems like you actually copied and pasted a section of the report, btw) My point was those who had the highest STI risk were already very knowledgeable about STI's and had drinking and drug problems before basic. In addition, they had a fondness for risky behavior, which is probably partly why they joined the Marine Corps in the first place. What is more sex ed for female recruits going to do? Would they even care? [QUOTE]I fixed that part of my post, but I didn't pull it out of my ass. I forgot to add "infected". Simple misunderstanding.[/QUOTE] What? Now your post is butchered and I can't even understand what you are trying to say: [QUOTE]Most of their female recruits infected are found in rural areas. [/QUOTE] When you stated most female recruits are from rural areas, you sounded as if you were generalizing all women in the USMC. Now I don't even know what you mean, are you trying to fix your generalization? Or justify it? [QUOTE]Actually, it does. Where venereal diseases are concerned, it notes that the recruits only possess a "sub par average level of knowledge".[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Higher levels of knowledge were associated with increased likelihood of engaging in high-risk sexual behavior[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]This finding is consistent with the 1MB model, which suggests knowledge is necessary but not a sufficient prerequisite for attenuating behavioral risk for STIs and that motivation and skill factors are necessary for engaging in preventive behavior.[/QUOTE] In other words, knowledge of STI's doesn't mean much as they thought it did. Completely contrary to your observation. [QUOTE] It points out that the Marine Corps currently lacks during recruit training sufficient educational programs to provide accurate information and resources to female recruits regarding such diseases, and that further developing them is necessary. [/QUOTE] Yes. This does not support your point that the USMC has low standards in regards to female recruits. It is tangential and irrelevant. "Oh no the USMC doesn't teach sex ed during basic thus they have low recruit standards" doesn't make sense. [QUOTE]It goes on to state that the results show [i]"young women entire recruit training for the military with high levels of STIs and increased risk for acquisition of STIs under the influence of alcohol or drugs, sex with a risky partner, and infrequent condom use. [b]The persistence of these behaviors after the completion of recruit training undermines the combat readiness of these young women early in their military service"[/b][/i]. [/QUOTE] except you omit the part where the study talks about the current risk reduction counseling, and how it takes place only after the diagnosis of STI's, when it is this researchers opinion that they should do preventive counseling too. also funnily enough "undermines combat readiness" is one of the most overused phrases in the military "I'm out of expo markers, its undermining our combat readiness" [QUOTE]In a nutshell: low standards. Yes, you can argue that they didn't directly say that they have low standards, but that's what they're describing. I don't think anyone else is going to contest this.[/QUOTE] uggh you can't even roughly use this as a base for an argument that the USMC has low standards, just because young female recruits are at a greater risk of contracting STI's than civilian average suggests literally nothing other than 1. they are prone to risky behavior (fucking obvious, they're in the USMC) 2. they are young (19yrs) and living in a overwhelmingly male environment. but you seem to think no, they are all sluts, and the USMC selects them because they are sluts. [QUOTE]The Department of Defense, which supported the study, didn't seem to think the fact that it was already almost a decade old when the study was actually done back in 2008 made it inadmissible...[/QUOTE] Or maybe they wanted to see how the USMC has progressed in this area, thus they had the analysis done. Maybe they had extra grant money left around and nothing to spend it on. Maybe they wanted to compare military women's health in the early 2000's to now. The DoD doesn't have to use old statistics from 8yrs ago, why would they? [QUOTE]Biggest problem with MEPS is that they don't tie much of the physical screening to the mental screening except when body modifications or suspected self-inflicted injuries are detected. It's extremely basic and is done with quickly. This issue is what I was referring to when I said they needed to improve upon what types of checks they do. And not just the types, but also how comprehensive they are.[/QUOTE] MEPS takes two days and your their for pretty much the entire day both times. Trust me they take their fucking time. I do agree we need better mental health screening, the only way they know if you have mental issues is by checking your hospital record. But I think we got the physical stuff down pat. and its not extremely basic do you even know what MEPS involves? [QUOTE]Wow I can't believe I missed this post of yours. You seem like an absolutely [i]oustanding[/i] individual to be having this discussion with.[/QUOTE] yea whip lead. stellar final point, dude.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37791941]yea whip lead. stellar final point, dude.[/QUOTE] wow you sure did school him just because he called you out for making a stupid and offensive post why don't you think about his critique for a second instead of indirectly proving what he's saying ?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;37792072]wow you sure did school him just because he called you out for making a stupid and offensive post why don't you think about his critique for a second instead of indirectly proving what he's saying ?[/QUOTE] you again well hello if you have a problem with me, why don't we take it to PM's because honestly you just keep coming back and back and back and I don't even get what you are trying to do. This isn't a critique btw [QUOTE]Wow I can't believe I missed this post of yours. You seem like an absolutely oustanding individual to be having this discussion with.[/QUOTE] And I think I made my opinion of this trial apparent in both the last thread we had about this and the current one.

[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37792090]you again well hello[/QUOTE] no one's going to take you seriously dude; you're beating a dead horse if you keep acting like this i don't have a problem with you? what are you saying? i'm just addressing you about you being a smartass and i honestly think you should cease and desist? for someone who is trying to be the adult, you don't hestiate on being rude and unresponisve to certain things people are questioning you about

Well they pissed on dead bodies,not saying it's not dumb and disrespectful but it's nothing worth condemning them to anything rougher than a discharge and a few hours of community service.

[QUOTE=JerryK;37788906]"hi i have trouble figuring out what social norms mean because i'm socially challenged"[/QUOTE] "Hi, I think killing is okay, let's give them medal for that but pissing on someone you murdered is auto-bad"

[QUOTE=CMB Unit 01;37787784]Every day they have an increased risk of of dying over people in the "civilised world."[/QUOTE] What happened to Detroit? Seriously, though, deployments are long-term, and while I agree they should've known that it would've been bad over there and been prepared for it, I don't agree that they're completely horrible people. No amount of training can actually prepare you to kill someone or to deal with someone trying to kill you (mentally speaking, obviously). And no, I don't mean like psykers, either.