Few more thoughts:
"Just for your information... the policy is spreading, Ian. Jason and I have been trying to tell you that, and it's falling on deaf ears."
There's a reason for this. If you reply, oh yes, the DADT policy should be phased out if it's not necessary for military functioning, and that is why I support the reduction in expulsions that is happening, that's one thing. If you say, oh sure, oppose DADT, but you know it's on the way out already anyway, that's one thing. But mostly it's been counters to my arguments supporting the gradual end of DADT, and that makes your larger point different. Especially because me knowing that the expulsions have dropped (I posted that, so, whether deaf or not, I knew) does not mean I will support repeal of the DADT policy especially it's other aspects, just as much.
"Humor is one of the few intellectual abilities that separates us from animals and apes. It's part of what helps us get along."
Ok; are you proposing we end DADT and have a collegial laugh about the mishaps that occur with full integration? I don't find DADT funny because I'm on the receiving end (and more importantly, some friends and colleagues since I'm not enlisted). Losing your job or career and not having health insurance stability for your loved ones both for no good reason is not funny or acceptable, I'm sure you'll agree.
"Meanwhile... If you work for a Fortune 500 company today, you're essentially censured. You have it programmed in you on a regular basis. In my case I have yearly training that literally takes days to go through."
Um, you've lost me. Yes, there are behavioral standards at jobs. I just don't want any discriminatory ones! Would you really think it were ok if you worked at a Fortune 500 company where all the gay people could acknowledge they have a family, wear a wedding ring, put a family picture on the desk, but if anyone found out you were straight or married (even via investigation or retaliation for a perceived work slight) you'd be kicked out without the severance the job gives to everyone else? This isn't about freedom to chitchat. It's about equality, and more importantly it's about those real American heroes who are serving their country (or could join) wanting a chance to do their part without having to hide their identities.
"It is my job as a martial arts instructor to understand what causes PTSD. And I have to tell you that I don't believe you get it. Your misunderstanding is the same misunderstanding Hitler had of the matter. He thought for sure that creating trauma from without would demoralize Great Britain. It didn't. Bad miscalculation on his part."
It is my job as a physician to understand what causes PTSD. I can diagnose it. I can treat it. And I have to tell you that psychiatrists, their organizations, and the military itself has specific rules about diagnosing mental illness. The criterion I gave is one. I didn't make it up. I didn't for a second declare the experience of someone who kills during wartime less valid if they weren't at risk themselves. I said I thought they might not be eligible for a diagnosis of PTSD and
I clearly said I wasn't sure and would check into it. This is because we commonly reject claims of PTSD from people who were traumatized by 9/11 just because they were in Washington DC or because they were inconvenienced by a medical exam (two real examples) for not having posed a sufficient trauma.
Those three psychiatrists I spoke to over the last day who ALL work for the Navy (they also see marines) confirmed that it would be possible for a soldier to get a PTSD diagnosis from effects of killing others without having been at risk, but they had to really think about it because it is quite rare in their experience; generally, we're talking about going through near death experiences. They couldn't speak to military policy, but, this is some experience in the real world now, rather than a book or a class.
As for the rates / penetrance of the diagnosis, I'm not sure the "average" person gets it on the front lines. Here's a report citing more like 12-20%:
This report echoes that:
I should mention that PTSD itself is a diagnosis under fire. Google "saving ptsd from itself" and click on the pdf for an interesting read. There are many issues with diagnostic criteria for the disorder. All similar disorders lack clear boundaries and these issues are not. Note that I am not saying that people who don't meet a formal definition don't suffer or don't deserve care. Far from it. I was just bringing some precision to the discussion.
So, while I understand your perspective on PTSD, I actually deal with people that have it, and talk often to military psychiatrists who treat active duty and veterans who have it, and I was trained in school on the diagnostic criteria and symptoms. I'm also familiar with the current literature (didja read the one on morphine and PTSD?) and the medications and therapy involved. So you are welcome to believe that I don't get it. But your criteria for that belief would be iffy (in my opinion).