Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Update on DADT PolicyFollow

#302 Jul 08 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics.
Are you trying to make a point, because your comment seems even less relevant than Alma's did.


Are you insinuating that if a man were in a shower with women, all he'd do is run around and rape them?


Are they hot?
#303 Jul 08 2011 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics.
Are you trying to make a point, because your comment seems even less relevant than Alma's did.


Are you insinuating that if a man were in a shower with women, all he'd do is run around and rape them?


Are they hot?
In the military? Maybe a handful.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#304 Jul 08 2011 at 6:28 AM Rating: Decent
-REDACTED-
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics.
Are you trying to make a point, because your comment seems even less relevant than Alma's did.


Are you insinuating that if a man were in a shower with women, all he'd do is run around and rape them?


Are they hot?
In the military? Maybe a handful.


Relevant pic is relevant:
Daymn
#305 Jul 08 2011 at 6:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Yup, those would be a handful.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#306 Jul 08 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Good
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics.
Are you trying to make a point, because your comment seems even less relevant than Alma's did.


Are you insinuating that if a man were in a shower with women, all he'd do is run around and rape them?
In alma's world, that is exactly what would happen. My point was that you could probably let gays shower with the others, or even the other gays, and it wouldn't turn into a scene from Caligula.
#307 Jul 08 2011 at 6:35 AM Rating: Default
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Quote:
Also, the biggest difference between segregation and DADT is that they're completely different. Discrimination on skin color is not the same thing as sexual preference. When the world integrates women and men showers, bathrooms, changing rooms/locker rooms and living areas, THEN you can say that they are more the same.


/sigh, I added Alma to my ignore list but people still quote the retarded things he says.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#308 Jul 08 2011 at 6:37 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
idiggory wrote:
/sigh, I added Alma to my ignore list but people still quote the retarded things he says.
Now you know how everyone else feels.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#309 Jul 08 2011 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
idiggory wrote:
/sigh, I added Alma to my ignore list but people still quote the retarded things he says.
Now you know how everyone else feels.


...

Well that's fair.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#310 Jul 08 2011 at 7:07 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Also, the biggest difference between segregation and DADT is that they're completely different. Discrimination on skin color is not the same thing as sexual preference. When the world integrates women and men showers, bathrooms, changing rooms/locker rooms and living areas, THEN you can say that they are more the same.
That making them more the same doesn't negate the similarities they share right now.


Which at this point is nothing but an argument used, which doesn't mean anything if the argument is bad.

Lubridum wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a gay guy were in a bathroom with other men, all he'd do is run around sucking everybody's ****** They just can't control themselves, the heathens!



Because we all know that those men are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a man were in a bathroom with other women, all he'd do is run around sucking everyone's breast. They just can't control themselves, the heathens!

LolGaxe wrote:
The only reason Alma keeps bringing up shower integration is because that's the only way he's going to see a naked woman without paying.


Internet is free there buddy! Besides, are you accusing heterosexual men as being sex crazed addicts... OMG I can't control myself!!

#311 Jul 08 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Ugly wrote:
Are they hot?
In the military? Maybe a handful.


That's what the Air Force is for.

Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics.
Are you trying to make a point, because your comment seems even less relevant than Alma's did.


Are you insinuating that if a man were in a shower with women, all he'd do is run around and rape them?
In alma's world, that is exactly what would happen. My point was that you could probably let gays shower with the others, or even the other gays, and it wouldn't turn into a scene from Caligula.



Actually, in my world, the exact opposite would happen. I believe that men and women of all sexual preferences can share a locker room without anyone harassing anyone. Why people fully support open homosexual men showering with men but oppose open heterosexual men showering with women is beyond me.

Either make them open for everyone or separated for everyone. You pick, I don't care.

Edited, Jul 8th 2011 3:13pm by Almalieque
#312 Jul 08 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:

Lubridum wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a gay guy were in a bathroom with other men, all he'd do is run around sucking everybody's ****** They just can't control themselves, the heathens!

Because we all know that those men are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a man were in a bathroom with other women, all he'd do is run around sucking everyone's breast. They just can't control themselves, the heathens!

I never said that unisex bathrooms would cause a rape epidemic. Still trying to figure out how a man can be in a bathroom with other women, though. So if you strategy was 'truth by confounding someone', you win, I guess.
#313 Jul 08 2011 at 7:30 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Lubridum wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a gay guy were in a bathroom with other men, all he'd do is run around sucking everybody's ****** They just can't control themselves, the heathens!

Because we all know that those men are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a man were in a bathroom with other women, all he'd do is run around sucking everyone's breast. They just can't control themselves, the heathens!

I never said that unisex bathrooms would cause a rape epidemic. Still trying to figure out how a man can be in a bathroom with other women, though. So if you strategy was 'truth by confounding someone', you win, I guess.


What do you mean how? Just make everything unisex. Change the signs that say "Woman" and "Man" to "Bathroom".
#314 Jul 08 2011 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Lubridum wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a gay guy were in a bathroom with other men, all he'd do is run around sucking everybody's ****** They just can't control themselves, the heathens!

Because we all know that those men are just sex crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a man were in a bathroom with other women, all he'd do is run around sucking everyone's breast. They just can't control themselves, the heathens!

I never said that unisex bathrooms would cause a rape epidemic. Still trying to figure out how a man can be in a bathroom with other women, though. So if you strategy was 'truth by confounding someone', you win, I guess.


What do you mean how? Just make everything unisex. Change the signs that say "Woman" and "Man" to "Bathroom".
Yeah, why not?
#315 Jul 08 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
Almalieque wrote:
What do you mean how? Just make everything unisex. Change the signs that say "Woman" and "Man" to "Bathroom".
I think he was picking on how you phrased it. A man being in a bathroom with other women.
#316 Jul 08 2011 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Kao wrote:
I'm not saying DADT shouldn't be repealed and I never have. I'm simply countering your rage fueled arguments.


OMG! Exactly my point that I've been saying for quite awhile, especially with SSM. I'm not arguing the end point, just your chosen path to the end point.


Might want to fix that typo there. I'm pretty sure you wanted the R instead of the K. Also, theres that whole "misquoting an admin" forum rules clause to think of.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#317 Jul 08 2011 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Kao wrote:
I'm not saying DADT shouldn't be repealed and I never have. I'm simply countering your rage fueled arguments.


OMG! Exactly my point that I've been saying for quite awhile, especially with SSM. I'm not arguing the end point, just your chosen path to the end point.


Might want to fix that typo there. I'm pretty sure you wanted the R instead of the K. Also, theres that whole "misquoting an admin" forum rules clause to think of.


Pretty sure that counts as libel. I think you should ban him, and lock this thread as evidence for your impending lawsuit.
#318 Jul 08 2011 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
You should move it to the Vanguard forums for safekeeping.
#319 Jul 08 2011 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Someone explain to me how DADT stops innocent people from getting killed?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#320 Jul 08 2011 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Someone explain to me how DADT stops innocent people from getting killed?


It saves homosexuals by removing them from the army, where they might otherwise be killed.

Duh.
#321 Jul 08 2011 at 10:36 AM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Oh, makes sense!


No, seriously though. Whoever put forward that argument.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#322 Jul 08 2011 at 11:24 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Raolan wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Raolan wrote:
Policies are usually put in place for a reason. Without knowing the intended purpose or reasoning behind the policy, or potential issues associated with its change, you can't evaluate whether or not the reasoning for the policy is still valid. Demanding the change of something without understanding all aspects of it is both selfish and ignorant.

Edited, Jul 7th 2011 4:28pm by Raolan


I think you left out "the consequences of the policy."


You don't really have to understand the consequences of a policy to fight it. It could be as simple as not liking the policy. But if you don't understand the intent behind the policy, how do you weigh the current consequences against the consequences the policy was designed to prevent?


Well, no. The consequences of the policy are central to why one fights against it. In the case of DADT, they're the very reason that folks like myself have an issue with it.

You're trying to imbue my argument with ignorance. I never suggested that one shouldn't try to understand why a policy was put in place. Trust me, I understand the DADT situation perfectly well. I understand the circumstances that led to its enaction.

I assert that the repeal of DADT will not have a negative effect on combat safety, or troop wellbeing. It unjustly descriminates against homosexuals, and needlessly so.

I welcome you to try to prove otherwise. You've been alluding to some sort of problematic fallout, but you haven't come out and said it. You just keep waxing petulantly about how "civilians just don't get it."


The consequences may be why one fights against something, but they only need to understand whichever aspect of those consequences they don't like, not all of them. However, they do need to understand what the policy is preventing in order to weigh one side against the other, even if the side they are arguing against isn't the whole thing, just the part they don't like.

And I haven't been alluding to anything, I said my issue with the DADT repeal, and that's the potential loss of life due to the mistrust between a homosexual and a homophobe in a combat situation. Not only does that mistrust have the potential to affect those directly involved, but everyone around them too. While people might not get killed because of it, I guarantee it will cause problems because it already does cause problems and DADT is still in affect. Even with that my issue with it isn't the repeal itself, but the timing of it.
#323 Jul 08 2011 at 11:34 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Oh, makes sense!


No, seriously though. Whoever put forward that argument.


I assume you're talking about my comment stating the repeal of DADT has the potential to cost lives. I never said DADT saves lives. Two different things.

The DADT repeal is going to cause trust issues between homosexuals and homophobes. It may even cause trust issues between homosexuals and their friends because they've been lying to their friends, just not to the extent as it would with homophobes. When you add the stress levels associated with a combat scenario and take into account of how important it is to be able to trust the person who's supposed to be watching your back, it's a very real concern.
#324 Jul 08 2011 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
Then you should throw homophobes out of the Army. Do you have this issue with racists? Would you tolerate this behaviour from racists?


Your argument is f*cking stupid.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#325 Jul 08 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Raolan wrote:
The consequences may be why one fights against something, but they only need to understand whichever aspect of those consequences they don't like, not all of them. However, they do need to understand what the policy is preventing in order to weigh one side against the other, even if the side they are arguing against isn't the whole thing, just the part they don't like.


Right.

Raolan wrote:
And I haven't been alluding to anything, I said my issue with the DADT repeal, and that's the potential loss of life due to the mistrust between a homosexual and a homophobe in a combat situation. Not only does that mistrust have the potential to affect those directly involved, but everyone around them too. While people might not get killed because of it, I guarantee it will cause problems because it already does cause problems and DADT is still in affect. Even with that my issue with it isn't the repeal itself, but the timing of it.


You'll forgive me if I'm not convinced by your anecdote. I've heard more times than not that "nobody cares" about homosexuals in the military right now. In fact, Alma's on the record for saying just that. High level military brass are on board with the change, and have assured the government that it can be enacted without issue. The precedent of open homosexual service that is already occurring in other nations helps to suggest that it will cause no significant problem.

At any rate, I pose to you that the repeal of DADT is actually a solution to the problems that you suggest. DADT's unfair treatment of homosexuals perpetuates the stigma that they are something to be reviled, thereby encouraging (or at least, condoning) the types of behavior that you allude to.

I keep hearing about how good military folk are about putting personal issues aside and obeying orders...

Edited, Jul 8th 2011 2:07pm by Eske
#326 Jul 08 2011 at 12:42 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
Nilatai wrote:
Then you should throw homophobes out of the Army. Do you have this issue with racists? Would you tolerate this behaviour from racists?


Your argument is f*cking stupid.


Why, because you don't agree with it?

Go ahead and throw them out, throw the racists out too, I'm all for that. The problem is that bigots and racists know they'll get in trouble if they out themselves, so they generally don't. If they aren't willing to out themselves, how do you identify them prior to a problem arising?

Eske wrote:
You'll forgive me if I'm not convinced by your anecdote. I've heard more times than not that "nobody cares" about homosexuals in the military right now. In fact, Alma's on the record for saying just that. High level military brass are on board with the change, and have assured the government that it can be enacted without issue. The precedent of open homosexual service that is already occurring in other nations helps to suggest that it will cause no significant problem.

At any rate, I pose to you that the repeal of DADT is actually a solution to the problems that you suggest. DADT's unfair treatment of homosexuals perpetuates the stigma that they are something to be reviled, thereby encouraging (or at least, condoning) the types of behavior that you allude to.

I keep hearing about how good military folk are about putting personal issues aside and obeying orders...


Most people, regardless of whether they are a good soldier or not, don't care. That doesn't mean that nobody cares. Believe it or not, a lot of homosexuals aren't completely in the closet, they are just careful to keep it out of work and away from people they don't trust.

I agree that the repeal of DADT will reduce bigotry, but it won't eliminate it and it won't happen over night. Homophobes aren't going to magically wake up and say "Hey, the military is ok with it, I guess I am too." And until they do, it introduces a potential problem.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 256 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (256)