Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Update on DADT PolicyFollow

#302 Jul 08 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just **** 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?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#303 Jul 08 2011 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just **** 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just **** 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
******
34,674 posts
Yup, those would be a handful.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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 **** 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.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#307 Jul 08 2011 at 6:35 AM Rating: Default
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,632 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
******
34,674 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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
Avatar
*****
19,632 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
Avatar
****
8,939 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 **** crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a **** 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 **** 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 **** crazed addicts... OMG I can't control myself!!

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#311 Jul 08 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 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 **** 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
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#312 Jul 08 2011 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:

Lubridum wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just **** crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a **** 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 **** 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.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#313 Jul 08 2011 at 7:30 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

Lubridum wrote:
Because we all know that those gays are just **** crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a **** 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 **** 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".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#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 **** crazed lunatics. I'm sure if a **** 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 **** 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?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#315 Jul 08 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 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.
____________________________
Banh
#316 Jul 08 2011 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,849 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
****
6,470 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.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#318 Jul 08 2011 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
Unforkgettable
*****
13,205 posts
You should move it to the Vanguard forums for safekeeping.
____________________________
Banh
#319 Jul 08 2011 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 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
****
6,470 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.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#321 Jul 08 2011 at 10:36 AM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 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
***
2,428 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
***
2,428 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
*****
15,262 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
****
6,470 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
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#326 Jul 08 2011 at 12:42 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,428 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.
#327 Jul 08 2011 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Raolan wrote:
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.


So the military should cater to the lunatic fringe? There are ardent racists in the military to this day. I don't see how the scenario that you envision plays out any differently with them. Should the military discharge blacks, for fear that racists will have a problem with them?

There will always be people who are racist, or homophobic. Those traits likely aren't ever going to be wiped out (and if they are, it won't be for hundreds upon hundreds of years). If you want to wait to repeal DADT until some magical time when everyone is okay with it, then it will simply never happen.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#328 Jul 08 2011 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Quote:
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?


And NATURALLY the only proper solution to that is to ban queers. Might as well toss out all people of color too. And women. And Catholics. WASP-only army, dammit!

Plus, homophobes are largely people who possess same-sex desire (either exclusively or in conjunction with opposite-sex desire). Their violence towards **** is directly the result of societal oppression that has forced them to possess self-hate.

As long as oppressive policies remain on the books, homophobes are being actively encouraged to be homophobes.

Quote:
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.


1. Those trust issues exist already. If a homophobe suspects someone of being gay, they aren't going to trust them. It doesn't matter if that is confirmed or not.

2. Not all gays are going to come out. Many **** servicemembers have come out to their <insert word I can't think of right now>, and they aren't outed to the higher-ups because they want to protect him/her.

3. If someone is letting their homophobia actually affect whether or not they can trust someone in a combat situation, then they don't deserve to be in the army. THEY are a combat liability, and THEY are the ones who will be getting people killed.

4. Psychological screening can very easily weed out homophobes, actually. Same with racists.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#329 Jul 08 2011 at 1:52 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,428 posts
Eske wrote:
There will always be people who are racist, or homophobic. Those traits likely aren't ever going to be wiped out (and if they are, it won't be for hundreds upon hundreds of years). If you want to wait to repeal DADT until some magical time when everyone is okay with it, then it will simply never happen.


That magic time won't exist any time in the near future. I just don't think it should be done while we're fighting over seas. Either that or implement it incrementally and keep it a taboo subject over seas until we get the **** out of there. **** is generally not allowed in a war zone anyway, so if it's a taboo subject over there, it really isn't going to matter.

Idiggory wrote:
Raolan wrote:
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?


And NATURALLY the only proper solution to that is to ban queers. Might as well toss out all people of color too. And women. And Catholics. WASP-only army, dammit!

Plus, homophobes are largely people who possess same-sex desire (either exclusively or in conjunction with opposite-sex desire). Their violence towards **** is directly the result of societal oppression that has forced them to possess self-hate.

As long as oppressive policies remain on the books, homophobes are being actively encouraged to be homophobes.


How does me saying that racists and bigots should be thrown out get twisted into an anti-queer push?

Why do you keep on with the cause of homophobia? Unless you're advocating educating these people and helping them deal with their issues, whatever they may be, prior to the DADT repeal, it isn't going to change the fact that homophobia exists.

Quote:
1. Those trust issues exist already. If a homophobe suspects someone of being gay, they aren't going to trust them. It doesn't matter if that is confirmed or not.


I won't argue that, but not to the extent it will once DADT is officially repealed.

Quote:
2. Not all gays are going to come out. Many **** servicemembers have come out to their <insert word I can't think of right now>, and they aren't outed to the higher-ups because they want to protect him/her.


If certain gays decide to remain quiet, that's fine. The ones that have come out have done so to people they trust. If they then decide to come out publicly, or enter into a relationship that will publicly out them, that's not something they can hide. As I mentioned awhile ago, military spouses are required to attend certain events. It's an all or nothing type of situation.

Quote:
3. If someone is letting their homophobia actually affect whether or not they can trust someone in a combat situation, then they don't deserve to be in the army. THEY are a combat liability, and THEY are the ones who will be getting people killed.


Again, I'm aware. Homophobes are the problem, not homosexuals, but the problems caused by homophobes will potentially affect everyone around them, not just themselves.

Quote:
4. Psychological screening can very easily weed out homophobes, actually. Same with racists.


Fine, run full scale psych tests on every member of the military. I'm sure the anti-military group won't throw a fit about that bill.
#330 Jul 08 2011 at 2:10 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Raolan wrote:
Eske wrote:
There will always be people who are racist, or homophobic. Those traits likely aren't ever going to be wiped out (and if they are, it won't be for hundreds upon hundreds of years). If you want to wait to repeal DADT until some magical time when everyone is okay with it, then it will simply never happen.


That magic time won't exist any time in the near future. I just don't think it should be done while we're fighting over seas. Either that or implement it incrementally and keep it a taboo subject over seas until we get the **** out of there. **** is generally not allowed in a war zone anyway, so if it's a taboo subject over there, it really isn't going to matter.


I think that's a fair enough position to hold, though I don't think that it's necessary to wait for troop withdrawal to do it, obviously. I strongly doubt that there's any real risk to the repeal, and I expect that anyone suggesting otherwise is going to look very silly when it goes through.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#331 Jul 08 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Raolan wrote:
Eske wrote:
There will always be people who are racist, or homophobic. Those traits likely aren't ever going to be wiped out (and if they are, it won't be for hundreds upon hundreds of years). If you want to wait to repeal DADT until some magical time when everyone is okay with it, then it will simply never happen.


That magic time won't exist any time in the near future. I just don't think it should be done while we're fighting over seas. Either that or implement it incrementally and keep it a taboo subject over seas until we get the **** out of there. **** is generally not allowed in a war zone anyway, so if it's a taboo subject over there, it really isn't going to matter.


I think that's a fair enough position to hold, though I don't think that it's necessary to wait for troop withdrawal to do it, obviously. I strongly doubt that there's any real risk to the repeal, and I expect that anyone suggesting otherwise is going to look very silly when it goes through.


The real reason this argument is **** is because, historically speaking, the US is ALWAYS at war. Quite literally, the repeal would never happen then. Furthermore, the opponents haven't managed to provide any specific reasons why the repeal would lead to any loss of life, or why they should realistically think it would.

Quote:
How does me saying that racists and bigots should be thrown out get twisted into an anti-queer push?

Why do you keep on with the cause of homophobia? Unless you're advocating educating these people and helping them deal with their issues, whatever they may be, prior to the DADT repeal, it isn't going to change the fact that homophobia exists.


I bet you don't even realize how much this post wreaks of homophobia and heterosexual privilege, and that's sad.

Guess what, homophobia exists because society has set it up as something wrong or base. But that doesn't stop people from naturally having same-sex desire. If they feel they are in a society where that is wrong, they insulate themselves and become militaristic towards what they hate about themselves.

Social and governmental policies that continue to validate oppression only reaffirm their self-hating beliefs and tendencies. It's easy to say "Yeah, but we don't have to change THIS policy--it's not doing any harm!" But that's bull, it's just as harmful as any other (and, in this case, probably more so since it was so much a part of the public eye). It's the exact same way with racial or gender issues--people think that because a policy is minor or unimportant it still doesn't set the group back by proliferating oppression, but they are wrong. These are all aspects of mechanisms that are put in place to control disenfranchised groups, and until people acknowledge that the groups will remain oppressed.

Quote:
Again, I'm aware. Homophobes are the problem, not homosexuals, but the problems caused by homophobes will potentially affect everyone around them, not just themselves.


But what you have failed to demonstrate is why that justifies keeping homosexuals out of the military. We don't do the same thing for race, why should we for orientation?

Quote:
Fine, run full scale psych tests on every member of the military. I'm sure the anti-military group won't throw a fit about that bill.


The fact that psychological screening isn't standard in the military is already a significant problem. The fact that you would make a "lol budget" argument just shows how out of sync you are, and you are a part of the military?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#332 Jul 08 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,428 posts
Quote:
The real reason this argument is **** is because, historically speaking, the US is ALWAYS at war. Quite literally, the repeal would never happen then. Furthermore, the opponents haven't managed to provide any specific reasons why the repeal would lead to any loss of life, or why they should realistically think it would.


I'm aware that were almost always engaged somewhere doing something, but not at the level we're currently engaged in, and that is my primary concern. And no, there's no proof saying this will cost lives, but the potential is there and I don't feel it's a risk that needs to be added to the current situation.

Quote:
I bet you don't even realize how much this post wreaks of homophobia and heterosexual privilege, and that's sad.


I was talking about homophobia, not homosexuality. If you read it how it was meant and still find it offensive, I apologize.

I was raised in a somewhat religious environment where **** was meant for procreation and was not supposed to be pleasurable. After my parents got divorced my dad joined a very conservative baptist church, where I was told that if I was a bad boy I would be sent to **** where demons would ram things up my **** for all of eternity. So yea, I was raised to believe homosexuality was a bad thing. However, I've grown up and realized that someone's lifestyle is their own business and it isn't my place to judge. But the whole thing goes right back to my initial point, homophobia isn't going to change over night.

But again, I apologize. I've intentionally chosen my words carefully throughout my posts because I am not overly knowledgeable of the lifestyle and I wasn't trying to offend anyone.

Quote:
But what you have failed to demonstrate is why that justifies keeping homosexuals out of the military. We don't do the same thing for race, why should we for orientation?


I never said homosexuals should be kept out of the military, I said I don't think the timing is right for DADT to be repealed. Homophobia, regardless of it's cause, is not something that is going to go away with the flip of a switch. It takes time for someone to change their way of thinking, especially if that way of thinking is due to years of hatred, bigotry, or denial.

Quote:
The fact that psychological screening isn't standard in the military is already a significant problem. The fact that you would make a "lol budget" argument just shows how out of sync you are, and you are a part of the military?


I'm not a part of the military, I'm a military spouse, which I've previously stated. I signed up the same time my wife did but I didn't go in for several reasons. Although living and working on military bases gives me a perspective on military operation most civilians don't get to see.
#333 Jul 08 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
Quote:

I never said homosexuals should be kept out of the military, I said I don't think the timing is right for DADT to be repealed. Homophobia, regardless of it's cause, is not something that is going to go away with the flip of a switch. It takes time for someone to change their way of thinking, especially if that way of thinking is due to years of hatred, bigotry, or denial.
We should absolutely keep catering to the bigots, ya know, just because it's ingrained in them, and they can't help it.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#334 Jul 08 2011 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Raolan wrote:
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?

It doesn't matter. If you are so bigoted that you don't trust someone to have your back because of your own prejudices it's your own fault if you die. Why should someone else have to hide who they are to appease you? Perhaps homosexual members of the military will continue to do so, but forcing them to do so isn't the solution.

The solution is having a zero tolerance for the kind of behaviour that puts your own, and the lives of others at risk. Which, was my understanding, is how the military is supposed to operate. At least, that's how our military does. I don't know about yours.


edit - re: Psych testing members of the Military. Personally I'd be all for that. I wouldn't want to give a crazy person a gun.

Edited, Jul 8th 2011 6:06pm by Nilatai
____________________________
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
#335 Jul 08 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Quote:
I'm aware that were almost always engaged somewhere doing something, but not at the level we're currently engaged in, and that is my primary concern. And no, there's no proof saying this will cost lives, but the potential is there and I don't feel it's a risk that needs to be added to the current situation.


Upgarding the standard gun used by <insert position> to a new model has the potential to cost lives as well.

The point is that ANY change in a military setting might lead to a loss of human life. But that isn't an excuse to not change (and lack of change is only going to increase casualties in the long run).

Unless you can make an argument that suggest that this change is likely to cause a large number of casualties (and I'm talking large in terms of numbers that are <100), I don't see it as being a valid reason to delay the repeal. Afaik, no opponents ever put forth studies suggesting that DADT would reduce combat efficiency, and the official position of the pentagon was that DADT's repeal would be no issue.

"But we're at war!" just doesn't cut it, imo.

[EDIT]
Quote:
edit - re: Psych testing members of the Military. Personally I'd be all for that. I wouldn't want to give a crazy person a gun.


Apparently, as much as 10% of soldiers on active duty are found to have mental health issues, but only 1% of soldiers go through psychological screening before deployment. And this is after the Pentagon vowed to increase military mental screening in 2006.

Edited, Jul 8th 2011 6:19pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#336 Jul 08 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,428 posts
Quote:
It doesn't matter. If you are so bigoted that you don't trust someone to have your back because of your own prejudices it's your own fault if you die. Why should someone else have to hide who they are to appease you? Perhaps homosexual members of the military will continue to do so, but forcing them to do so isn't the solution.


If their level of mistrust endangers themselves, it also endangers everyone around them. That's the point you seem to be missing.

Quote:
The solution is having a zero tolerance for the kind of behaviour that puts your own, and the lives of others at risk. Which, was my understanding, is how the military is supposed to operate. At least, that's how our military does. I don't know about yours.


I'm pretty sure that is how it works, but again, homophobes who want to continue to serve aren't going to jump up and down stating they're homophobes so they get kicked out, the same way homosexuals keep their mouths shut now. They're going to bite their tongue and go on mistrusting homosexuals. Either way, the homophobe is going to bite their tongue and deal with it until something happens. If that something were to happen in a combat zone, everyone around them is at risk. It's going to take time to weed out the problem.
#337 Jul 08 2011 at 4:21 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,632 posts
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't matter. If you are so bigoted that you don't trust someone to have your back because of your own prejudices it's your own fault if you die. Why should someone else have to hide who they are to appease you? Perhaps homosexual members of the military will continue to do so, but forcing them to do so isn't the solution.


If their level of mistrust endangers themselves, it also endangers everyone around them. That's the point you seem to be missing.


And you have still failed to address why this changes anything. Again, racial discrimination was put forth after world war ii while the US was involved in two foreign wars. It went through fine. And I bet racial tensions were a **** of a lot worse than ones over orientation.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#338 Jul 08 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Raolan wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't matter. If you are so bigoted that you don't trust someone to have your back because of your own prejudices it's your own fault if you die. Why should someone else have to hide who they are to appease you? Perhaps homosexual members of the military will continue to do so, but forcing them to do so isn't the solution.


If their level of mistrust endangers themselves, it also endangers everyone around them. That's the point you seem to be missing.
And the point you seem to be missing is that the burden for that should not be forced onto the homosexual members of the military. Which it has been.

Raolan wrote:
Quote:
The solution is having a zero tolerance for the kind of behaviour that puts your own, and the lives of others at risk. Which, was my understanding, is how the military is supposed to operate. At least, that's how our military does. I don't know about yours.


I'm pretty sure that is how it works, but again, homophobes who want to continue to serve aren't going to jump up and down stating they're homophobes so they get kicked out, the same way homosexuals keep their mouths shut now. They're going to bite their tongue and go on mistrusting homosexuals. Either way, the homophobe is going to bite their tongue and deal with it until something happens. If that something were to happen in a combat zone, everyone around them is at risk. It's going to take time to weed out the problem.

It is going to take time, you're right, but DADT was nothing more than a patchwork. I mean, why fix today what you can put off indefinitely, right?

Do you really think homosexuals in the military are going to start acting differently now? Do you think they're going to start hitting on their comrades? Or start flaming like a drag-queen at Mardi gras? I don't, not really.

All I know is now they have a fair system. They can't be discharged (dishonourably so, iirc) just for being what they are.
____________________________
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
#339 Jul 08 2011 at 4:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Lubriderm wrote:
Yeah, why not?


Because society will never allow it. Why not put this same amount of energy put on homosexuals to unisex. That will SOLVE all segregation issues. Hetero, homo, male, female, trans... all in one. No one is discriminated.

Idiggory wrote:
The real reason this argument is **** is because, historically speaking, the US is ALWAYS at war. Quite literally, the repeal would never happen then. Furthermore, the opponents haven't managed to provide any specific reasons why the repeal would lead to any loss of life, or why they should realistically think it would.


Exactly. That's why it was a political move by the President to please both sides and not change anything. I mentioned this a long time ago.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#340 Jul 08 2011 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,397 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I wouldn't want to give a crazy person a gun.
Hi.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#341 Jul 08 2011 at 4:46 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
I wouldn't want to give a crazy person a gun.
Hi.

Yeah well you were a sniper. You people are crazy by default.
____________________________
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
#342 Jul 08 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Lubriderm wrote:
Yeah, why not?


Because society will never allow it. Why not put this same amount of energy put on homosexuals to unisex. That will SOLVE all segregation issues. Hetero, homo, male, female, trans... all in one. No one is discriminated.
I'd be fine with that.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#343 Jul 08 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Lubriderm wrote:
Yeah, why not?


Because society will never allow it. Why not put this same amount of energy put on homosexuals to unisex. That will SOLVE all segregation issues. Hetero, homo, male, female, trans... all in one. No one is discriminated.
I'd be fine with that.


Cool. So from now, please argue that instead of picking out DADT as if it were special.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#344 Jul 08 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Lubriderm wrote:
Yeah, why not?


Because society will never allow it. Why not put this same amount of energy put on homosexuals to unisex. That will SOLVE all segregation issues. Hetero, homo, male, female, trans... all in one. No one is discriminated.
I'd be fine with that.


Cool. So from now, please argue that instead of picking out DADT as if it were special.
But we are talking about DADT right now.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#345 Jul 08 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
Nilatai wrote:
It doesn't matter. If you are so lazy that you don't work and earn enough to feed yourself, it's your own fault if you starve and die. Why should someone else have to give up their hard earned money to feed you?
Still cool with the **** you just spewed?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#346 Jul 08 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Lubriderm wrote:
Yeah, why not?


Because society will never allow it. Why not put this same amount of energy put on homosexuals to unisex. That will SOLVE all segregation issues. Hetero, homo, male, female, trans... all in one. No one is discriminated.
I'd be fine with that.


Cool. So from now, please argue that instead of picking out DADT as if it were special.
But we are talking about DADT right now.


And? How many times have people brought up race in this thread to support their argument? So make your argument that DADT isn't the problem, that it's a social anxiety of sharing close quarters/showers with someone that might be attracted to you. Doing so INCLUDES DADT.

Now chop-chop and get to it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#347 Jul 08 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
It doesn't matter. If you are so lazy that you don't work and earn enough to feed yourself, it's your own fault if you starve and die. Why should someone else have to give up their hard earned money to feed you?
Still cool with the **** you just spewed?

Seriously? You're making bigotry okay by comparing it to social welfare? Smiley: laugh
____________________________
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
#348 Jul 08 2011 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,674 posts
I'm not making bigotry okay. I'm simply pointing out that you're using a double standard when people are at fault for themselves. I think both are responsible for themselves and shed no tear at the loss of either.


____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#349 Jul 08 2011 at 5:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I'm not making bigotry okay. I'm simply pointing out that you're using a double standard when people are at fault for themselves. I think both are responsible for themselves and shed no tear at the loss of either.




For the record, I agree with Ugly.... ;)
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#350 Jul 08 2011 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Monsieur Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Lubriderm wrote:
Yeah, why not?


Because society will never allow it. Why not put this same amount of energy put on homosexuals to unisex. That will SOLVE all segregation issues. Hetero, homo, male, female, trans... all in one. No one is discriminated.
I'd be fine with that.


Cool. So from now, please argue that instead of picking out DADT as if it were special.
But we are talking about DADT right now.


And? How many times have people brought up race in this thread to support their argument? So make your argument that DADT isn't the problem, that it's a social anxiety of sharing close quarters/showers with someone that might be attracted to you. Doing so INCLUDES DADT.

Now chop-chop and get to it.
Really? Someone being attracted to you is an issue even if they don't act on it? You are really that terrified of a **** guy seeing your naughty parts?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#351 Jul 08 2011 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
I'm not making bigotry okay. I'm simply pointing out that you're using a double standard when people are at fault for themselves. I think both are responsible for themselves and shed no tear at the loss of either.



For the record I don't think people should be able to live solely off of government handouts. Unless there are extenuating circumstances. Such as a debilitating disability (and I mean really debilitating).

If you're too lazy to work, you shouldn't be able to sponge. You should, I think, be forced to work.


The thing is, if people are really too lazy to work and want free food and board, all they need to do is get arrested.
____________________________
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
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 42 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Poldaran, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (39)