So, the crux of the current issue is that Kachi says that DADT allows homosexuals to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret, and Alma says that DADT enables homosexuals to to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret.
Seems... Well, silly just doesn't seem to be strong enough. Semantics are a *****.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Senate Repeals DADT
Senate Repeals DADTFollow
Kachi wrote:
Three things:
1) It's pretty sad, but also telling, that after all this time you can't even get a five-letter name right.
2) You have not shown in the policy where sexual orientation is grounds for a bar from enlistment, and you can't because it doesn't exist.
3) I honestly can't be bothered to read even half of that post because the past indicates that it's an awful lot of stupid.
1) It's pretty sad, but also telling, that after all this time you can't even get a five-letter name right.
2) You have not shown in the policy where sexual orientation is grounds for a bar from enlistment, and you can't because it doesn't exist.
3) I honestly can't be bothered to read even half of that post because the past indicates that it's an awful lot of stupid.
1) spelling has no place on the internet.
2) in his make believe world it does let him have that.
3) yes and its why Ive always enjoyed his posts.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Quote:
So, the crux of the current issue is that Kachi says that DADT allows homosexuals to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret, and Alma says that DADT enables homosexuals to to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret.
Seems... Well, silly just doesn't seem to be strong enough. Semantics are a *****.
Seems... Well, silly just doesn't seem to be strong enough. Semantics are a *****.
Right. Alma thinks that DADT "enabled" (rather than allowed) them to because the military likes to enable people to break their rules, and because they weren't "able" to enlist if they kept it a secret in the first place. It's an utterly ridiculous argument made all the worse by his insistence to defend it in spite of all contrary indication.
Almalieque wrote:
You do realize that was my entire point?
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
So, the crux of the current issue is that Kachi says that DADT allows homosexuals to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret, and Alma says that DADT enables homosexuals to to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret.
Seems... Well, silly just doesn't seem to be strong enough. Semantics are a *****.
Seems... Well, silly just doesn't seem to be strong enough. Semantics are a *****.
Right. Alma thinks that DADT "enabled" (rather than allowed) them to because the military likes to enable people to break their rules, and because they weren't "able" to enlist if they kept it a secret in the first place. It's an utterly ridiculous argument made all the worse by his insistence to defend it in spite of all contrary indication.
Does the word really matter...? Enabled, allowed, same difference, really. Let's face it, you're both right. Under DADT, the military was allowing homosexuals to enter the military, but they will still kick them out if they find out they are homosexual. So they were allowing people to break their rules. Does saying they were enabling people to break their rules make that much of a difference?
Almalieque wrote:
I'm simply saying that there is no relationship other than you don't like him and you don't like me, but everyone is pretending that it's based off of merit.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Kachi wrote:
Three things:
1) It's pretty sad, but also telling, that after all this time you can't even get a five-letter name right.
2) You have not shown in the policy where sexual orientation is grounds for a bar from enlistment, and you can't because it doesn't exist.
3) I honestly can't be bothered to read even half of that post because the past indicates that it's an awful lot of stupid.
1) It's pretty sad, but also telling, that after all this time you can't even get a five-letter name right.
2) You have not shown in the policy where sexual orientation is grounds for a bar from enlistment, and you can't because it doesn't exist.
3) I honestly can't be bothered to read even half of that post because the past indicates that it's an awful lot of stupid.
1. My bad... Why are people so sensitive about their fictional names?
2. I showed you in the policy where a person can get discharged for appearing to have the intent of doing something homosexual. That means, the person didn't actually do anything nor admit to anything. This means that their sexuality is a secret.
3. You're not responding because you have no response.
a. Explain to me how the President said that the war in Iraq is over, yet we're still there.
b. You say you can't find your quote, why don't you check your browser history on the day of the post and
just find it?
Kachi wrote:
Right. Alma thinks that DADT "enabled" (rather than allowed) them to because the military likes to enable people to break their rules, and because they weren't "able" to enlist if they kept it a secret in the first place. It's an utterly ridiculous argument made all the worse by his insistence to defend it in spite of all contrary indication.
The military isn't enabling them to break the rules any more than people committing adultery or fraternization. You're pretending that this is somehow different or special. The military was unfairly targeting homosexuality when it wasn't their business in the first place and so they adjusted the rules to say that they are not going to ask you, but homosexuality is still not authorized in the military. This is why you can still be discharged. This is a simple concept.
Belkira wrote:
Does the word really matter...? Enabled, allowed, same difference, really. Let's face it, you're both right. Under DADT, the military was allowing homosexuals to enter the military, but they will still kick them out if they find out they are homosexual. So they were allowing people to break their rules. Does saying they were enabling people to break their rules make that much of a difference?
In everyday talk, there is no difference. I've caught myself numerous times changing "allowed" to "enabled" to stay consistent. At the same time, when you're arguing a concept of rather homosexuality is authorized or not in the military, then it does make a difference. If homosexuality were authorized, then you wouldn't be discharged for it. Simply saying "You can't be gay" doesn't cover all of the scenarios that you can be discharged for, i.e. a heterosexual woman making out with another woman. This is why the military explicitly defines what is homosexual activity. With this distinction, it is possible to say that you're not being discharged for your sexual orientation, but sexual acts, but the way the policy defines sexual acts, it includes all homosexuals. So, at the end of the day, they are still not authorized. This is why I've been trying to get Kachi to argue the policy as opposed to other people's interpretations.
Ugly wrote:
No. Again, you read what you want to read. You are wrong 90%+ of the time. It's a perception that's been created because of the fact that you are wrong. Like varus, you sometimes manage to dance around the point, but rarely are you ever close to it. Leave it to you to see what you wanted to see in my last post though (just like varus would).
I read your response exactly how you wrote it and it 100% agreed with the point that I've been trying to make. You can try to throw around additional nonsense, i.e. being wrong 90% of the time on subjective matters, just to not agree with me, but what I quoted is exactly my point.
The first 3 words in the post you quoted were the most important. You just chose to ignore them.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Almalieque wrote:
In everyday talk, there is no difference. I've caught myself numerous times changing "allowed" to "enabled" to stay consistent. At the same time, when you're arguing a concept of rather homosexuality is authorized or not in the military, then it does make a difference. If homosexuality were authorized, then you wouldn't be discharged for it. Simply saying "You can't be gay" doesn't cover all of the scenarios that you can be discharged for, i.e. a heterosexual woman making out with another woman. This is why the military explicitly defines what is homosexual activity. With this distinction, it is possible to say that you're not being discharged for your sexual orientation, but sexual acts, but the way the policy defines sexual acts, it includes all homosexuals. So, at the end of the day, they are still not authorized. This is why I've been trying to get Kachi to argue the policy as opposed to other people's interpretations.
So, in other words, it doesn't matter, but you're going to argue it anyway for the hell of it.
Gotcha.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
The first 3 words in the post you quoted were the most important. You just chose to ignore them.
You're right.. that wasn't intentional..
So, then back to the topic. It is not statistically possible to be wrong 90%+ of the time on subjective topics. I listed like 4 previous debates in this very thread that hardly anyone would disagree with NOW that they were disagreeing with THEN only because that was the topic at hand and it was my argument. If I took more time, I could probably bring up more.
How about this, since I'm sooooo wrong all of the time, name some previous debates, as I did earlier, with my positions that were wrong. You can use the same ones that I just brought up if you don't remember of feel like doing research.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
In everyday talk, there is no difference. I've caught myself numerous times changing "allowed" to "enabled" to stay consistent. At the same time, when you're arguing a concept of rather homosexuality is authorized or not in the military, then it does make a difference. If homosexuality were authorized, then you wouldn't be discharged for it. Simply saying "You can't be gay" doesn't cover all of the scenarios that you can be discharged for, i.e. a heterosexual woman making out with another woman. This is why the military explicitly defines what is homosexual activity. With this distinction, it is possible to say that you're not being discharged for your sexual orientation, but sexual acts, but the way the policy defines sexual acts, it includes all homosexuals. So, at the end of the day, they are still not authorized. This is why I've been trying to get Kachi to argue the policy as opposed to other people's interpretations.
So, in other words, it doesn't matter, but you're going to argue it anyway for the hell of it.
Gotcha.
No, exactly what I said. In normal conversation, it doesn't matter. In a debate about the authorization of homosexuality, yes it does matter.
As I keep mentioning, in everyday talk, your word usage doesn't matter. You can say "unconscious" instead of "sleep", no one cares, but you can't make that change in a court testimony or in a debate about the physical state of a person.
Do you see the difference?
Almalieque wrote:
No, exactly what I said. In normal conversation, it doesn't matter. In a debate about the authorization of homosexuality, yes it does matter.
As I keep mentioning, in everyday talk, your word usage doesn't matter. You can say "unconscious" instead of "sleep", no one cares, but you can't make that change in a court testimony or in a debate about the physical state of a person.
Do you see the difference?
As I keep mentioning, in everyday talk, your word usage doesn't matter. You can say "unconscious" instead of "sleep", no one cares, but you can't make that change in a court testimony or in a debate about the physical state of a person.
Do you see the difference?
No, I don't. Because we're not in court. This isn't a formal debate. It's a fucking internet forum. This is the very epitome of "every day speech."
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, exactly what I said. In normal conversation, it doesn't matter. In a debate about the authorization of homosexuality, yes it does matter.
As I keep mentioning, in everyday talk, your word usage doesn't matter. You can say "unconscious" instead of "sleep", no one cares, but you can't make that change in a court testimony or in a debate about the physical state of a person.
Do you see the difference?
As I keep mentioning, in everyday talk, your word usage doesn't matter. You can say "unconscious" instead of "sleep", no one cares, but you can't make that change in a court testimony or in a debate about the physical state of a person.
Do you see the difference?
No, I don't. Because we're not in court. This isn't a formal debate. It's a fucking internet forum. This is the very epitome of "every day speech."
Well that's a personal problem.
This is a debate on the accuracy of a ruling. It doesn't matter if it's formal or not. The simple fact that we're not talking in a general sense, but in specific details, separates this from "every day speech". "Every day speech" is spoken in a general sense, "it may not be accurate, but you know what I'm talking about". If you fail to see the difference in arguing accuracy vs talking in a general sense, then once again, that's a personal problem.
Quote:
Does the word really matter...? Enabled, allowed, same difference, really. Let's face it, you're both right. Under DADT, the military was allowing homosexuals to enter the military, but they will still kick them out if they find out they are homosexual. So they were allowing people to break their rules. Does saying they were enabling people to break their rules make that much of a difference?
It's a question of the military's intent. Both the creators of the legislation and the military under DADT have made it PERFECTLY clear that homosexual orientation is not on its own grounds for dismissal from the military. Alma is arguing that this is not the case, and so gays in the military are breaking the rules by simple virtue of being in the military. In reality, gays are authorized to be in the military, but cannot indicate in any way that they will engage in homosexual behavior.
Quote:
1. My bad... Why are people so sensitive about their fictional names?
I'm not sensitive-- I just think it shows how poor your reading ability is.
Quote:
2. I showed you in the policy where a person can get discharged for appearing to have the intent of doing something homosexual. That means, the person didn't actually do anything nor admit to anything. This means that their sexuality is a secret.
...
Is this honestly your point? How does one "appear to have an intent" to do something homosexual? This is a standard clause that simply states that conspiring to break a rule is an offense in addition to actually breaking a rule. Really, I've tried to just ignore this point, because it in no way makes your case that the military does not allow gays to enter the military.
Gays are allowed in the military under DADT. This has been the statement that you have failed to refute. Further, this statement has been made by the legislators of the bill, and the military itself, and yet you can't just admit that you were wrong.
Quote:
a. Explain to me how the President said that the war in Iraq is over, yet we're still there.
I have no idea where you're going with this or trying to go with it-- I haven't read it, I'm not going to, I'm sure that it's going to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I think you have enough stupid arguments without exploring a whole new avenue of idiocy.
Quote:
b. You say you can't find your quote, why don't you check your browser history on the day of the post and just find it?
Because I regularly clear my browser history, dumbass. Why are you so determined to see that one link when I've given you others that are better? Answer: it's easier to call me a liar than admit that you're wrong.
FUCK.
Kachi wrote:
It's a question of the military's intent. Both the creators of the legislation and the military under DADT have made it PERFECTLY clear that homosexual orientation is not on its own grounds for dismissal from the military. Alma is arguing that this is not the case, and so gays in the military are breaking the rules by simple virtue of being in the military. In reality, gays are authorized to be in the military, but cannot indicate in any way that they will engage in homosexual behavior.
If homosexuals are authorized in the military, then why are they discharged for being homosexual? Admitting that you're gay is not homosexual.
You can't be this dense....
The explanation is in it's name.. Don't Ask Don't Tell.... How can you not understand that? It was a compromise.. The military didn't change their rules on homosexuality, but as a compromise, they weren't going to no longer ask you your sexual orientation and if you want to stay in, don't tell anyone... WHY??? Because homosexuality is not authorized..
WTF do you think they're changing the sodomy laws? You think it's a coincidence? So, homosexuality is authorized, but not sodomy?!?!! Really dude? get real..
Kachi wrote:
I'm not sensitive-- I just think it shows how poor your reading ability is.
Says the guy who doesn't read my posts. I mistakenly misspelled a fictional name that you created... whoop-de-doo. no big deal
Kachi wrote:
Is this honestly your point? How does one "appear to have an intent" to do something homosexual? This is a standard clause that simply states that conspiring to break a rule is an offense in addition to actually breaking a rule. Really, I've tried to just ignore this point, because it in no way makes your case that the military does not allow gays to enter the military.
Your claim is that as long as you keep your sexuality a secret, then you're allowed to join the military. According to the policy, what you keep ignoring, it clearly stated that it has nothing to do with your ability to keep your sexuality a secret. You can get discharged if it appears that you might do something gay, which means your sexuality is secret.
Kachi wrote:
Gays are allowed in the military under DADT. This has been the statement that you have failed to refute. Further, this statement has been made by the legislators of the bill, and the military itself, and yet you can't just admit that you were wrong.
Because you're referencing slide shows and I'm referencing the actual policy. You keep using the legislators and the military as a reference, but when I give you an example of the Commander and Chief misleading the country on the war in Iraq, you ignore it. You're such a tool. This is politics, people word things to mislead people to shut them up. Just like we're still in Iraq, homosexuality was and still is not authorized in the military.
Kachi wrote:
have no idea where you're going with this or trying to go with it-- I haven't read it, I'm not going to, I'm sure that it's going to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I think you have enough stupid arguments without exploring a whole new avenue of idiocy.
President Obama wrote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"
There, did you read that? He announced to everyone that the combat mission has ended. To, clueless sheep as yourself, you take that as "The war in Iraq has ended", but it hasn't. This is just political talk to comfort society. This is relevant, because you're falling for the same political talk with DADT, because the Homosexual Policy clearly states that homosexuality is not authorized in the military. It states what homosexuality is, then says you can get discharged for being charged for any of that. As I told Belkira, it is possible to say "We're not discriminating against your sexual orientation" and not lie, but that would be misleading because all that means is that a heterosexual doing homosexual acts can ALSO be discharged. In any case, homosexuals are being discharged.
Kachi wrote:
Because I regularly clear my browser history, dumbass. Why are you so determined to see that one link when I've given you others that are better? Answer: it's easier to call me a liar than admit that you're wrong.
It's actually easier to prove you wrong than a liar, because I've already proven you wrong. Proving you a liar is just a bonus. It takes away your credibility. Are you telling me that you don't remember what words you googled?
Almalieque wrote:
To, clueless sheep as yourself, you take that as "The war in Iraq has ended", but it hasn't.
Whatup, shadowrelm?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
If homosexuals are authorized in the military, then why are they discharged for being homosexual? Admitting that you're gay is not homosexual.
They're not discharged for being homosexual. They're only discharged if their homosexuality is discovered, ostensibly because it damages cohesion or whatever the opposition's basis for discharging them is. They're allowed to be gay-- they're not allowed to be seen as gay.
Quote:
Says the guy who doesn't read my posts.
Well I skim them, because they're not worth reading in entirety. Don't get me wrong, I used to read them, but have since concluded that it's a waste of my time. Besides, there's a key difference between my desire to read and your ability to read.
Really, the only reason we're still having a discussion is because I'm not done laughing at you yet.
Quote:
Are you telling me that you don't remember what words you googled?
You're asking me if I remember a search string from a week ago? No, what's worse, you're rhetorically accusing me of lying about not remembering a search string from a week ago. If it's so easy to figure out which of a hundred or so strings I could have used, then I'm sure you could do it just as easily. So I'll ask again, why are you ignoring the other sources I gave you and focusing on this one? Because you'd like to attack my credibility? Laughable considering you have the least of it of anyone on this entire site.
So far you've really yet to do anything other than repeat the same fallacies, childish argumentative tactics, and proclamation of victory. You are indeed a prime specimen of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Kachi wrote:
Dunning-Kruger Effect
Thank you for mentioning that. I'd never heard of it. Quite an apt description of Alma!
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Dunning-Kruger Effect
Thank you for mentioning that. I'd never heard of it. Quite an apt description of Alma!
Dammit. I don't expect anyone to read through this entire thread, but can't a sister get a little cred?
I thought someone had already mentioned it here, but it's been tossed out in a couple of threads recently and I don't make it a point to keep track.
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
If homosexuals are authorized in the military, then why are they discharged for being homosexual? Admitting that you're gay is not homosexual.
They're not discharged for being homosexual. They're only discharged if their homosexuality is discovered, ostensibly because it damages cohesion or whatever the opposition's basis for discharging them is. They're allowed to be gay-- they're not allowed to be seen as gay.
Quote:
Says the guy who doesn't read my posts.
Well I skim them, because they're not worth reading in entirety. Don't get me wrong, I used to read them, but have since concluded that it's a waste of my time. Besides, there's a key difference between my desire to read and your ability to read.
Really, the only reason we're still having a discussion is because I'm not done laughing at you yet.
Quote:
Are you telling me that you don't remember what words you googled?
You're asking me if I remember a search string from a week ago? No, what's worse, you're rhetorically accusing me of lying about not remembering a search string from a week ago. If it's so easy to figure out which of a hundred or so strings I could have used, then I'm sure you could do it just as easily. So I'll ask again, why are you ignoring the other sources I gave you and focusing on this one? Because you'd like to attack my credibility? Laughable considering you have the least of it of anyone on this entire site.
So far you've really yet to do anything other than repeat the same fallacies, childish argumentative tactics, and proclamation of victory. You are indeed a prime specimen of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
President Obama wrote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"
Before moving on, all of your confusion on DADT may clear up by addressing this quote and my question. If President Obama made that statement, then why are we still in Iraq?
I'm waiting....
I doubt Obama would use an orange font that no one can read. Dumbass.
Nadenu wrote:
I doubt Obama would use an orange font that no one can read. Dumbass.
Orange stands out well against Blue. What's so hard about reading it?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Almalieque wrote:
I'm waiting....
I can't imagine that anyone cares or will be intimidated by this.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 166
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (166)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Senate Repeals DADT
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC