Almalieque wrote:
Only because it appeared that you honestly tried.
No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination. That is unless you are arguing for them as well.
In layman terms, every argument is essentially "DADT was wrong because the Earth is round". How is the Earth being round an exclusive argument against DADT? Unless you want to end all of discrimination, then that is a poor argument.
No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination. That is unless you are arguing for them as well.
In layman terms, every argument is essentially "DADT was wrong because the Earth is round". How is the Earth being round an exclusive argument against DADT? Unless you want to end all of discrimination, then that is a poor argument.
So, do you have any type of defense for discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation, or are you just going to keep telling us how we must phrase our arguments? I mean, I realize it's easier for you to just keep using a lot of words that amount to "Nuh uh, you can't say that. You have to say this," but it really gets us nowhere.
Well, that's not true. Apparently it gets us 15 pages. But that's mostly because you use a lot of words instead of just saying, "Nuh uh, you can't say that."