Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
How is posting my original post backpedaling and twisting the subject?
You're using privacy as a reason for why DADT shouldn't be repealed. Now that you realize how assinine that sounds, you've decided to change your tune and pretend you were just trying to stick up for the men who are afraid to shower in a communal space with someone who might be homosexual.
That's called backpedalling. And you trying to pretend that's what you were on about from the very begining is called twisting the subject.
WTFRU talking about? WTF do you think me and Sir X was arguing about for pages now? You just haven't been paying attention and now you realized that you were confused and instead of admitting that you were confused yourself, you're claiming that I changed propositions...
Let me spell this out for you... This is my first post....again..
Almalieque The Wonderful wrote:
"o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.
According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used... "
The bold was in reference to the nonsense the OP stated that this was all about bigotry. I countered to ask for sources because that hasn't been the case from my experiences.
Then I said the following:
Almalieque The Best wrote:
"The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of sex or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.
"
This was me explaining that the privacy argument is being used, the same privacy issues between men and women, not bigotry remarks that the OP said, i.e "The whole argument stems from the idea of the gay as a sissy who can't be trusted in war,".
From there, me and Sir X talked back and forth on what exactly are these "same reasons" between men and women vs straight and homosexual men.. See below...
"[Sir X]You bring up the privacy issue, but why would there be a privacy issue with gay men that wouldn't be there with straight men? What is the issue of privacy?
"
From this point, Sir X was claiming that the reasons why women don't want to be in close quarters with men are different thanwhy straight men don't want to be in close quarters with gay men. I countered to say that they are the same thing except one is upheld and the other isn't, creating a double standard.
See below:
Almalieque The epitome of all that is masculine wrote:
Sir X wrote:
What is the privacy issue that exists for a gay man that doesn't exist for a straight man? If you want to say it's the same as with a woman, explain the connection please.
I made the connection by telling you it's the same as with women. If you want a better explanation, why don't you ask a woman who doesn't approve with showering with random men why she feels that way. I have no problem with that idea. Throw everybody together in the shower, I don't care...
This is where you came in...
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".
So...
your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?
Alrighty then..
This is where you started off being confused. I was never arguing that it shouldn't be repealed, but there are legitimate reasons for not repealing it other than bigotry listed by the OP, i.e. "The whole argument stems from the idea of the gay as a sissy who can't be trusted in war,".
You created an argument that never existed and begun arguing it. I even told you at this point that I was just trying to get Sir X to acknowledge the similarity in scenarios..
Almalieque The Man that words just can't quite describe wrote:
This has been nothing but a game the entire time with Sir X.
I want him to accept the similarity. He's trying to lure me into saying something to be the basis of his argument. He doesn't want to admit the similarity first, because that would take away from his argument. You have to keep up Belkira!
Then you said the following "So... privacy isn't an issue, and you're fine with the repeal?"
I responded yet another time in order to correct you .
I said the following:
Almalieque, The one who is right 97% of the time wrote:
Once again, I merely corrected the false assumption that everyone who is against the repeal is because of prejudice. I only used the privacy issue because that's what the generals and big politicians are stating in their defense. The entire point is that while some people are just bigots, that isn't true for everyone. The privacy issue is a legitimate point. You all just refuse to accept that because that's how society is making homosexual gains, by calling everyon bigots and homophobes if they disagree.
I can keep going on and on and on, but it is evident that my entire point has been that there are legitimate reasons for not wanting to repeal DADT with privacy being an example.
You responded to the privacy issue by saying "It's not an issue, though. There are homosexuals in the military right this second. You probably showered with one when you last took a communal shower. All the yammering about privacy is just a way to stall and keep people from getting rid of an archaic and stupid rule."
So, I asked if you had a problem with open showers with men since "it isn't an issue"? This was me making the connection that the reasons for why heterosexual men don't want to take showers with homosexual men are the same reasons why women don't want to shower with men. These reasons are legitimate reasons that are not based on bigotry as the OP stated, i.e. "The whole argument stems from the idea of the gay as a sissy who can't be trusted in war,".
You responded that you would have a problem with men, but not women. So, I asked, if it weren't a privacy issue, then why do you care if it's a man or a woman next to you? You responded to say that because men and women have different body parts. So, I asked you where does this physical discrimination stop? You replied in places where you aren't naked. That response proves that it has nothing to do with the fact that your coworker has a *****, but the fact that you don't feel comfortable seeing it or him seeing you. Else, it wouldn't matter if you were naked or clothed, because in both scenarios, your coworker still has a *****.
So in conclusion, I've been on topic the entire time. You have been the confused one debating a fictional argument. When you said
"Noooooo. That's not true. Not at all. You have said many, many times, "I have my own, personal reasons for not wanting DADT repealed, but the general brought up a good point that I hadn't thought about: Privacy issues. That's a very good point!", it became obvious that you combined 3 different arguments and confused yourself.
TL:DR: You're wrong.
Belkira wrote:
And while I don't disagree with Kachi, and have said some of the same things myself, you're both idiots if you think those are the only reasons that exist for why men and women are seperated in communal naked places. There are a myriad of reasons, and sure, comfort is one of them. Some comforts are understandable and should be accomodated. Some should not be tolerated.
As long as you admit that you're wrong about anatomy being the primary reason for the segregation as opposed to comfort.
Belkira wrote:
If it makes a platoon in the army more comfortable to shower with underage girls, should we then change the rules for them?
Nope. As I said, a double standard isn't necessarily good or bad. I'm just wanting you to accept the fact that it's there and stop pretending that it's somehow different.
Just as you complain about people throwing in children, objects and animals in SSM arguments, there's no reason why two grown adults can't shower together other than comfort.
I'm glad that you finally agree.