Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#827 Jan 18 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?
He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 5:51pm by Uglysasquatch
You can get varus and alma in one car trip!


It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......

Oh, don't worry about where I'm at now, I'll be in Iraq soon.. You can come "get me" there....
#828 Jan 18 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......


But I notice it doesn't surprise you.
#829 Jan 18 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......


But I notice it doesn't surprise you.


That's because it has been done numerous times before. I already addressed the issue of why there isn't a comparison in the first place, that's why I find it amusing that people are STILL making the comparison.
#830 Jan 18 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?

He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

You can get varus and alma in one car trip!

Now if I could just get Nads to let me drop by and drop off I'd contemplate the trip.


No one's stopping you, goob.
#831 Jan 18 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
At the risk of perpetuating this thread, I suspect you guys are arguing over some pretty minor differences in perception. It seems like it boils down to whether there's a difference between "being gay" and "engaging in homosexual activity". And while I'll grant that from an internalized perspective, there is a difference, from an external viewpoint there really isn't.

From a third parties perspective there's no way to know that someone is gay unless that person engages in sexual activities with someone of the same sex. We pretty much make that the defining characteristic in the first place, right? Someone can think of themselves as gay or straight, but their actions are going to define how the rest of us view them. And certainly, from a legal standpoint, that's the only criteria you can use. It's not like we put people in jail for "being a thief". We put them in jail for stealing things.

Similarly, the military code speaks about actions, not states of being. And while it's certainly possible to "be gay" without taking any of the actions the military uses in this context, that's a pretty pedantic point to make. Um... But as far as I can tell, you guys have been arguing about this for at least 2 pages, so I figured I'd point it out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#832 Jan 18 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of perpetuating this thread, I suspect you guys are arguing over some pretty minor differences in perception. It seems like it boils down to whether there's a difference between "being gay" and "engaging in homosexual activity". And while I'll grant that from an internalized perspective, there is a difference, from an external viewpoint there really isn't.

From a third parties perspective there's no way to know that someone is gay unless that person engages in sexual activities with someone of the same sex. We pretty much make that the defining characteristic in the first place, right? Someone can think of themselves as gay or straight, but their actions are going to define how the rest of us view them. And certainly, from a legal standpoint, that's the only criteria you can use. It's not like we put people in jail for "being a thief". We put them in jail for stealing things.

Similarly, the military code speaks about actions, not states of being. And while it's certainly possible to "be gay" without taking any of the actions the military uses in this context, that's a pretty pedantic point to make. Um... But as far as I can tell, you guys have been arguing about this for at least 2 pages, so I figured I'd point it out.


My main point in this side argument is that DADT was put in place to enable homosexuals to join without lying or being unfairly targeted. DADT did NOT authorize homosexuality, just allowed ALL personnel to keep their sexuality to themselves. Kaichi is arguing that DADT was the authorization of homosexuality in the military, as long as you keep it a secret. I pointed out to him that it had nothing to do with you being able to keep a secret if you can get discharged for doing what may be perceived as an "intent" of doing something gay. Also, if it were authorized, you wouldn't be discharged for it anyway.

DADT just removed the DoD's "need to know" of your sexuality because it isn't their business in the first place. Homosexuality isn't/wasn't any more authorized than adultery and fraternization.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 2:33am by Almalieque
#833 Jan 18 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'll be in Iraq soon..


Christ on a bike! If you didn't feel sympathy for the Iraqis before, then surely a pang of regret for their predicament now....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#834 Jan 18 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You completely failed the comprehension of DADT, just admit it to yourself and move on. I don't need your admittance. Unless you can show me in the policy where I'm wrong, then I already know that I'm right.


Apparently so did the authors of the legislation and the Dept. of Defense, according to you.

You're a laughing stock. I seriously don't think I've ever seen a less successful argument.
#835 Jan 18 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
You completely failed the comprehension of DADT, just admit it to yourself and move on. I don't need your admittance. Unless you can show me in the policy where I'm wrong, then I already know that I'm right.


Apparently so did the authors of the legislation and the Dept. of Defense, according to you.



Where is that in the policy again? You have yet shown that contradiction in the policy that governs this very topic. What a coincidence that the policy supports my claim.. but I guess, you also believe that the war in Iraq is over because that was what the media implied, including the Commander and Chief.....

kaichi wrote:
You're a laughing stock. I seriously don't think I've ever seen a less successful argument.


My words exactly, either show me in the policy or shut up... It's really that simple. At this point, you're just +1'ing

Paul wrote:
Christ on a bike! If you didn't feel sympathy for the Iraqis before, then surely a pang of regret for their predicament now....


Yea, they better watch out because I'll debate them on homosexuality in the military!!!! >.> really dude? Seriously? Go back to being silent.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 4:15am by Almalieque

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 4:25am by Almalieque
#836 Jan 18 2011 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good
****
9,997 posts
Just give it up, Alma. The DoD says you're wrong-- I already linked it to you. You honestly think you can interpret their policy better than they can? Proving yourself more and more the fool.
#837 Jan 18 2011 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......


But I notice it doesn't surprise you.


That's because it has been done numerous times before. I already addressed the issue of why there isn't a comparison in the first place, that's why I find it amusing that people are STILL making the comparison.
This response right here is a great example of why you'll always be lumped in with him.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#838 Jan 18 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Kachi wrote:
Just give it up, Alma. The DoD says you're wrong-- I already linked it to you. You honestly think you can interpret their policy better than they can? Proving yourself more and more the fool.


Uh, wait.. just like you "answered" my question before, right?

You gave me a quote where you claimed it came from the policy, when I asked you to show me that quote in context, you claimed that you "lost" it. Yet, at the same time you say it's sooooooooo easy to find it and yet you haven't produced it. I wasn't going to say it before, because I was giving you a benefit without a doubt, but I'm going to call you out on it now. You're full of BS. You obviously made that quote up...


Either show me in the policy or STFU.. There's no amount of whining and complaining that you can do to escape that.
#839 Jan 18 2011 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......


But I notice it doesn't surprise you.


That's because it has been done numerous times before. I already addressed the issue of why there isn't a comparison in the first place, that's why I find it amusing that people are STILL making the comparison.
This response right here is a great example of why you'll always be lumped in with him.


Explain...
#840 Jan 18 2011 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Explain...
Yeah, not really my job to explain all the myriad of things you misunderstand, or completely miss. I can't be bothered.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 9:06pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#841 Jan 18 2011 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You gave me a quote where you claimed it came from the policy, when I asked you to show me that quote in context, you claimed that you "lost" it. Yet, at the same time you say it's sooooooooo easy to find it and yet you haven't produced it. I wasn't going to say it before, because I was giving you a benefit without a doubt, but I'm going to call you out on it now. You're full of BS. You obviously made that quote up...


I didn't say that that single quote was sooooo easy to find. I said similar sources were ridiculously easy to find. I linked you to two of them. Your response was, "Well, that's not written explicitly in the policy... show me in the policy!" which makes you look like a total fool.

But for you to think that I would actually forge a quote to win a debate with you, lmao. You're seriously the saddest piece of **** I've ever had the pleasure of talking to. If nothing else, the very definition of a sore loser.
#842 Jan 18 2011 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Explain...
Yeah, not really my job to explain all the myriad of things you misunderstand, or completely miss. I can't be bothered.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 9:06pm by Xsarus


So, in other words, you're just making stuff up... cool. That is to be expected... You know by now that I would ask for an explanation, so for you to take time out to write not one, but two posts and probably three, is evident that you have no substance. The amount of effort you placed in your last two posts could have placed in making your first post relevant.

Kaichi wrote:
I didn't say that that single quote was sooooo easy to find. I said similar sources were ridiculously easy to find. I linked you to two of them. Your response was, "Well, that's not written explicitly in the policy... show me in the policy!" which makes you look like a total fool.


You said that particular quote CAME from the policy and other sources are so easy to find. So, find another source with that statement, which came from the policy. Or, here's an idea, how about finding that quote from the policy that I sourced you, which you claimed it came from?

Kaichi wrote:
But for you to think that I would actually forge a quote to win a debate with you, lmao. You're seriously the saddest piece of sh*t I've ever had the pleasure of talking to. If nothing else, the very definition of a sore loser.


Yea, you're right because not referencing it in the first place and "losing" it and not yet providing it is way more believable than you just making it up? Dude get real...you would have had to google three or four words and I'm sure you didn't go past 2 pages of results. So go back, find the quote or STFU. It's really that simple.....
#843 Jan 18 2011 at 9:38 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
This is the gayest thread ever.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#844 Jan 18 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Smiley: lol I love it

People have explained, you ignore it. /shrug

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 10:09pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#845 Jan 19 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
I'm going to need a another contender if we want to make it 20 pages, preferably someone who is willing to debate the policy and not hearsay .... I stuck a fork in Kaichi, he's done.

Sir X wrote:
People have explained, you ignore it. /shrug


So, as I predicted, you have nothing. No one has explained anywhere the comparison, they just made the comparison. When I countered to say that all of Varus's posts are about "liberal agendas" with every other word being "liberal", there was no counter back. You're wasting way more time telling me that I "ignored" it than the amount of time it would take for you to just tell me. If I am ignoring it, then why even bother to bring it up? Oh, that's right, because it was never said to begin with..

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 2:38pm by Almalieque
#846 Jan 19 2011 at 6:41 AM Rating: Good
LAST
#847 Jan 19 2011 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Alma, shut the @#%^ up and focus on the important thing here: Giving Moe your adress so you can have a "training accident".

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 2:03pm by Aethien
#848 Jan 19 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Alma, it's fallacious for you to keep mouthing off about being "victorious" every single time someone becomes too frustrated by your stubbornness to continue arguing.

Honestly, that's an argumentative technique that most people are supposed to grow out of when they hit their teens. It's ridiculously immature for someone of your age. You'd do well to do some self-critique and ask yourself why so many different people all react to you this way.

I mean, you won't, since that's your modus operandi. But it'd really do you some good.
#849 Jan 19 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Alma, it's fallacious for you to keep mouthing off about being "victorious" every single time someone becomes too frustrated by your stubbornness to continue arguing.

Honestly, that's an argumentative technique that most people are supposed to grow out of when they hit their teens. It's ridiculously immature for someone of your age. You'd do well to do some self-critique and ask yourself why so many different people all react to you this way.

I mean, you won't, since that's your modus operandi. But it'd really do you some good.
And this is where the similarities between you (Alma) and Varus are. This quote could easily start withthe name Varus instead of Alma and it would still apply.
____________________________
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

#850 Jan 19 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
ask yourself why so many different people all react to you this way.
It's a conspiracy!
#851 Jan 19 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
You'd do well to do some self-critique and ask yourself why so many different people all react to you this way.

Silly, the Asylum has a collective conscience.

bzzzzzzzzz
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 113 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (113)