Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Being able to show I'm right is never "trouble".

wtf does that have to do with anything you idiot.

All my men wear panties or they wear nothing at all.

Far more likely that it was his dad/uncle and uncle going at it. While his mother/aunt taped. Explains both him and his homophobia.

Dammit, I was going to avoid this thread until my paper was done. >.<

/facepalm

Er? One poll has a 55 point margin saying that homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the military over those who say they should not serve.

Another poll, taken within a month of the first has a 1 point margin saying that DADT should not be repealed over those saying that it should.


You don't see how those margins are massively different based on how the question is asked?

Heh. I'll leave it to you to try and noodle this one out.

Have fun with it.

Edit: I don't know that there's anything wrong with the dates.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 8:34pm by Jophiel

Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?

Wow, didn't you know support those things... surely there is more to simply being different that causes you support any form of segregation or discrimination.



It seems that your point is that a person's attitude towards an assumed homosexual isn't going to change overnight when that person comes out of the closet, because you already "knew" that the person was homosexual. Am I right? If so, I've addressed your concern.



Although I never thought of it until someone else mentioned it, this isn't just because the "top people" are using it, just an argument that I figured more people could relate to because the "top people" are using it. You knew from the beginning that this was a game, as you stated.

You know that this was all a game from the start. You never thought the two were the same, but you pretended that you did think they were the same just so I can make my argument the basis of your argument. When you realized that you couldn't get anything from me, then you admitted that you don't think the two were the same. If this weren't a game, you would have stated that from the beginning. So, if I have to look "silly" to get my point across, then so be it.



Uh, they both aren't on the same scale. Your sexuality has nothing to do with getting shot at so that's a fail comparison. You're actually doing the same exact thing the bigots against homosexuals are doing. You're making a false comparison to someone's lifestyle to the ability to perform their duty. Many people joined the Army to be in combat, so getting shot at, isn't considered a "problem" to them because that's what they joined up for.

Personally, I would rather be in combat than have someone's junk in my mouth and I'm sure many military people would agree.



So, you have no problem taking a communal shower with guys? In the cases where you KNOW the person might be interested in you? You missing the whole concept of DADT. The whole point is that no one knows. DADT causes people to behave a certain way. Repealing that allows them to act differently.

If the people didn't change, then there wouldn't be a reason to repeal DADT now would it?

Besides, I'm sure there are some homosexuals who chose not to join because of DADT



Explain.. If you disagree with the concept of removing yourself from potential problematic situations, then you my friend, is the one with problems.




If that's true, then why aren't men and women sharing showers and rooms? If your privacy is being violated with other heterosexuals, then why are you making this distinction with men? It's the same thing right?

I was referring to "Instead of segregating yourself". That's the problem with society, instead of being proactive and not placing themselves in potential problematic situations, they are reactive.

1. I wont because I wont say anything because I wont be there.
3. No, I took a step further. I believe people should remove themselves from potential problematic situations. In doing so, you are "thinking before talking".

I had this very same argument with a female coworker not too long ago and she said the same thing as you "just think before you talk, don't segregate". Starting that day, I started pointing out all of the sexual references the females were saying in class. This creates a false environment that it's ok to say such things because not many people complain when women say sexual things. Since sex is the topic of the conversation, the guy thinks it's ok to talk about sex and says the wrong thing. Instead of guessing what is PC and what isn't, just don't say anything at all, unless you really know your audience.



Exactly, that's my point.

The biggest problem with the military is that us real soldiers have to constantly pretend officers know what they're talking about, so when they go out in the real world they continue thinking they're intelligent and just make idiots of themselves.

Well, an amusing problem at least.

I know it is. I'm just pointing out the reality that there has to be more to it than "they are different". If you can't justify the discrimination, then it probably shouldn't occur and simply being different isn't a justification.



Any real officer already knows that s/he knows nothing and must rely on the Soldiers and NCO's to be successful. I took a lot of flak because I don't get into that politic nonsense.. I care about two things, the mission and my subordinates.. Take care of your subordinates, they take care of you and the mission, which makes your immediate supervisor happy and his/her supervisor happy and everyone's happy.