Senate Repeals DADTFollow

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11883364
It's even in video format so you don't have to read too much!

You're just making up excuses. If I'm running to strange paths, please explain what you meant by "It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them."

Seems to me that you were making a connection between sexual preference to the abilitlly to do one's job. You say no, so please explain....



So you believe that embarassment is a valid excuse to segregate showers?



Because you argued that we already work with homosexuals, so repealing DADT wont make a difference, i.e showering together. I countered to say, yes, we do already work with homosexuals, but it wont be the same because now they have the opportunity to behave differently with each other in areas such as in the barracks and in the shower.

I am. I stated the obvious that they are the same, you countered to say that they are not. So, I'm asking how are they different, because I see no difference. It's obvious that you can't show how they are different, because they are indeed the same.



Quote me where and I'll apologize if you can.

I told you that I stopped reading your posts because you didn't know what you were talking about and really because they are way too long with no breaks.

To answer you legitimate question, you are correct. That's why I support, single showers/rooms or put everyone together. I don't support giving certain people "privileges" because they don't feel comfortable, but telling everyone else to suck it up.



Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. This is why I was ignoring you, you're clueless. I think you're too emotionally attached to the subject to think clearly. Else, you would have known that the point wasn't that it was "obvious", but Sir X doesn't want to state any difference, because he can't. If I state the "similarities" first, he'll just use my argument as the basis as his argument while dropping the issue all together.



You're an idiot. Even though I stated the exact opposite, stating that homosexual men are different than heterosexual men is counterproductive. Claiming that they are nothing but horndogs that only want sex like many heterosexual guys are labeled as is a much more supportive argument.

Thanks for seeing the truth.

Nice. Hypocrisy and contradiction all at once.

I'm really glad you're here.

Huh? Unless I'm misreading something, one was taken from dec 9th to dec 12th in 2010, and the other was taken from nov 8th to nov 15th in 2010. That's within a month of each other, just as I stated. One is an ABC News/Washington Post Poll of "adults", the other a McClatchy-Marist Poll of "registered voters". Both were national polls. All of this information is in the link, so I'm not sure why I have to write it for you.

I'm still curious why some think my observations are wrong? It seems quite valid to observe that the poll results shift dramatically based purely on how you word the issue. And if you look at all of the polls, you'll notice the trend I pointed to. When the position is presented positively "should gays be allowed to serve openly", we get the highest responses. When it's presented neutrally "gays "allowed" to serve openly, or gays "allowed" to serve under DADT", it's less overwhelming. And when it's presented in a negative "should DADT be repealed", the results come out nearly even.


What's wrong with that observation?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11883364
Sounds like the majority of servicemen don't give a flying fuck.

I'm saying that if it makes someone nervous to realize what someone else does in bed, then they're probably not going to react well when someone points a gun at them. Get it? It's not that hard, and I'm pretty sure you're the only one not getting it here.



No. I'm saying that women all have the same parts, and men all have the same parts so it makes sense to keep the showers seperate. For me, personally, it's not embarrassing for a woman to see me naked, but would be for a man.





Once again, you have some issues with sex you need to work out with a therapist.

Wait! So now we're arguing that poll results will vary based on who takes the poll? So Moe was right!?

Lol...




That's a pretty minor factor though. And it's unlikely to explain the difference given that we have other polls in that list which show the same trend I spoke of earlier. The very next one in fact asks if they should serve openly, serve under the existing DADT law, or oppose serving at all and it was 50% to 38% between the first two choices.

If it were just about whether the lame duck congress should do it, that result shouldn't be as close. I suspect most of you don't understand how profoundly our responses are affected by the word choice of the questions we're asked. People who write polls do though.



Which doesn't explain the poll I just mentioned.



Ok. Then why do the numbers in the ABC poll only drop 2% lower when we look at the results from feb 2010 instead of dec? If that had such a profound effect, shouldn't the dec numbers be even higher?

Well, the first option is clearly never going to happen. I pay 24k a year to go to school, and I don't get a private bathroom. The military clearly isn't going to pay for it.

So the only other option, in your mind, is for everyone to shower together. But what does that help? At all? You were arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed because it would violate soldier privacy. How is ensuring that everyone is as maximally uncomfortable as possible a solution?

Furthermore, you are laboring under the assumption that the only reason people are uncomfortable changing with the opposite sex is because of sexual attraction. That's absolutely untrue. I'd be just as uncomfortable changing in front of a lesbian as a straight woman. And that's because I was raised with modesty.



I'm sorry I hurt your brain.



Please re-read what you have written in this thread. "It's obvious" is literally the only defense you have ever given. And we have ALL stated differences, to which you replied that this was "obviously" untrue. Maybe you can try making a rational argument for once?



I'm sorry, I must have confused your point. I know it's easy to do when I quote what you said, specifically, when you apparently ACTUALLY said the opposite. I guess my eyes just totally fabricated a sentence where you claim that gay men will act completely differently from straight men when doing so isn't punishable.

Alm, you're fucking retarded. You haven't once, in four pages, made an argument that amounts to more than "because I said so." And whenever someones makes so decisive an objection that you can't dismiss it, you turn around and attack the poster, rather than the argument. Maybe you weren't aware, but that's a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem objection.

Here's something that should be fun! Here's a list of the 20 most common logical fallacies. Let's see how many you have used. We mentioned one already.

Well you've made an argument from authority, referencing "top officials" that agree with you. Because, you know, if THEY said it, it must be true! (I'd also note that you've never linked any PROOF that your line of thought even has significant following).

Oh, next on that list--Argument from final Consequence. This is basically where you take an end result and argue the cause, without having a logical proof to support it. You know, like referencing how males and females don't want to shower together and extrapolating that it is caused by their mutual sexual attraction.

HA, the next--Argument from personal Incredulity. That boils down to "I don't get what you are saying, so you must be wrong." You've done this every single time you've responded to xsarus and locke, among others.

Next, confusing association with causation. You may actually be free from this one--I can't remember a specific instance where you did it. Good job!

Non-sequitars are clear--you haven't made a single valid argument that I've seen (and I'm not even talking about a SOUND one).

Reductio ad absurbum-- this is when you take two claims and try to stretch them as thinly as possible so that they are only true in the most obviously false definitions.

Ha, ad hoc arguments, you've offered little else.

But my FAVORITE On the list is this one:

Come on man, give me a break here.. loosen up a little... I wasn't serious. I was merely doing what you did to me by replacing "homophobe" with "racist". No substance, just name calling because someone doesn't agree with you.



I get it, you're trying to make a connection on someone's opinion on sexuality to their ability to perform their job. This is exactly what the bigots against homosexuals in the military are doing.

Congratulations! You are what you hate.




So your argument is that IT'S OBVIOUS!?



The term "they" was in reference to the two scenarios, not men and women... You know, what I've been arguing from the beginning.



In the first posts you quoted, you didn't say that they were different, you asked how they were different. It wasn't till the third quote where you explicitly said that you don't see the difference. I did not interpret the first two as such, if that's what you were doing, then I apologize, I was wrong. That's not how interpreted your posts.



Because that's what other couples do?