Idigg wrote:
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.
There's a reason why I never thought about the privacy issue, it's because I always have my own bathroom. I'm sorry you spend that much for education, but school is for education and not living. The living conditions only come into place when you're in the field or not authorized to have your own room, usually due to rank.
Idigg wrote:
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 You were arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed because it would violate soldier privacy.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?
How is that maximal? I feel much more comfortable showering with women than men. I would argue that most men would rather shower with women inclusively than men exclusively. With women being the minority in the military, that's no where near the maximal discomfort.
The benefit is less money spent on building additional rooms/showers/etc to accommodate a small percentage of the population.
Id wrote:
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 actually pointing out that there are various reasons why people feel uncomfortable changing infront of anyone.
I'm the opposite of you. I feel uncomfortable changing in front of males, heterosexual or homosexual, but when I say that, I get called a homophobe, but you call yourself "modest". What's the difference? You feel uncomfortable in front a group of people, I'm uncomfortable in front of a group of people. I can easily call you names for being equally as insecure.
Id wrote:
I'm sorry I hurt your brain.
You didn't hurt it because I didn't bother to read it.. the only reason why i'm replying now is that I'm stuck at a car dealership.
ID wrote:
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).
This is your problem. My entry on this thread wasn't to argue anything other than there are reasons other than bigotry for not wanting repeal DADT. You, being overly emotionally driven, threw all of these stats and papers and other unrelated material.
I referenced "Top Officials" because they are people you can google who used arguments other than bigotry. Which was my entire point, that they exist.
You're looking for an argument that I've never participated in and wonder why I haven't given any arguments for or against DADT. Well maybe if you learn how to read, you'll notice that wasn't ever my point. I already had at least two arguments on this topic already not too long ago. You're the only person who wasn't here before.
So which one of those fallacies involve "Arguing against a non-existent argument?".. that's you..