Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#452 Jan 01 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Yes, I have, but you do realize how online forums work, right?

Sure. That's why I don't need to spend nine pages trying to make my position known as I continually complain that everyone has me all wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#453 Jan 01 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Yes, I have, but you do realize how online forums work, right?

Sure. That's why I don't need to spend nine pages trying to make my position known as I continually complain that everyone has me all wrong.


I'm merely countering points. If other posters want to drag this out, blame them not me. Don't act like I haven't made the point clear multiple times, even within one page.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 2:12am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#454 Jan 01 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Don't act like I haven't made the point clear multiple times, even within one page.

Sure, it must be everyone else's fault that everyone has you wrong. Makes perfect sense.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#455 Jan 01 2011 at 5:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Don't act like I haven't made the point clear multiple times, even within one page.

Sure, it must be everyone else's fault that everyone has you wrong. Makes perfect sense.


I don't know, you tell me? What part of "My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots." is too hard to understand?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#456 Jan 01 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Don't act like I haven't made the point clear multiple times, even within one page.

Sure, it must be everyone else's fault that everyone has you wrong. Makes perfect sense.


I don't know, you tell me? What part of "My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots." is too hard to understand?
The part where you fail to mention that you are a cunt.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#457 Jan 01 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
What part of "My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots." is too hard to understand?

Not a thing. Now reconciling that against your complaining about DADT and your examples of gays in the shower suddenly being an issue is another thing.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 5:58pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#458 Jan 01 2011 at 6:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What part of "My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots." is too hard to understand?

Not a thing. Now reconciling that against your complaining about DADT and your examples of gays in the shower suddenly being an issue is another thing.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 5:58pm by Jophiel


What? I'm not sure I follow you. As I stated multiple times, I was never arguing for/against DADT. I did so in the last thread, no need for repetition. From the beginning I was countering the belief that a guy who doesn't want to shower with a homosexual is a bigot, that he can have the same feelings as a woman has with showering with a man.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#459 Jan 01 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
That's the clearest you've been since I've seen you start posting here. Only took you 3900+ posts to pull off some clarity.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#460 Jan 01 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
As I stated multiple times, I was never arguing for/against DADT. I did so in the last thread, no need for repetition.

Yeah, folks probably remembered that. You know, hence that coming up here in a thread about DADT and all. You understand how online forums work, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#461 Jan 01 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
As I stated multiple times, I was never arguing for/against DADT. I did so in the last thread, no need for repetition.

Yeah, folks probably remembered that. You know, hence that coming up here in a thread about DADT and all. You understand how online forums work, right?


Ya don't you jut pick an arbitrary number so when you are told you are wrong enough times you can just claim it was +1ing and it doesn't count.

edit~

oh **** 1429 im done posting I hit my goal for the day.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 8:49pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#462 Jan 01 2011 at 8:11 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,585 posts
I still can't believe he thought we'd buy that.
#463 Jan 01 2011 at 9:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Allegory wrote:
I still can't believe he thought we'd buy that.


Buy what? That I didn't want to spend my Christmas break arguing with you, but rather be with my family? I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you. You find a time when I ever "ran away" from an argument, then you *might* have a point. Since you can't, it's obvious that I picked a point to stop to enjoy time with my family and just pick up later. There's a reason why I'm part of 20,30,40,50+ page threads and it's not because of I "ran".


I must have really hit some nerves...


Jo wrote:
Yeah, folks probably remembered that. You know, hence that coming up here in a thread about DADT and all. You understand how online forums work, right?


I don't even know what you're saying now.. You aren't trying to counter anything...so I don't know your goal.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 5:30am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#464 Jan 01 2011 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Quote:
There's a reason why I'm part of 20,30,40,50+ page threads
Because you're retarded and can't:

a) realize when you're wrong
b) articulate your thoughts well enough for anyone to actually grasp what you're trying to talk about
c) a and b
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#465 Jan 01 2011 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,068 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
There's a reason why I'm part of 20,30,40,50+ page threads
Because you're retarded and can't:

a) realize when you're wrong
b) articulate your thoughts well enough for anyone to actually grasp what you're trying to talk about
c) a and b


d) enjoys trolling and has nothing better to do at the time

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 10:40pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#466 Jan 01 2011 at 9:44 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
There's a reason why I'm part of 20,30,40,50+ page threads
Because you're retarded and can't:

a) realize when you're wrong
b) articulate your thoughts well enough for anyone to actually grasp what you're trying to talk about
c) a and b


If this thread is any indication of the truth, it's definitely neither. Even if it one were true, those lengths didn't happen by the accusations of me "running away".

So either way, you're wrong. Wow, how about that, I was right, it's definitely neither. Of course, you or someone else will respond as if you weren't just proven wrong, yet adding another post to the thread. Wow and the cycle continues... yea, but blame it on me if it makes you feel better. I'm obviously arguing with myself, spending 40 pages trying to articulate myself.. suuuuurrrree.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#467 Jan 01 2011 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So either way, you're wrong. Wow, how about that, I was right, it's definitely neither. Of course, you or someone else will respond as if you weren't just proven wrong, yet adding another post to the thread. Wow and the cycle continues... yea, but blame it on me if it makes you feel better.

Hey Alma.

Thanks for proving me right :D

And thanks in advance for your next post.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#468 Jan 01 2011 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,585 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Buy what? That I didn't want to spend my Christmas break arguing with you, but rather be with my family?

Sorry, I was referring to the reason you gave rather than the reason you retroactively invented for yourself just now. You can see how I would make that mistake.
#469 Jan 01 2011 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So either way, you're wrong. Wow, how about that, I was right, it's definitely neither. Of course, you or someone else will respond as if you weren't just proven wrong, yet adding another post to the thread. Wow and the cycle continues... yea, but blame it on me if it makes you feel better.

Hey Alma.

Thanks for proving me right :D

And thanks in advance for your next post.


No, thank you for proving me right.... We should do lunch..

Allegory wrote:
Sorry, I was referring to the reason you gave rather than the reason you retroactively invented for yourself just now. You can see how I would make that mistake.


My point exactly. You're not paying attention, making unnecessary posts, dragging out the issue and then blaming me for long posts.

I didn't change anything. My reason just now is the exact same as I said the first time. Why you think they are different is evidence on your failure to comprehend what's going on.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#470 Jan 01 2011 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
This just in:

Alma loves the ****.

8===D
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#471 Jan 01 2011 at 10:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
This just in:

Alma loves the ****.

8===D


Actually i think its his fear of **** that has led oh so close to page 11.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 11:44pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#472 Jan 01 2011 at 10:44 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,585 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't change anything. My reason just now is the exact same as I said the first time. Why you think they are different is evidence on your failure to comprehend what's going on.

I'm curious, do you you even know what I'm referring to or--giving you the benefit of the doubt--what I think I'm referring to?
#473 Jan 01 2011 at 10:44 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
This just in:

Alma loves the ****.

8===D


You call that a "****"... lol
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#474 Jan 01 2011 at 10:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
No, thank you for proving me right.

Score!

:D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#475 Jan 01 2011 at 10:47 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I didn't change anything. My reason just now is the exact same as I said the first time. Why you think they are different is evidence on your failure to comprehend what's going on.

I'm curious, do you you even know what I'm referring to or--giving you the benefit of the doubt--what I think I'm referring to?


My assumption is that you think I changed my reasoning for the cease of posting, well that's what I intrepreted from your post.

Well I'm going to sleep now. Can I do that? Or will I be considered "running away"? I sure hope that sleep is a valid enough excuse for you, as apparently spending Christmas with your family isn't.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#476 Jan 01 2011 at 10:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,585 posts
Almalieque wrote:
My assumption is that you think I changed my reasoning for the cease of posting, well that's what I intrepreted from your post.

Did you expect us to buy "ok, So I just got my car back and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today, so I'm done playing with you all while I enjoy my break..." was the antecedent of "that"
Almalieque wrote:
Well I'm going to sleep now. Can I do that? Or will I be considered "running away"? I sure hope that sleep is a valid enough excuse for you, as apparently spending Christmas with your family isn't.

Just go to fudging sleep. Stop announcing whenever you are going to stop posting. Either you're a self-absorbed prick who think everyone cares when you come and go, or you're a cowardly liar who needs an excuse to leave an inconvenient conversation.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 11:05pm by Allegory
#477 Jan 01 2011 at 11:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
Either you're a self-absorbed prick who think everyone cares when you come and go, or you're a cowardly liar who needs an excuse to leave an inconvenient conversation.

Excluded middle!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#478 Jan 01 2011 at 11:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
What? I'm not sure I follow you. As I stated multiple times, I was never arguing for/against DADT. I did so in the last thread, no need for repetition. From the beginning I was countering the belief that a guy who doesn't want to shower with a homosexual is a bigot, that he can have the same feelings as a woman has with showering with a man.


Oh, so you weren't trying to say that feelings of not wanting to shower with a *** man were just as legitimate as a woman's feeling of not wanting to shower with men, and that therefor men shouldn't be required to shower with *** men, and that therefor allowing openly *** service to the military poses many (too many) logistic problems, and that this was too burdensome for the military?

You're right-- I totally misunderstood you.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#479 Jan 01 2011 at 11:58 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,585 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Excluded middle!

There is a middle between a narcissist and a poltroon?
#480 Jan 02 2011 at 3:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Allegory wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Excluded middle!

There is a middle between a narcissist and a poltroon?


I thought you liked risk avoidance!
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#481 Jan 02 2011 at 3:42 AM Rating: Good
******
44,275 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Either you're a self-absorbed prick who think everyone cares when you come and go, or you're a cowardly liar who needs an excuse to leave an inconvenient conversation.
Excluded middle!
(He says) He's an officer in the Army. Being both is a job requirement.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#482 Jan 02 2011 at 4:28 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
There's a reason why I'm part of 20,30,40,50+ page threads
Because you're retarded and can't:

a) realize when you're wrong
b) articulate your thoughts well enough for anyone to actually grasp what you're trying to talk about
c) a and b


If this thread is any indication of the truth, it's definitely neither. Even if it one were true, those lengths didn't happen by the accusations of me "running away".

So either way, you're wrong. Wow, how about that, I was right, it's definitely neither. Of course, you or someone else will respond as if you weren't just proven wrong, yet adding another post to the thread. Wow and the cycle continues... yea, but blame it on me if it makes you feel better. I'm obviously arguing with myself, spending 40 pages trying to articulate myself.. suuuuurrrree.
Looks like I forgot the option that includes you failing at reading comprehension. I'm not sure how you not running away has anything to do with this. If anything, that helps prove what I said.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#483 Jan 02 2011 at 7:56 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Allegory wrote:
Did you expect us to buy "ok, So I just got my car back and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today, so I'm done playing with you all while I enjoy my break..." was the antecedent of "that"


I actually did. I thought people realized that spending Christmas with my family was more important than arguing with you guys. Obviously you all think otherwise. I don't see what's so hard to believe? It was the day before my trip and I picked a number to stop posting at, because if I didn't, I would just keep posting and I wasn't going to spend Christmas posting on this site.

These accusations of me "running away" is beyond absurd as a) I'm still here and b) I've never ran away before.

Allegory wrote:
Just go to fudging sleep. Stop announcing whenever you are going to stop posting. Either you're a self-absorbed prick who think everyone cares when you come and go, or you're a cowardly liar who needs an excuse to leave an inconvenient conversation.


Well, obviously people care when I come and go or they would just accept what I've said as the truth and stop talking about it..

Kachi wrote:
Oh, so you weren't trying to say that feelings of not wanting to shower with a *** man were just as legitimate as a woman's feeling of not wanting to shower with men, and that therefor men shouldn't be required to shower with *** men, and that therefor allowing openly *** service to the military poses many (too many) logistic problems, and that this was too burdensome for the military?

You're right-- I totally misunderstood you.


You're exactly right. It's about time you realized that and thank you for admitting that you were wrong.

My focus was that those men are no more "bigots" than the women. You made that other connection on your own. I can understand the first or second time, but there's no excuse after I corrected posters multiple times over what my argument has always been in this thread.


If you remember the quotes I shared with Jophiel, I had pointed out that the military side all said that they needed more than a year, while the politicians said that they can do it in no time. There was no argument on rather DADT should or shouldn't be implemented because the ruling has already been passed. I would rather have DADT repealed and have complete open showers then keep it as it is now.

lol GAXE wrote:
(He says) He's an officer in the Army. Being both is a job requirement.


I don't know want happened in your career to give you such a negative view of officers, but I hope you come across someone to change your mind.

I don't make myself "important" to anybody. I was a LT for 3 years. There isn't much respect in that position. Even the officers who were prior service said that rank was the worst rank to have in terms of respect.

Officers don't really start turning into douche bags until they reach 04. Some do prematurely, but that's a major turning point.

I'm going to assume that you're not a senior NCO, because they tend to act just as fake and political as field grade officers do at times.

Ugly wrote:
Looks like I forgot the option that includes you failing at reading comprehension. I'm not sure how you not running away has anything to do with this. If anything, that helps prove what I said.


Wow, did you really just say that? lol

Maybe because the quote you replied to was in reference to me not "running away". I was merely keeping to the subject, but I know it's tradition to argue about other points and then accuse me of getting off topic.

Maybe YOU should reread the paragraph you quoted me from to see what the topic was about... oh, wait, better yet, let me quote it for you and save some time.


"Buy what? That I didn't want to spend my Christmas break arguing with you, but rather be with my family? I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you. You find a time when I ever "ran away" from an argument, then you *might* have a point. Since you can't, it's obvious that I picked a point to stop to enjoy time with my family and just pick up later. There's a reason why I'm part of 20,30,40,50+ page threads and it's not because of I "ran". "

That whole paragraph was in reference to the following:

"Ya don't you jut pick an arbitrary number so when you are told you are wrong enough times you can just claim it was +1ing and it doesn't count.

edit~

oh sh*t 1429 im done posting I hit my goal for the day. "


and

"I still can't believe he thought we'd buy that."


So you not realizing that is the real answer why these threads are so long, you just like to point fingers at me. This has clearly been about me "running away". So you either tried to change the subject, didn't realize what the subject was or a combination of the two. In any case, you were wrong.

Jophiel wrote:
Score!

:D



Thanks for keeping count. Alma:1 Johpiel: 0



Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 4:06pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#484 Jan 02 2011 at 8:29 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Quote:
Maybe because the quote you replied to was in reference to me not "running away"
But I never quoted that part, did I? I was talking about how you're always involved in the long threads because you're unable to realize that you're wrong. Sometimes, it's because you're too inarticulate to communicate your point though, and it takes you 10 pages to finally get it out coherently.

What makes more sense to you? That on a forum with a bunch of people who are, at the least, relatively intelligent, are always wrong, or that you're either wrong or unable to properly convey your thoughts? Honestly, which is more probable?

Quote:
So you either tried to change the subject
Bingo. It was fairly obvious. Again, work on that reading comprehension.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 10:31am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#485 Jan 02 2011 at 8:55 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You my friend, are an idiot. I'm not against open homosexuals in the military (after revisions of the rules) I'm against open homosexuals in open showers or in close living quarters with people who feel the same discomfort as women do with men. I don't care about in the work place because their sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to perform their job. I've said this from the beginning. Why you are pretending that I haven't is evident that you haven't been paying attention. That's why there are 9 pages in this thread.


This is the carear you have chosen, you know there is privacy and comfort issues from the start, you are told during recruitment to expect close living quarters etc. It is not some new thing. When it boils down to it, the simple fact is, you have an issue with homosexuals. Period, there is not ifs ands or buts, not weird spins. You have an issue with homosexuals. Period. End of story.

You are a bigot. If you do not feel comfortable you leave. It is not another persons responsibility to provide you with the feeling of comfort. It is your responsibility. You don't want to shower/live with *** men, the don't quit and go find a new job.


Yea, I missed this in replying to another post..

You asked a question. I answered it. Under your conditions, I'm not a homophobe/bigot for not having a problem with homosexuals in the military, yet you continue to call me a homophobe/bigot.

It is evident now that you have no argument other than name calling. Your usage of the word contradicts the definition of the word. The more and more you try to call me a bigot, when I've stated numerous times over that I have no problem working alongside homosexuals, the more stupid you look.

Even if I were, your argument of "knowing this from the start" is stupid because when EVERYONE joined, homosexuality was not allowed and for many DADT was in effect. So, how can anyone know from the start something that hasn't been implemented yet?

You keep "forgetting" to answer my question:

Almalieque wrote:
In any case, I never said that they were *** crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a "special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#486 Jan 02 2011 at 9:21 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Maybe because the quote you replied to was in reference to me not "running away"
But I never quoted that part, did I? I was talking about how you're always involved in the long threads because you're unable to realize that you're wrong. Sometimes, it's because you're too inarticulate to communicate your point though, and it takes you 10 pages to finally get it out coherently.

What makes more sense to you? That on a forum with a bunch of people who are, at the least, relatively intelligent, are always wrong, or that you're either wrong or unable to properly convey your thoughts? Honestly, which is more probable?

Quote:
So you either tried to change the subject
Bingo. It was fairly obvious. Again, work on that reading comprehension.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 10:31am by Uglysasquatch


People accuse me of "running away", I respond that I never run away because if I did these threads wouldn't be so long. You respond that these threads are too long because I never realize that I'm wrong and/or I can't articulate my words. I counter to use this thread as an example of how it's neither as we're wasting posts taking about me "running away" and yet I'm still here.............

I used this thread, more specifically the current topic of discussion, to disprove your claim. You missed the connection and tried to call me out as not understanding.

As for the probability. Statistically, it's much higher that I would be wrong and everyone else is right, but when I can quote myself to show otherwise, those odds become in my favor.

Sir X is about the only person I can recall who argued me on my actual point that the comfort levels between heterosexual/homosexual men vs men/women are the same. I can honestly accept people misunderstanding my point due to a failure on my part, but after I correct you, then there is no excuse.

People like RDD is evident to this
RDD: "If you have a problem with homosexuals in the military, then you're a bigot"

-me "I don't have a problem with homosexuals in the military, just in the showers/rooms with people who share the same concerns as women do with men in those same scenarios.

RDD: Well if you don't accept them in the showers and in the rooms, then you're a bigot!

-me: I don't care if they're in the showers/rooms if they are completely open.

RDD: Well, if you don't enjoy having *** with homosexuals, then you're a bigot!

People like him are not arguing to be part of the debate, but arguing to grasp at straws in calling me a bigot because he doesn't like the fact that I don't agree with him.

When people are denying that the reasons why women don't want to share showers with men is out of comfort, the entire argument becomes pointless. Seriously, everyone knows it's a comfort issue, but yet they hold on to that lie because admitting to it gives support to the opponents. That's how I can believe that "everyone is wrong", when everyone is suggesting that women are generally comfortable showering and changing in front of random men. Trust me, I would love to be proven wrong on that part. I just live in reality.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#487 Jan 02 2011 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Quote:
yet they hold on to that lie because admitting to it gives support to the opponents
How so? In society, women shower separately from men, due to comfort levels. And straight and *** men shower together regardless of comfort level. If you want the military to adjust that, first get society to, as they're the ones dictating the standards. As should be so, since the military serves society. So how does this lend any support to the opponents?

And this has nothing to do with comfort anyway. DADT was there to protect the bigots. Now, if you feel that people who only have a problem with showering gays aren't bigots, fine. But they're irrelevant, as the majority of supporters of keeping DADT, are bigots and they're the ones driving the boat. And you know that, so your little argument is purely semantics and completely pointless.



Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 12:07pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#488 Jan 02 2011 at 10:36 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Quote:
-me "I don't have a problem with homosexuals in the military, just in the showers/rooms with people who share the same concerns as women do with men in those same scenarios.

Quote:

-me: I don't care if they're in the showers/rooms if they are completely open.


so why argue for 10 pages if you don't have an issue with them being in the military or in the showers or rooms. Sounds like you don't care either way. So why are we on page 10 again?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#489 Jan 02 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Ugly wrote:
How so? In society, women shower separately from men, due to comfort levels. And straight and *** men shower together regardless of comfort level. If you want the military to adjust that, first get society to, as they're the ones dictating the standards. As should be so, since the military serves society. So how does this lend any support to the opponents?


This is because society wants to believe that the military and society are one. While there is obviously a connection, that overall belief is false. As a service person, you wave many of your "rights" to become a member in the military. There are many things, that you can't say or do in the military that civilians can. So there is no such thing as this society/military unity. You're just using that as a scapegoat.

Besides, I already stated that this was beyond the military, but a social thing. So either way, my point is valid. My overall argument is that you or anyone else can't call a man a bigot for having the same feelings as a woman.

Ugly wrote:
And this has nothing to do with comfort anyway. DADT was there to protect the bigots. Now, if you feel that people who only have a problem with showering gays aren't bigots, fine. But they're irrelevant, as the majority of supporters of keeping DADT, are bigots and they're the ones driving the boat. And you know that, so your little argument is purely semantics and completely pointless.


I'm talking from my experience in the military. So, I'm sorry if your experience with the military doesn't support my experience, but that doesn't make my point any more pointless than it does yours. Let's be real, you probably don't have any. You probably never even had a conversation with military personnel who are against the repeal. I'm sure you're just making stuff up based on bigots you met in your life or seen in the media. Unlike you though, I'm not going to prejudge off of ignorance. And you call me a bigot! lol


RDD wrote:
so why argue for 10 pages if you don't have an issue with them being in the military or in the showers or rooms. Sounds like you don't care either way. So why are we on page 10 again?


You keep forgetting to answer my question..

"In any case, I never said that they were *** crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a "special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it?"

To answer your question, because unlike you, I don't run away from questions (how ironic, because that's what you accused me of). Read below

Almalieque wrote:
"My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots."


You see Ugly, this is why these threads are so long. How is it that RDD doesn't already know this? Jophiel even agreed that there was nothing confusing about that statement....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#490 Jan 02 2011 at 12:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Alma the Obtuse wrote:
"In any case, I never said that they were *** crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a "special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it?"


It's neither. It's that you can't stand the thought of another man looking at you.

Or maybe you're afraid they won't look at you.
#491 Jan 02 2011 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel even agreed that there was nothing confusing about that statement...

I also said it didn't reconcile with your previous remarks and stances. Just because it's "not confusing" doesn't mean that it's accurate or plausible.

In a broad sense, someone can probably **** up an example of some imaginary person who isn't bigoted against homosexuals but who is against them openly serving. In a realistic sense and with the evidence we have from previous posts, that person probably isn't you and probably isn't most people against service by open homosexuals.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#492 Jan 02 2011 at 1:44 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You're exactly right. It's about time you realized that and thank you for admitting that you were wrong.

My focus was that those men are no more "bigots" than the women.


But of course. I hate being wrong about which thing you're wrong about. Now that I know which thing it is, I feel that we've made progress.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#493 Jan 02 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Quote:
So, I'm sorry if your experience with the military doesn't support my experience, but that doesn't make my point any more pointless than it does yours.
Except my experience involves a military that openly allows homosexuals, so it actually holds context.

Quote:
You see Ugly, this is why these threads are so long. How is it that RDD doesn't already know this?
I think it's clear to anyone who's read his posts that he wasn't included in my group of people who are atleast relatively intelligent.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 5:20pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#494 Jan 02 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Alma the Realistic wrote:
"In any case, I never said that they were *** crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a "special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it?"


It's neither. It's that you can't stand the thought of another man looking at you.

Or maybe you're afraid they won't look at you.


Yea, what are you like 2 years old? Something is either the same as something else or it is not the same. There is no "neither". So either pick one or stay in denial.

Jophiel wrote:
I also said it didn't reconcile with your previous remarks and stances. Just because it's "not confusing" doesn't mean that it's accurate or plausible.



How did it not "reconcile" with my previous remarks and stances? I sure would love to know how, especially when I started just quoting myself.

Jophiel wrote:
In a broad sense, someone can probably **** up an example of some imaginary person who isn't bigoted against homosexuals but who is against them openly serving. In a realistic sense and with the evidence we have from previous posts, that person probably isn't you and probably isn't most people against service by open homosexuals.


Again, I'm talking from my experiences in the military. Maybe your experiences are different from mine, but I'm willing to bet that you haven't actually talked to anyone and are just making up stuff based on bigots you've met. The fact that you're even comparing a person who doesn't feel comfortable being naked around other people with "bigots" when many people aren't comfortable with open nudity, proves that you're just making stuff up.

Kachi wrote:
But of course. I hate being wrong about which thing you're wrong about. Now that I know which thing it is, I feel that we've made progress.


Really, so since you spent so much time arguing on the wrong topic, why don't you transition to the original point in the beginning and show how I'm wrong on that?

Ugly wrote:
Except my experience involves a military that openly allows homosexuals, so it actually holds context.


What Canada? Yea, because we're soooo much alike..Your "experience" is with that military. I'm not saying it's valueless, but you can't say because your nation's military is full of bigots then so is the U.S. I'm not naive, I'm sure there is a number of bigots in the U.S. military, but I also realize that isn't everyone.

I'm a leader, an officer, I'm responsible for 2 things, the mission and the welfare of my Soldiers. As I rank up, there is a less and a less chance that I will ever shower or room with a homosexual, so it isn't much of a concern of me or similar people. The concern is with my Soldiers who have less privacy. So, while some of them may just have comfort issues and others may just have bigotry, it's my job to create a climate for everyone. So, it is very possible for someone like me to not be a bigot but still be against the idea of sharing rooms and showers with open homosexuals for the same exact reasons why women are against the idea of sharing rooms and showers with men.

Ugly wrote:
I think it's clear to anyone who's read his posts that he wasn't included in my group of people who are atleast relatively intelligent.


You're right, I noticed that you said "relative", but figured I would point him out anyway.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#495 Jan 02 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,585 posts
Quote:
What makes more sense to you? That on a forum with a bunch of people who are, at the least, relatively intelligent, are always wrong, or that you're either wrong or unable to properly convey your thoughts? Honestly, which is more probable?

There is a problem here.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 4:59pm by Allegory
#496 Jan 02 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,742 posts
Quote:
you can't say because your nation's military is full of bigots then so is the U.S.
I think you have that backwards Skippy.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#497 Jan 02 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
How did it not "reconcile" with my previous remarks and stances?

Meh, read the previous threads you've posted in regarding homosexuals. I'm not about to undergo the Sisyphean task of telling someone "You're acting like a bigot." "Am NOT!"

If you're that secure that you're not, then don't worry about it.

Quote:
Again, I'm talking from my experiences in the military. Maybe your experiences are different from mine, but I'm willing to bet that you haven't actually talked to anyone and are just making up stuff based on bigots you've met.

I'm largely basing it, for purposes of this post, off previous threads on the topic and the responses given by those opposed. Again, there's nothing in it for me to go around in circles trying "prove" it to you; I'm pretty secure in how I'm reading it.

I responded largely to clear up the idea that I was agreeing with you for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread. I agree that your statement wasn't especially confusing. I disagree that it's particularly meaningful just as "Not every cat is unable to fly" is meaningless. If I want to make the point, I need to find a flying cat, not look at every cat you present and say "Yeah, but there's still flying cats out there." If you want us to believe that there's people out there who feel the way you claim, it's on you to either prove them to the satisfaction of the reader or else decide that it's not that important to you and let the reader go on believing that you're wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#498 Jan 02 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Alma the Realistic wrote:
"In any case, I never said that they were *** crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a "special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it?"


It's neither. It's that you can't stand the thought of another man looking at you.

Or maybe you're afraid they won't look at you.


Yea, what are you like 2 years old? Something is either the same as something else or it is not the same. There is no "neither". So either pick one or stay in denial.


You're so easy.

Now tell me I'm making stuff up and ask me to explain.
#499 Jan 02 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
As a service person, you wave many of your "rights" to become a member in the military.


One of those rights being chosing whom you serve with.

I'm quite sure that right now, right this minute, there are men in the military who are uncomfortable showering with black men. Or Jews. Or Dixie rednecks.

Y'know what they do? They man the @#%^ up.

Seriously, you have the entitlement attitude of a 14 year old girl at the mall.


Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 4:18pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#500 Jan 02 2011 at 6:10 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,046 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
you can't say because your nation's military is full of bigots then so is the U.S.
I think you have that backwards Skippy.


I know what you meant, but that's how you presented it.

Jo wrote:
Meh, read the previous threads you've posted in regarding homosexuals. I'm not about to undergo the Sisyphean task of telling someone "You're acting like a bigot." "Am NOT!"

If you're that secure that you're not, then don't worry about it.


Oh, so you were referring to previous threads. I thought you were referring to this thread. In any case, I made a connection to my SSM argument and DADT argument within this thread, so I'm confident in the consistency in my words.

Jo wrote:
I'm largely basing it, for purposes of this post, off previous threads on the topic and the responses given by those opposed. Again, there's nothing in it for me to go around in circles trying "prove" it to you; I'm pretty secure in how I'm reading it.


So, you're basing what the military thinks from people who aren't in the military and ignoring the people that are in the military. That makes sense.



Jo wrote:

I responded largely to clear up the idea that I was agreeing with you for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread. I agree that your statement wasn't especially confusing. I disagree that it's particularly meaningful just as "Not every cat is unable to fly" is meaningless. If I want to make the point, I need to find a flying cat, not look at every cat you present and say "Yeah, but there's still flying cats out there." If you want us to believe that there's people out there who feel the way you claim, it's on you to either prove them to the satisfaction of the reader or else decide that it's not that important to you and let the reader go on believing that you're wrong.


I did show you, by demonstrating how women express the same exact feelings of comfort about not showering and rooming with males. They aren't bigots, so there isn't any reason why a male can't express the same feelings. The real problem is people like you who can't accept that fact and them as they are. Wow, that's funny, because that makes you all the bigot.

Nadenu wrote:
You're so easy.

Now tell me I'm making stuff up and ask me to explain.


I just want you to answer the question, but if you don't want to admit that homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men in reference to sexual desires, then just continue to live in fantasy world.

Bijou wrote:
One of those rights being chosing whom you serve with.

I'm quite sure that right now, right this minute, there are men in the military who are uncomfortable showering with black men. Or Jews. Or Dixie rednecks.

Y'know what they do? They man the @#%^ up.

Seriously, you have the entitlement attitude of a 14 year old girl the mall.


Mr. Predictable, one day you all will realize the difference in physical traits and personality traits. In any case, this is about being comfortable with sexuality in showers and in rooms, just like with women and men. Do you tell women to "woman" up and be ok with showering with men? No, because society has accepted to support that discomfort. You are trying to compare this to something that society has not accepted in order to show that "it's wrong". Well, unless you have the same feelings towards women and men sharing the same areas, then you're a hypocrite.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#501 Jan 02 2011 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Oh, so you were referring to previous threads.

Yeah, I've stated that previously. Thanks for catching up.

Quote:
So, you're basing what the military thinks from people who aren't in the military and ignoring the people that are in the military.

Yours hasn't been the only military experience despite your dismissal of anyone else's military experience as not really counting. So if this was how you were making yourself feel better, it might need some more work.

Quote:
I did show you...

If you thought this was true, this wouldn't be a ten page thread.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 49 All times are in CST
Allegory, JennockFV, Jophiel, Kavekkk, Poldaran, Anonymous Guests (44)