Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#502 Jan 02 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Quote:
In any case, this is about being comfortable with sexuality in showers and in rooms, just like with women and men.
So you're saying the US military can't do what so many other military's in the world have done because the soldiers are too uncomfortable? Are your troops all pussys?
____________________________
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

#503 Jan 02 2011 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Just the men. I haven't heard any female military members complaining yet.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#504 Jan 02 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
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?


It's amusing because you spent a whole lot more time arguing on the "wrong topic" when you apparently could have clarified it easily instead. Do you enjoy wasting an hour of your own accord and then chiding someone for wasting ten minutes? Interesting hobby.
____________________________
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.
#505 Jan 02 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Jo wrote:

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


I did catch up, but even still, I connected this thread to my previous threads, so in any case, you haven't shown how there was a disconnect. Since you have said that you will not demonstrate otherwise, there is no point in going any further.

Jo wrote:
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.


I didn't think mine was the only experience. Contrary to popular belief, I don't believe that I'm the only person in the military, but you haven't shown me any experience from any other military personnel. I quoted a USMC general supporting my argument.

Jo wrote:
If you thought this was true, this wouldn't be a ten page thread.


Didn't we already go over why this thread is 10 pages, it's because of quotes like this and people like RDD. What more proof than simply stating that it's the same do you need? Do you not believe that there are plenty of women who don't want to shower with men because they might "check them out"?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#506 Jan 02 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, I don't believe that I'm the only person in the military, but you haven't shown me any experience from any other military personnel.

Really? No one else with military experience has posted in this thread? Fascinating.

Quote:
Didn't we already go over why this thread is 10 pages, it's because of quotes like this and people like RDD.

Heh.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 7:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#507 Jan 02 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,554 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
So you're saying the US military can't do what so many other military's in the world have done because the soldiers are too uncomfortable? Are your troops all pussys?
Of course not! If all US troops were pussies they wouldn't be uncomfortable around gay men.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 2:15am by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#508 Jan 02 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
In any case, this is about being comfortable with sexuality in showers and in rooms, just like with women and men.
So you're saying the US military can't do what so many other military's in the world have done because the soldiers are too uncomfortable? Are your troops all pussys?


What's that? Integrate women and men in the showers?

Seriously, I'm not trying to toot our own horn or anything, but ask anyone to list the top 5 militaries in the world. I'm sure the U.S. would appear in every list, so we can't be that much of a p*ssy...

Jophiel wrote:
Just the men. I haven't heard any female military members complaining yet.


That's because women care about not sharing showers with men, not women, so they don't care. Society has supported their desires. That was kind of the point me mentioning the double standard.

Kachi wrote:
It's amusing because you spent a whole lot more time arguing on the "wrong topic" when you apparently could have clarified it easily instead. Do you enjoy wasting an hour of your own accord and then chiding someone for wasting ten minutes? Interesting hobby.



Silly you, not only did I clarify it multiple times, it is known by everyone that I will argue about anything just for the fun of it. It's not my fault you didn't realize that. Yes, it is indeed an interesting hobby, it's my guilty pleasure.

Jophiel wrote:
Really? No one else with military experience has posted in this thread? Fascinating.


My point was that I didn't hear their point of view on my argument. If they stated something, I overlooked it or I just don't remember it.



____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#509 Jan 02 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Quote:
Seriously, I'm not trying to toot our own horn or anything, but ask anyone to list the top 5 militaries in the world. I'm sure the U.S. would appear in every list, so we can't be that much of a p*ssy...
That was the point. If other militarys can pull it off, why wouldn't the US be able to, considering it surpasses every other one? Can you come up with a reason other than bigotry? Because lack of comfort ain't cutting it, as the other countries would have faced the same issues, but somehow got past it.
____________________________
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

#510 Jan 02 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Seriously, I'm not trying to toot our own horn or anything, but ask anyone to list the top 5 militaries in the world. I'm sure the U.S. would appear in every list, so we can't be that much of a p*ssy...
That was the point. If other militarys can pull it off, why wouldn't the US be able to, considering it surpasses every other one? Can you come up with a reason other than bigotry? Because lack of comfort ain't cutting it, as the other countries would have faced the same issues, but somehow got past it.


So the other militaries have open showers with men and women? If not, comfort is indeed "cutting it", just not for men, because people like you are just bigots.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#511 Jan 02 2011 at 8:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,229 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Jophiel wrote:
Really? No one else with military experience has posted in this thread? Fascinating.


My point was that I didn't hear their point of view on my argument. If they stated something, I overlooked it or I just don't remember it.


Really? You don't remember responding to bijou just a few minutes ago? Good lord.
#512 Jan 02 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
27,897 posts
Why would straight women be any less freaked out about showering with lesbians than straight men are about showering with gay men? If that is indeed the standard we're using, which seems a bit thin.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#513 Jan 02 2011 at 9:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Quote:
That's because women care about not sharing showers with men, not women, so they don't care. Society has supported their desires. That was kind of the point me mentioning the double standard.


Wait so there are no gay women? or do gay men suddenly cause you to sprout a vagina and breasts because they are around you?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#514 Jan 02 2011 at 9:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Why would straight women be any less freaked out about showering with lesbians than straight men are about showering with gay men?

The female barracks are 24/7 lingerie pillow fights.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#515 Jan 02 2011 at 9:26 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,014 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Why would straight women be any less freaked out about showering with lesbians than straight men are about showering with gay men?

The female barracks are 24/7 lingerie pillow fights.

It's true, I watched what I believe was a documentary on the subject by Larry Flynt.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#516 Jan 02 2011 at 9:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


Jophiel wrote:
Really? No one else with military experience has posted in this thread? Fascinating.


My point was that I didn't hear their point of view on my argument. If they stated something, I overlooked it or I just don't remember it.


Really? You don't remember responding to bijou just a few minutes ago? Good lord.


If I'm not mistaken, he is currently NOT in the military, but used to be and probably entered before DADT was implemented. He's speaking from a whole other generation. I'm not talking about what people THOUGHT, but what people are thinking NOW. Unless he's still interacting with military, i.e. GS employer, he's now a civilian.

If we were talking about then, I'm sure more of the military was way more intolerable then they are now, along with the rest of the nation.

Samira wrote:
Why would straight women be any less freaked out about showering with lesbians than straight men are about showering with gay men? If that is indeed the standard we're using, which seems a bit thin.


Women are typically more comfortable with women, regardless of sexuality, than with men in those scenarios. Men are typically more comfortable with women, regardless of sexuality, than with men in those same scenarios. So that's why a lesbian typically doesn't phase a heterosexual man or woman.

RDD wrote:
Wait so there are no gay women? or do gay men suddenly cause you to sprout a vagina and breasts because they are around you?


In any case, I never said that they were sex 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
#517 Jan 02 2011 at 9:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
10,850 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
That's because women care about not sharing showers with men, not women, so they don't care. Society has supported their desires. That was kind of the point me mentioning the double standard.


Wait so there are no gay women? or do gay men suddenly cause you to sprout a vagina and breasts because they are around you?


From what I heard about gay soldiers they are so GAR that this is a definite possibility.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#518 Jan 02 2011 at 9:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
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.

Eh, I've read other threads (on other forums) asking if gay dudes check out the shower action in health clubs and the like and the general consensus was "No, not really. I'm really just there to shower and move on."

This doesn't have anything to do with being "special" or whatever. If I was spitballing it, I'd guess that showering with dudes is the norm so it loses its porn fantasy mystique as opposed to a straight guy showering with a bunch of chicks.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#519Almalieque, Posted: Jan 02 2011 at 9:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That is a legitimate point, probably one of the only ones I've actually read on this thread. There is a "shock" value with men first time showering with women that may not be as abundant in gay men. At the same time, the focus wasn't on "any" person, but the person that they are attracted to. It's like visiting a nude beach. The first time, you're probably walking around with a boner checking everyone out. Throughout time, you may get used to it, but you don't lose your sense of attraction to everyone. You're just not in "shock" mode.
#520 Jan 02 2011 at 10:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Mr. Predictable, one day you all will realize the difference in physical traits and personality traits. This is about being comfortable with sexuality in showers and in rooms
No, it's about you being utterly unable to overcome your discomfort around someone who is different enough from you to cause you discomfort in the first place. You're right, however, when you keep saying your not a homophobe though:

You're a coward.

Almalieque wrote:
Besides, quit helping RDD out, I want to see how much longer he was going to keep dodging the question, giving that he accused me of dodging...
Ok, you've typed RDD about a dozen times. Are you trying to reference rdmcandie and are just incapable of typing "RDM"? I'm honestly curious.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.
#521 Jan 02 2011 at 10:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
At the same time, the focus wasn't on "any" person, but the person that they are attracted to.

I'm not grasping the value of debating an imaginary gay man who is showering with an imaginary straight man who he's imaginary attracted to. Much less applying it to DADT as a whole.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#522 Jan 02 2011 at 11:37 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,426 posts
Quote:
In any case, I never said that they were sex 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?


No you said this.


Quote:
That's because women care about not sharing showers with men, not women, so they don't care. Society has supported their desires. That was kind of the point me mentioning the double standard.


Gay men are not women, they are men. Which is why your comparison is stupid and why I asked if you grew a vagina and breasts when around gay men. They are not different and don't deserve any special treatment, straight men are not different and don't deserve any special treatment.

Men have a Penis, Women have a Vvagina. You should have learned that in grade 3.

You keep comparing it to the same thing as showering with a woman and it is not the same at all.

Lastly it is you who is arguing for special treatment. There should be none, at all. Currently you shower/have showered with a gay man, it did not bother you then but now it does bother you. If you have not been raped in the shower yet you likely won't be. Furthermore, even straight men put it in each others ass given a long enough period of womenless environment. So your "special" spin is @#%^ing pointless.

Either you can accept gays or you can't, you are either a bigot or you are not. Continually posting the same stupid comparison that is meaningless, strongly supports the latter of the two.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#523 Jan 03 2011 at 12:39 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That is a legitimate point, probably one of the only ones I've actually read on this thread. There is a "shock" value with men first time showering with women that may not be as abundant in gay men.


Do you know where the shock comes from? It comes from a man not having boobs and a vagina.

Which goes back to my original point about anatomy.

I thought, at the time, you were just being willfully ignorant. I didn't realize that you actually needed someone to hold your hand through the process. Interesting.

Regardless, none of this has to do with DADT, since straight men and homosexual men are currently showering together. I have this weird feeling that the guys in our military will be able to get over knowing that Steve actually likes other men. Especially since, even according to you, everyone really already knows who's gay anyway. So the military brass bitching about privacy is wrong.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#524 Jan 03 2011 at 1:56 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Silly you, not only did I clarify it multiple times, it is known by everyone that I will argue about anything just for the fun of it. It's not my fault you didn't realize that. Yes, it is indeed an interesting hobby, it's my guilty pleasure.


Oh, so you're just being a hypocrite for chiding someone for enjoying something that you admit to enjoying yourself.

No surprise there.

Quote:
Women are typically more comfortable with women, regardless of sexuality, than with men in those scenarios. Men are typically more comfortable with women, regardless of sexuality, than with men in those same scenarios. So that's why a lesbian typically doesn't phase a heterosexual man or woman.


Gee, it's almost as if that discomfort comes from a perceived threat of some kind, like the kind that comes from the presence of a more physically aggressive and powerful entity, rather than a similar one.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 12:02am by Kachi
____________________________
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.
#525Almalieque, Posted: Jan 03 2011 at 5:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Didn't we already go over this as well? Gee. Not all men are the same sizes. Your implication is that men don't fight each other, only women, because they are less physically aggressive and powerful entity.
#526 Jan 03 2011 at 6:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So the other militaries have open showers with men and women? If not, comfort is indeed "cutting it", just not for men, because people like you are just bigots.
Nope, they don't. They have open showers with gay and straights though and comfort has been a non-issue. Why are American troops such pansies and incapable of doing what so many others are?
____________________________
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

#527Almalieque, Posted: Jan 03 2011 at 6:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I didn't know that made us pansies.. Looks like you're just name calling to me. In any case, given our power, I'll gladly be called a pansy, knowing that I can kick the @sses of the "non-pansies".
#528 Jan 03 2011 at 6:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
So you can't answer why American straight troops can't shower with gay troops, but other countries can? It's because you don't want to admit that the majority of those that refuse to do so, are bigots.
____________________________
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

#529 Jan 03 2011 at 7:21 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
So you can't answer why American straight troops can't shower with gay troops, but other countries can? It's because you don't want to admit that the majority of those that refuse to do so, are bigots.


My bad, I thought that was a rhetorical question. The US can do it if it wanted to, but they chose not to, the same way they chose not to have men and women shower together. You do realize that our showers are separated by sex and they don't have to be right? Furthermore, integrating the showers does not have any effect on our ability to perform our jobs? I will also go out on a limb and say that most other countries do the same. Oh, whaddya know, we're all bigots. How meaningful.....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#530 Jan 03 2011 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I was trying to reference it in a social matter beyond DADT and the military. Besides, you say that as if that's a low probability of occurring.

I say it as though it's meaningless. When dealing with imaginary people, you have them act however best suits your argument. It proves nothing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#531 Jan 03 2011 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
So you can't answer why American straight troops can't shower with gay troops, but other countries can? It's because you don't want to admit that the majority of those that refuse to do so, are bigots.


My bad, I thought that was a rhetorical question. The US can do it if it wanted to, but they chose not to, the same way they chose not to have men and women shower together. You do realize that our showers are separated by sex and they don't have to be right? Furthermore, integrating the showers does not have any effect on our ability to perform our jobs? I will also go out on a limb and say that most other countries do the same. Oh, whaddya know, we're all bigots. How meaningful.....
Nice try at dodging the question. Why does the US choose not to? And you know it's not comfort, or they would do a lot more to make sure their soldiers were always comfortable. Like maybe some stalls with shower curtains...
____________________________
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

#532 Jan 03 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I was trying to reference it in a social matter beyond DADT and the military. Besides, you say that as if that's a low probability of occurring.

I say it as though it's meaningless. When dealing with imaginary people, you have them act however best suits your argument. It proves nothing.


Oh, so you believe homosexual men aren't attracted to certain men... interesting... I didn't know I had to specifically point out a person to prove that homosexual men are attracted to certain men.....I was sure that was in the definition of being homosexual and heterosexual...however you deal with your denial is you. So, if I don't list a specific heterosexual person who would check out a female that he finds attractive, you wont believe that either.... yea, you're really helping your argument..


Ugly wrote:
Nice try at dodging the question. Why does the US choose not to? And you know it's not comfort, or they would do a lot more to make sure their soldiers were always comfortable. Like maybe some stalls with shower curtains...


Dude, calm down. I don't dodge questions. I've already said that the US probably CHOSE not to out of intolerance, but I'm not talking about why they CHOSE not to in the past. I'm talking about the reality that it's possible for a person not to feel comfortable in the showers with a homosexual and not be a homophobe or bigot.

Besides, the curtain argument is dumb as there is a limit to comfort, mainly when money is involved. Creating stalls with shower curtains cost money, saying no to homosexuality, priceless free.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#533 Jan 03 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Besides, the curtain argument is dumb as there is a limit to comfort, mainly when money is involved. Creating stalls with shower curtains cost money, saying no to homosexuality, priceless free.
Cheaper than dealing with this in court constantly. Besides, when has the US military ever worried about wasting money?
____________________________
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

#534 Jan 03 2011 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Oh, so you believe homosexual men aren't attracted to certain men...

Nice strawman?

I said that, in my limited research, they weren't checking out dudes in the showers. You're trying to create a hypothetical situation on your own terms that you can point at and say "Are too! Are too! Look!" as if it proves something and then throwing a fit when people don't play along.

Oh, hi Gbaji!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#535 Jan 03 2011 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Cheaper than dealing with this in court constantly. Besides, when has the US military ever worried about wasting money?

Throwing trained soldiers out of the military is way cheaper than a trip to Bed Bath & Beyond for shower curtains.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#536 Jan 03 2011 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You're the heterophobe bigot who can't accept that a man can have a legitimate discomfort against the situation just like women do with men. The fact that you accept it for women without calling them names is evident that you believe the scenario exist. Instead, you, along with others, create these excuses and reasons on how it's sooo different, because you refuse to accept the fact that a man can have the same feeling as a woman, which makes you a bigot.


You have yet to explain this "discomfort" that a man has when in a communal shower with a homosexual man. The "discomfort" between sexes has been thoroughly examined (differing anatomy, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.) but you have yet to explain this elusive "discomfort" that men have when showering with, not other men, but other homosexual men. Please explain this discomfort.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#537 Jan 03 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Besides, the curtain argument is dumb as there is a limit to comfort, mainly when money is involved. Creating stalls with shower curtains cost money, saying no to homosexuality, priceless free.
Cheaper than dealing with this in court constantly. Besides, when has the US military ever worried about wasting money?


I'm sure during the time of that decision, they didn't think that it would resolve to this. As for wasting money, the military is funny about that. They'll blow it on somethings (that we find is stupid) and not spend it on things that we find more valuable. The military always takes the cheap way out if it concerns you doing something, mainly because you're not paying for anything.

Jophiel wrote:

Nice strawman?

I said that, in my limited research, they weren't checking out dudes in the showers. You're trying to create a hypothetical situation on your own terms that you can point at and say "Are too! Are too! Look!" as if it proves something and then throwing a fit when people don't play along.

Oh, hi Gbaji!


Dude? WTFRU talking about? I'm not creating a hypothetical situation. Unless you believe there aren't same sex showers that include homosexuals, then it isn't hypothetical. You're just denying the truth.


I'm sure in your limited research, those guys meant that they don't look forward to shower with men to check men out. That doesn't mean that they don't have attraction to certain men. Besides, even if they were checking out guys, why would they say "yes"?



____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#538 Jan 03 2011 at 9:11 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You're the heterophobe bigot who can't accept that a man can have a legitimate discomfort against the situation just like women do with men. The fact that you accept it for women without calling them names is evident that you believe the scenario exist. Instead, you, along with others, create these excuses and reasons on how it's sooo different, because you refuse to accept the fact that a man can have the same feeling as a woman, which makes you a bigot.


You have yet to explain this "discomfort" that a man has when in a communal shower with a homosexual man. The "discomfort" between sexes has been thoroughly examined (differing anatomy, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.) but you have yet to explain this elusive "discomfort" that men have when showering with, not other men, but other homosexual men. Please explain this discomfort.


differing anatomy interests, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.

There isn't one answer, people have various reasons that are the same reasons as with women and men.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#539 Jan 03 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
differing anatomy interests, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.

There isn't one answer, people have various reasons that are the same reasons as with women and men.


So, in other words, you're just going to pretend that the reasons we've given are exactly the same. Smiley: laugh

Yeah, you're hopeless. It was a nice try. No, actually, it was lazy.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#540 Jan 03 2011 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Dude? WTFRU talking about? I'm not creating a hypothetical situation.

lol
Quote:
I'm sure in your limited research, those guys meant that they don't look forward to shower with men to check men out.

Inventing new surveys to match the ones in your imagination rather than the ones that existed?

Oh, hi Gbaji! No, the question posed was whether or not they check out guys in the shower, not if they shower in order to check out guys.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 9:19am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#541 Jan 03 2011 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,907 posts
I hope you guys have your laundry at the ready, 'cause Alamlieque is taking you to the cleaners.

In his newly returned car, presumably.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#542 Jan 03 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
At least Virus keeps his idiocy succinct. This guy is like some horror-show love child of Virus and Gbaji.
#543 Jan 03 2011 at 9:39 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
differing anatomy interests, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.

There isn't one answer, people have various reasons that are the same reasons as with women and men.


So, in other words, you're just going to pretend that the reasons we've given are exactly the same. Smiley: laugh

Yeah, you're hopeless. It was a nice try. No, actually, it was lazy.


I'm hopeless? You're the bigot not accepting that some people are just different. Just accept the fact that there men who have similar feelings to women when it comes to these measures.

I'm not naive. As I said, I know some people are just bigots and there exists some differences in the scenarios, i.e. if a woman gets raped by a man, she can get pregnant while a man can't. At the same time, I'm realistic. You can't have a sexual interest in something and not be attracted to it. That doesn't make any sense.

I just wish you would put away your bigotry and just accept that people are different or in this case, the same...

Jo wrote:
Inventing new surveys to match the ones in your imagination rather than the ones that existed?

Oh, hi Gbaji! No, the question posed was whether or not they check out guys in the shower, not if they shower in order to check out guys.


Did you ask them if they EVER checked out a guy in the shower? or would you sneak a peak of someone that found attractive? If not, was it because of the fear of being turned on? I interpreted your question the way I stated it because it's human nature to be attracted to something that you're attracted to and the last time I checked, they are human.

Besdes, you said the consensus was "No, not really. I'm really just there to shower and move on.". That doesn't mean "no", it means "not really". My interpretation of that response is that they do run to showers to look at men, they just shower and move on. Not that they aren't ever attracted to other men. You even said that you think it becomes so habitual that it loses it's porn fantasy. How can you lose something that you never had?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#544 Jan 03 2011 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
I actually agree with Alma about privacy considerations here. Frankly, I'm surprised that y'all are picking that point to argue.

I don't see anything unreasonable about providing curtains/partitions or whatever's necessary to provide comfort. It'd be silly to argue that expense should prevent such undertakings.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#545 Jan 03 2011 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I actually agree with Alma about privacy considerations here. Frankly, I'm surprised that y'all are picking that point to argue.
It's a useless point. Currently, straights are showering with homosexuals, except they have no idea who's gay and who's not. Meaning that if they value their privacy from homosexuals, they get none now. Repealing DADT actually creates a situation where they could more likely avoid showering with homosexuals.

Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't see anything unreasonable about providing curtains/partitions or whatever's necessary to provide comfort. It'd be silly to argue that expense should prevent such undertakings.
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.
____________________________
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

#546 Jan 03 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
At the same time, I'm realistic. You can't have a sexual interest in something and not be attracted to it.


I have a sexual interest in men. There are a lot of men I'm not in the least attracted to. You seem to have this black/white view of life that just isn't right.

I would also love for you to point out to me where I ever said that every man who is uncomfortable showering with another man is a bigot. If you want to throw those insults around, perhaps you should have something substantial to back them up.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#547 Jan 03 2011 at 10:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
I actually agree with Alma about privacy considerations here. Frankly, I'm surprised that y'all are picking that point to argue.

I don't think anyone is denying that there's men out there terrified by the thought of another guy taking a gander at their doodle. Folks just don't think it should be a factor regarding DADT. Alma keeps insisting it's not about that but he's having a one-man discussion or something because that's the context everyone else is talking about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#548 Jan 03 2011 at 10:19 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Ugly wrote:
It's a useless point. Currently, straights are showering with homosexuals, except they have no idea who's gay and who's not. Meaning that if they value their privacy from homosexuals, they get none now. Repealing DADT actually creates a situation where they could more likely avoid showering with homosexuals.


We went over this already. There's a huge difference between being able to join as opposed to being allowed to join. The only difference between DADT and the time before DADT is the military asking our sexual orientation. Authorizing homosexuality in the military creates an entire new environment. Why you refuse to accept that is just silly.

Ugly wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.

Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 6:33pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#549 Jan 03 2011 at 10:27 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.


No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.


I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.

Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#550 Jan 03 2011 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Quote:
Authorizing homosexuality in the military creates an entire new environment
Only if you're a bigot/homophobe, or homosexual. To everyone else, it's business as usual.
____________________________
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

#551 Jan 03 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,799 posts
Belkira wrote:
I have a sexual interest in men. There are a lot of men I'm not in the least attracted to. You seem to have this black/white view of life that just isn't right.


I didn't say that you were attracted to a certain percentage of men. What I'm saying is that you have an attraction to a "type" of male and it would be silly for anyone to think it would be wrong for you to sneak a peak at something you like.

Belkira wrote:


I would also love for you to point out to me where I ever said that every man who is uncomfortable showering with another man is a bigot. If you want to throw those insults around, perhaps you should have something substantial to back them up.


So, you see how it feels. Anyway, if I mistakenly involved you in the infamous "y'all", then I apologize, but my entire argument was that it was possible and all you have done this entire time was argue against it, claiming that the two scenarios are not the same.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 51 All times are in CDT
Belkira, cynyck, gbaji, lolgaxe, Samira, Anonymous Guests (46)