Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#327 Dec 28 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men.
So what are those reasons, and why are they the same as the ones between men and women?


Comfort. It's the same for men and women, because it's the same. I'm not sure how you can break it down any further. I gave you a chance to explain otherwise and you have failed to give any other reason. Segregation preferences are because of comfort levels.

Jo wrote:

I don't think you understand it. I get what you want to be the argument but it's irrelevant.


Back to the "irrelevant" responses. You guys have to come up with a better response when you know you're wrong.

My entire argument is that it's possible for people not to want to share rooms or showers with homosexuals and not be bigots. My proof is that women have the same reasons against doing those same activities with men and they aren't frown upon. For whatever reason, men are called names for expressing the same exact feelings towards homosexual men. This double standard proves that it is possible to not want to share rooms or showers with homosexuals and not be bigots, which is what women do all of the time, which is my point. Therefore, that is 115% relevant.

I would like for you to show otherwise or even better yet just admit that it's a double standard.

I'm not naive, I realize that there might be scenarios where double standards maybe "better", but you wont even admit that it exists in this situation or that it is relevant.

Jo wrote:
Currently. Given that the UCMJ will be changed with the repeal of DADT, that's pretty irrelevant as well, at least until the new rules are released by the Dept. of Defense.


Oh, so now you agree with my previous argument about "image" and that the rules would have to change first and not just allow homosexuals in... Wow, you guys are really agreeing with me now.. 2011 is going to be a good year. That's two 40+ threads that has ended in agreement.

Jo wrote:

You're still failing to make an argument.


I'm not failing at all. You're just ignoring all the points and labeling them as "irrelevant" when you can't counter them.

You stated that men have been sharing with homosexuals all the time before so it wouldn't be any different.

I countered to say that they have been sharing rooms and showers, but under the assumption that they were heterosexual and that was the whole point of DADT.

You countered with the nonsense that DADT was stating "You WILL be showering with homosexuals"..

I countered that nonsense to point out that wasn't the point of DADT, else sodomy and homosexuality wouldn't be punishable under UCMJ. Instead of you admitting that you were wrong on the concept of DADT, you decided to say that the rules will change anyway, which was never the point of the discussion.

Nice try. It really isn't that hard to say "My bad, I was wrong". You actually become more credible that way.

Elinda wrote:
The difference being that men are men and women are not men. Women have ******'s men have penises. All men be they *** or straight have penises. Do you understand the difference?


As I told Sir X earlier. The point in equality is to treat everyone the same unless there is some form of justification. Your only reason is that men are men and women are women. What is the justification of the discrimination? If we start treating people different because they have vaginas and plump, tender, nice and round *******, where does it stop? There has to be some justification beyond that.

Side story.. I was talking with a co-worker and she was saying that she hopes that she doesn't get put in admin because she doesn't have a *****. Typically, women do that position more than men. According to your logic, you approve of such nonsense. "Administration.. That's a WOMAN's Job! We can't have men and women sharing jobs or offices!" Taking a step back aren't we?

Elinda wrote:
I'd say it's more about fear/ignorance but either way you have failed to make any sort of argument - right or wrong, that there is a reason to maintain a DADT policy that doesn't involve 'feelings'.


You're right, I didn't make an argument to maintain DADT because that was never my goal. You're just attaching your own feelings to my argument. Once again, my point is that it is possible for people not to want to room and shower with homosexuals and not be a bigot.


Omega Vegeta wrote:

You can certainly prefer not to shower with the out poofs post DADT, but there are no legitimate reasons why you shouldn't or can't do so. I'd prefer to shower with the nubile co-eds that frequent my gym as opposed to Robert, the fat(& hairy) **** whom seems to frequent the gym around the same time that I do. But since I'm a man, I use the men's locker room as is the "psychological norm" (whatever the **** that means). If Robert & I soldiered together, we'd still shower together!

What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little. Sure, you can ask your commanding officer to shower separately from the poofs that come out in your unit & he might (and that's a very slight might )even let you do it.

But what will be your answer when the straight dudes whom are comfortable with their sexuality ask you why you're acting like such a little ***** about it?


My entire point is for these posters just accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with a man not wanting to shower or room with a homosexual. That's all.. Nothing more and nothing less. People are just making a big deal out of nothing.
#328 Dec 28 2010 at 2:44 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those **** homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 1:43pm by Belkira


I don't shower with homosexuals....
#329 Dec 28 2010 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those **** homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."


I don't shower with homosexuals....


If you're showering with the rest of the army, you sure are.
#330 Dec 28 2010 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
He's like a less coherent version of gbaji.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#331 Dec 28 2010 at 3:05 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those **** homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."


I don't shower with homosexuals....


If you're showering with the rest of the army, you sure are.


So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
#332 Dec 28 2010 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,953 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept it, this wouldn't be so bad.


That's what he said.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all **** for a basement"

#333 Dec 28 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.


Accept what? There's nothing to accept. There is no privacy issue.
#334 Dec 28 2010 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
You're being intentionally obtuse, but I can accept that you don't currently shower with *** men.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#335 Dec 28 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
You're being intentionally obtuse, but I can accept that you don't currently shower with *** men.

Everyone lives in a barracks at some point. If he's in the service he's had a ****-f'ucker staring at his gaping rusty sheriff's badge.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#336 Dec 28 2010 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those **** homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."


I don't shower with homosexuals....


If you're showering with the rest of the army, you sure are.


So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
Oh, Alma. Are you going to hold your breath until we believe you? Or are you just going to spam until you hit the all-important 3950?
#337 Dec 28 2010 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
You're being intentionally obtuse, but I can accept that you don't currently shower with *** men.

Everyone lives in a barracks at some point. If he's in the service he's had a ****-f'ucker staring at his gaping rusty sheriff's badge.
Maybe Alma is handicapped and gets one of them special shower stalls.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#338 Dec 28 2010 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
You're being intentionally obtuse, but I can accept that you don't currently shower with *** men.

Everyone lives in a barracks at some point. If he's in the service he's had a ****-f'ucker staring at his gaping rusty sheriff's badge.
Maybe Alma is handicapped and gets one of them special shower stalls.


So when he bangs his head against the wall it won't scare the others quite so badly?
#339 Dec 28 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Back to the "irrelevant" responses. You guys have to come up with a better response when you know you're wrong.

Hahaha... that must be it.

Quote:
Therefore, that is 115% relevant.

To the repeal of DADT? Nope, not even a little.

Quote:
I would like for you to show otherwise or even better yet just admit that it's a double standard.

Nothing in it for me. The Commander-in-Chief decided it doesn't wash. The Dept. of Defense decided it doesn't wash. A majority of service members decided it doesn't wash. A super-majority of Congress decided it doesn't wash.

Any convincing needs to come from you, not me.

Quote:
Oh, so now you agree with my previous argument about "image" and that the rules would have to change first and not just allow homosexuals in...

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. The DADT repeal legislation has always said that the repeal would follow a review and revision of the military rules given that the current rules were based on the DADT legislation in the 93-94 appropriations bill; that's just a simple issue of procedure. I haven't posted much in this thread... perhaps you were arguing with someone else? I have said that people like Gbaji and Varrus were wrong when they insisted that there was some other legislation that we were thrust back into with the passage of the DADT repeal act. Maybe you were misunderstanding that. Anyway, beats me.

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 3:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#340Almalieque, Posted: Dec 28 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a pretty bold assumption to say that in the few times that I did ever had to share a shower, it was with a homosexual. Once again, you're just as ignorant as the bigots you're against.
#341 Dec 28 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.


Accept what? There's nothing to accept. There is no privacy issue.


Accept the fact that you don't have a legitimate explanation for the segregation of men and women that isn't any different than heterosexual men and homosexual men.


Of course we do. You just won't accept it. You can't seem to understand that the showering situation has to do with anatomy and not sexual attraction.

That's not our problem.
#342 Dec 28 2010 at 4:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
given that the DoD said that they weren't going to implement anything "in the middle of a war", I don't see a change happening anytime soon

Stuff I've heard from the administration and Dept of Defense all points to a 2011 implementation.

I guess 2011 will be a great year!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#343 Dec 28 2010 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You're right, but those people also are not able to provide legitimate reasoning without fear or hatred.

No, they are, at least in their mind.

You don't seem to know much about how the majority of bigots tend to think and act. They don't gallivant around in white robes, yelling nigger, and throwing bricks through windows.

If you happen to be bored, I suggest you take some time to browse around the stormfront message boards (a self proclaimed white nationalist and racial realist community). These are what the vast majority of bigots are like. They are generally decent people who aren't typically violent towards nonwhites. They largely advocate political and personal change. They are interested in having discussion and debates about race, and have facts and data they believe supports their opinions and arguments. Honestly, they're fairly reasonable people; they just happen to be wrong about a few things and unwilling to change their opinion on those topics. They're very much aware many other people think they're bigots, and they think those people are wrong.

Modern bigots are very much in denial, because being a bigot is seen nearly universally as a negative quality. Bigots don't think they're bigots. They think they are those who have examined the facts more closely than others and come up with a better, more correct answer. They take a statistic that could very reasonable be taken to support their stance, and choose to use it. A disproportionate number of crimes are committed by blacks, and without considering many other factors could be reasonably used to justify separating blacks and whites.

Modern bigotry is mostly about cognitive biases.

edit: I really can't say nigger here? Was this because of Varus?

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 4:35pm by Allegory
#344 Dec 28 2010 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Allegory wrote:
edit: I really can't say nigger here? Was this because of Varus?


I think it's always been that way because a lot of people find it incredibly offensive, and the site doesn't tolerate racism.
#345 Dec 28 2010 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,915 posts
I believe the asylum has a separate set of word filters that allow for more crude speech. I assumed we could write almost anything in here.

I also have the nagging feeling I've mentioned and forgotten this very thing before.
#346 Dec 28 2010 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Allegory wrote:
I believe the asylum has a separate set of word filters that allow for more crude speech. I assumed we could write almost anything in here.


I've always had to break the word filter in here. That's just allowed, from what I understand. Whereas, it's not allowed elsewhere. I don't think there's a seperate filter at all.

Though, that would be nice. Smiley: grin

#347Almalieque, Posted: Dec 28 2010 at 4:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As I said multiple times over, equality is the practice of treating everyone the same unless there is a justification to do otherwise. All you have said is "he has a *****". If you support any discrimination simply on the fact that you don't have a *****, then you should just go back in the kitchen, because that's a dumb argument.
#348 Dec 28 2010 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
[...]which statement do you believe is true? DADT is about the military telling people that they will shower with homosexuals or that DADT is about telling homosexuals to keep their sexuality to themselves or get kicked out?


Why can't it be both...?

Almalieque wrote:
As I said multiple times over, equality is the practice of treating everyone the same unless there is a justification to do otherwise.


The justification is that men have the same anatomy as men, and women have the same anatomy as women.

Almalieque wrote:
All you have said is "he has a *****". If you support any discrimination simply on the fact that you don't have a *****, then you should just go back in the kitchen, because that's a dumb argument.


You really did eat paint chips as a kid.

Almalieque wrote:
Once again, where does it end?


It ends in the places where you aren't required to be naked. You know this, you've been in public showers and restrooms before. Don't be a moron.

Almalieque wrote:
Bottom line is, there's nothing wrong with discrimination based on ***, but you have to be able to justify it and all you have said that they're different. If you can't see how that's a circle that doesn't go anywhere, then you can't be helped.


Smiley: laugh Speaking of can't be helped. I suggested you seek help earlier. I think that would be a waste of your money and a therapist's time.

Almalieque wrote:
I'll help you out: During a shower, it's an independent event. You wash yourself and you get out. Why does it matter who's next to you if someone's next to you? Anatomy only plays a role when it's a factor. There's no physical strength involved. There's no handicap involved. There's no weight or height factor. It's just you, a bar of soap and water. So where does the other person come in to play? What changes if the person next to you has a ***** or not?


You're both naked. Get it? Stop being obtuse.
#349 Dec 28 2010 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,547 posts
Quote:
If I dressed up as a woman and entered the woman's locker room, the women in there wouldn't care. Why? because they would think I was a woman. If I left and came back as a man, I'm sure they would have a problem. Even if I told them that I dressed up as that woman earlier, they would still feel uncomfortable.


You sir are an idiot. Unless your elaborate costume is going to contain a set of ******* and a va-jay-jay instead of your current tackle your point makes no sense.

You have a *****, therefore you creep chicks out by showering with them. *** men also have a *****, therefore *** or not they would creep chicks out. *** women have a ******, they can shower with other women because they won't creep them out. Put that same *** women in a shower with men and some might be uncomfortable do to "fear of small ****".

Your analogy is stupid. You are not a woman and women would know this. Unless of course you went full out, and got the works.

Quit being a ******.


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#350 Dec 28 2010 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You said that DADT was the military telling people that they will shower with homosexuals.

No, I said that under DADT, you're showering with homosexuals with the military aware of this based on the fact that homosexuals are allowed to be in the military. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
Then you responded that it was "irrelevant"

I said your personal feelings on showering with homosexuals was irrelevant. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
Here you go again bringing up the actual repeal of DADT

Which is the only thing that actually matters as I said earlier. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
when I'm discussing the double standard of men not being able to say that they don't want to shower with a homosexual.

Which, again, is irrelevant. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
First and foremost, the "good" answer for all of these questions were "mixed, positive or no effects".

70% of which which is a pretty great majority. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
You all said ...

"You all" being me or some random collection of people I'm expected to answer for?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#351 Dec 28 2010 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Alma's obsession with showers is much more disturbing than his being a bigot.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)