Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#652 Jan 04 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Read above. If everyone is "for the repeal", then there wouldn't be any slow moving bureaucracy.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

God, you're so adorably naive. If we were in the military together, I'd so totally consider looking at your wiener in the shower. It's probably shaped like a little daisy or a unicorn.

Quote:
I know Mr. Gates, Mr. Mullen and President Obama ultimately decide the new rules, but they aren't the ones that best understand what's going on. That was my point, not who makes the rules, but who is most knowledgeable on the situation.

Really? That was your point? We should listen to politicians who aren't politicians but you know of course they are politicians but you trust these politicians instead of the other politicians who you know make the rules but we can't listen to because then you're dumb for listening to politicians because the not-but-really-are-politicians know more despite not being the politicians who make the rules?

Fascinating.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#653 Jan 04 2011 at 8:23 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Quote:
It's somewhat like knowing that it's possible for someone to hide a camera in the clothing store dressing room and take pictures of you while naked, but you know it's illegal and if they're caught they'll be punished.
Yea, not quite. One has a much higher chance of actually occurring. To a point where you can assume it is happening.
____________________________
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

#654 Jan 04 2011 at 8:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
It's somewhat like knowing that it's possible for someone to hide a camera in the clothing store dressing room and take pictures of you while naked, but you know it's illegal and if they're caught they'll be punished.
Yea, not quite. One has a much higher chance of actually occurring. To a point where you can assume it is happening.


There's so much wrong with the logic of that argument, I'm not even sure where to begin!


Since we know that a percentage of children are molested by their relatives, we can just assume it's happening, so there's no reason to bother pursuing child molesters, right? Cause it's going to happen anyway. Drugs are going to be sold in your kids school anyway, so there's no point in trying to fight it, right? Drunks are going to drive on the road anyway, so why bother pulling them over? Heck! Let's just stop enforcing any of our laws anymore! Cause people just keep breaking them anyway. Think of all the time and money we'd save on law enforcement!

Want to try a better argument? That one seriously sucks.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#655 Jan 04 2011 at 8:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque, Flawless Victory wrote:
Wait, so you believe that there are people who only physically attracted to certain people's personalities? Please tell me that you realize that isn't even possible?


Why isn't it? I am attracted to women with good sense of humor, smart (but not smarter than me), have good hygiene, these are all personality traits. These are the things that I look for in a woman. I hold these things above ass, and tits.

Unless I am drunk, if I am drunk, the only thing that matters is how far she can put her ankles behind her ears.




Kachi wrote:

Oh, wow. How sad for you that you don't know that it is.


Nadenu wrote:

Alma's comment reminds me a lot of my ex here. We were drifting apart and he started going to the gym. I have to admit he started looking pretty good. But I knew him - and I still didn't want to be with him anymore. He was completely floored to learn that it was his personality, not his looks that were driving me away.


There's a difference in being attracted to a person's body vs being attracted to their personality. It is possible for a person to be physically attracted to a person, but think that person is a jerk. Likewise, it is also possible to not be physically attracted to a person while being attracted to a person's personality. So, it's impossible to be attracted to a stranger's physical body through their unknown personality.

Belkira wrote:
If you think real hard for yourself and try to come up with a reason instead of just quoting what I said and pretending it fits your argument, I'd be willing to listen.


I said from the beginning that they were the same as women.

Belkira wrote:
One reason I thought of (and one you'll probably take negatively, but I don't mean it that way) is a guy who is honestly confused about his own sexuality. It may make him uncomfortable to know that there's a homosexual man in that very naked place, while he's still grappling what his own sexuality. That's not homophobic or bigoted, it's just confusion.


Yea, you're right, besides completely unrealistic, it's negative. People only say "not comfortable with their sexuality" as a negative attack to people. I'm completely confident in my sexuality, but that doesn't mean I want to go in Gay Bars or shower with homosexuals.

But, let's play your game. Let us pretend that actually happens in people. That is no different than a woman being confused with her sexuality. She doesn't want to shower with men because she isn't sure if she's attracted to females or males. Or even better yet, there are plenty of women who believe that women should be modest (even as you claimed) and any woman who freely exposes herself to men has no class and is a whore-monger. So, she wants to hide her body from men to prevent others thinking that she is a trollop, sleaze, ho, whore, skank, sperm-dumpster or a chicken head, because she isn't confident in her sexuality.

Belkira wrote:
Or maybe a guy is ashamed of the size of his... endowment, and he is genuinely worried that a homosexual would be looking and then make fun of him for the size of his junk.


Uh, this is the issue of someone checking you out, which is no different than women not wanting men to check them out. Same exact thing. A man having a small junk will be ridiculed by men and women. This is no different than women being ashamed of someone ridiculing her for her breast or butt size. Besides, a heterosexual man is more likely to be waaay more concerned of what a woman and even a heterosexual man thinks about their penis size over what a homosexual thinks. "I sure hope John likes my penis size", is not something a heterosexual man is probably thinking.

Belkira wrote:
Most likely, though, you're going to run into people who are concerned by this in a mostly bigoted way, because they are disgusted and angered by a man finding another man attractive. This isn't the same as women not wanting to share a shower with men. They aren't disgusted or angry about the attraction. We were just raised to show modesty and not to show our naked bodies to members of the opposite sex.


Putting the generalization aside, regardless if it's out of fear, hatred, anger or modesty. Women don't want to be checked out by men in the shower. Men don't want to be checked out by men in the shower. There is no difference. That's the problem, when a guy, like me, says "I don't want to shower with a homosexual", I don't get the "modesty" option. All people see is "He doesn't want to be checked out by a man, he's a bigot". That's why I ask, "how is that any different than a woman who doesn't want to be checked out by a man".

People(see, I replaced "y'all", just for you) like to call people bigots in order to scare them into their way of thinking. Kind of like TERRORISM!!! >.>

Besides, the disgust of homosexuality does not necessarily have anything to do with not wanting to be checked out in the shower. I think two men engaged in attraction or sexual encounters is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I can't talk to them or be around them. I realize that people are different. I know posters are going quote "see, the truth is out, you're a bigot, blah, blah", which ironically would just further prove my point. The reality is, I find incest, child molestation, feces/urination during sex, etc. far more disgusting and my comfort levels with them in the shower can/will vary. So, this has less to do with disgust and more to do with "being checked out in the showers", which is the exact same issue that women are expressing.

RDD wrote:
lolwhat. Id @#%^ the sh*t out of britney spears but I am not attracted to her, hell Id stick it in Demi Moore too just to say I did. The amount of places my penis has been compared to the number of girls ive been attracted to is not very close to even. Clearly someone has never worn beer goggles home from the bar, or is still a virgin.

My penis decides where it wants to go on its own, it doesn't mean the rest of me has to enjoy it.


Crap, you're finally right in something. I feel suicidal...

In any case, I was wrong in the scenario, but I better explained my concept at the top of this post.

Gbaji wrote:
It's sad that I point out that those who accuse others of being bigots are often guilty of it themselves?

[...]

It's terrifically easy to just label those who disagree with you as bigots. It's a lot harder to honestly examine the issue of bigotry and apply the same rules to everyone and not just those you already believe are wrong.


/thread

Honestly.. This.. Some people may have legitimate reasons, but the most of the posters here are acting like bigots, calling other people bigots.

Nadenu wrote:

Ding ding ding! And this is why having gay and straight men shower together won't make a difference. Not all gay men are going to be attracted to all other men.



I think you failed to grasp the concept at hand. My argument is that not every male who is against open sexuality in the military, i.e. open showers, are bigots. To show this, I made the comparison that this is no different than what women express about men. The fact that no one person is attracted to everyone only substantiates my point that there is no reason why men and women aren't sharing showers other than for the same reasons why men don't want to share showers with men.

Nadenu wrote:
And about what you said to Samira earlier, most women who get looked at by other men *have* grown up and learned to deal with it. It happens. And most of us don't cry about it and we are usually able to completely ignore it.


So, you're ok with sharing open showers with men since you're all grown up? There's a big difference with someone checking you out with clothes on vs being naked.

Eske wrote:
It doesn't have to be about homophobia; a dislike of being checked out while exposed isn't unique to females, nor are gays universally above sneaking a glance at someone if given the chance.


This.. People have implied/said that homosexuals only check out homosexuals and that is just plain silly.

[quote=Majivo]
Everything? What, did you just completely fail to understand the scenario? If you break the rules, or there are allegations that you broke the rules, you get investigated. Attempting to take matters into your own hands because someone looked at you sexually is over the line.[/quote]

Oh, I see what you two were getting at. I was thinking of something completely different. I was thinking more of an assault type scenario, where people would just react.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#656 Jan 04 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
gbaji wrote:
Want to try a better argument? That one seriously sucks.
Let's say 1 in 20 soldiers are gay. You shower with 20 guys every day, 365 days a year. Hell, i'll make that 1 in 100 for ya. What are the odds you've showered with a gay soldier? Now, let's say 1 in 20 change rooms has cameras. You don't use change rooms every day. Hell, you're lucky if you use them more than 10 times a year.

Edited, Jan 4th 2011 10:53pm 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

#657 Jan 04 2011 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wouldn't say "lucky"...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#658 Jan 04 2011 at 9:20 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
And about what you said to Samira earlier, most women who get looked at by other men *have* grown up and learned to deal with it. It happens. And most of us don't cry about it and we are usually able to completely ignore it.


So, you're ok with sharing open showers with men since you're all grown up? There's a big difference with someone checking you out with clothes on vs being naked.


The argument isn't about men and women together, it's about same sex together. I went to school and had gym class with 2 lesbians. I was no more uncomfortable around them than the straight girls.

I've also never said that everyone should be comfortable with anyone in the shower. A few thousand pages back I said that I wouldn't want to be in the shower with men OR women. The point is, these people are already in the military where these kinds of things are just part of their routine. To think that showering will be some horrible experience just because gays no longer have to hide who they are is crazy.
#659 Jan 04 2011 at 9:20 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
What does the Chain of Command have anything to do with that scenario?
Sexual harassment. The soldier should have let superiors deal with it. And you're an officer? I imagine a lot of slackers would love to be under your command and have the freedom to do whatever they want.


As I told Mojivo, for some reason I was thinking more along an assault. In any case, we have people specifically trained to handle those scenarios. For the sake of quality and conflict of interest, many times it's best to talk to them.

Nadenu wrote:
For the millionth time: the straight and gay men are already showering together. All you straight guys were hanging out in the locker room in high school with at least one gay guy, I'd be willing to bet. And all this time, these gay men haven't out-and-out leered at you or made you uncomfortable, have they? They've been able to control themselves and more likely, they just didn't find you attractive. And if they haven't been able to exercise control, maybe it crosses over into sexual harassment and then it becomes a totally different issue.


For the millionth time, this is a psychological issue of KNOWING that there is an enhanced probability of someone checking you out, not the fear of being attacked. The same "enhanced probability" that women have with sharing showers with men.

Kachi wrote:
The point was about protecting the comfort of soldiers. If soldiers were uncomfortable sharing facilities with black men because they were bigots but had to suck it up, how is that significantly different from having to suck it up and share with gay men (which they're already doing)? Your best argument is that one discomfort is more legitimate than the other, but you haven't really managed to defend it so far.


1) In a general sense, physical traits such as skin color don't tell you anything about the person, while personality traits do. So, the likelihood of you having a legitimate discomfort of black men is quite low as you know nothing about Jon Smith.

2) In a specific sense, we're talking about discomfort of the possibility of being checked out in showers or in beds. Heterosexual black men aren't checking you out in the showers, only homosexual black men.

Kachi wrote:

No, some of them just think it will make the bigots uncomfortable. Otherwise you've yet to make a successful compelling argument that exemplifies these people who are against DADT but aren't bigots.


I've told you, ironically, your bigotry doesn't allow you to see it. The uncomfortable feeling derives with being exposed to someone who might be attracted to you, the same feeling that women express towards men. Do you label them bigots?

Allegory wrote:
No, you're allowed to be gay; you're just not allowed to know who is gay.


That's like saying "You're allowed to beat your wife, you're just not allowed to know who is". That's incredibly stupid. Once again, there is a difference between being physically able to join the military and being authorized to join the military. Just as they don't ask if you beat your wife, DADT stopped recruiters from asking if you're gay. In neither case does it authorize you to be either. So, it is indeed a different situation.

Just for fun, that's like movie hoping in a theater, yes you can do it, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#660 Jan 04 2011 at 9:42 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
1) In a general sense, physical traits such as skin color don't tell you anything about the person, while personality traits do. So, the likelihood of you having a legitimate discomfort of black men is quite low as you know nothing about Jon Smith.

2) In a specific sense, we're talking about discomfort of the possibility of being checked out in showers or in beds. Heterosexual black men aren't checking you out in the showers, only homosexual black men.


Again, your point is that solely on the basis of a potential one-sided sexual attraction, one discomfort is more legitimate than the other. And it is. But barely.

Quote:
I've told you, ironically, your bigotry doesn't allow you to see it. The uncomfortable feeling derives with being exposed to someone who might be attracted to you, the same feeling that women express towards men. Do you label them bigots?


And you continue to try to say, "Well if only barely, then why do we segregate men and women?" And I already told you. I gave you three major reasons, and explained how gender segregation is a holdover from upbringing. You have failed utterly to refute these points.

Quote:
That's like saying "You're allowed to beat your wife, you're just not allowed to know who is". That's incredibly stupid. Once again, there is a difference between being physically able to join the military and being authorized to join the military. Just as they don't ask if you beat your wife, DADT stopped recruiters from asking if you're gay. In neither case does it authorize you to be either. So, it is indeed a different situation.

Just for fun, that's like movie hoping in a theater, yes you can do it, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.


No, THAT'S THE LAW, @#%^. That's why gbaji (who seems to have conveniently forgotten about it suddenly) was desperately trying to explain how repealing DADT would be a step backward for gays, and that when it was introduced, it was a progressive legislation that allowed gays to be in the military as long as they kept it a secret.
____________________________
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.
#661 Jan 04 2011 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kachi wrote:
That's why gbaji (who seems to have conveniently forgotten about it suddenly) was desperately trying to explain how repealing DADT would be a step backward for gays, and that when it was introduced, it was a progressive legislation that allowed gays to be in the military as long as they kept it a secret.

Well, it was a step forward from asking "Are you a homo? Get the hell out". Gbaji really had his panties knotted over some asinine belief that, since people wanted to repeal DADT, this meant that everyone believed that DADT was the origin of prohibiting gays in the military (you know, 'cause we all thought you could be openly gay in WWII without an issue and stuff) and then went further down Idiot Creek when he declared that a DADT repeal would mean that now gays couldn't serve at all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#662 Jan 04 2011 at 9:57 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Oh, I know. But the point is, at least as I understand it, gays are allowed in the military now, but there are to be no witch hunts (Don't Ask), and they aren't allowed to advertise it (Don't Tell). That was the purpose of DADT. It actually was a law that said, "It's ok as long as we don't know about it. Only secret gays are allowed in the military."

Seemed pretty simple to me.
____________________________
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.
#663 Jan 04 2011 at 10:19 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
see sig.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#664 Jan 04 2011 at 10:42 PM Rating: Decent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Naddendum wrote:
Ding ding ding! And this is why having gay and straight men shower together won't make a difference. Not all gay men are going to be attracted to all other men.


This is the stupidest thing not said by Vabajieque in this whole thread, but more personally frustrating because I broadly share your stance.


So you're also frustrated that no gay men have hit on you. Poor thing.


You're a bit thick, aren't you? Firstly, gay and straight people are already showering together in the military. Secondly, your argument itself is an irrelevance - that the clowning of Almalieque has made you think otherwise shows just how easily lead you are. And what, your defence is that I'm a homophobe because I think the precise way you're arguing for something which I am also in favour of is stupid? Nice.

In summary, go fuck a cactus.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 4:43am by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#665 Jan 04 2011 at 11:24 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LAST
____________________________
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]
#666 Jan 05 2011 at 1:02 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST


if at first you don't succeed......?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#667 Jan 05 2011 at 4:11 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,832 posts
i got to thank every one who has posted in this thread, for the entertainment it has provided me each time I visited the Asylum the last few weeks.

Since so many of you have been talking about showers and being nude around other people of different sexes, I decided to add an different perspective to the thread. That of an Artist who grew up to become comfortable working with nude models and being nude around people of both sexes. For over ten years now I have been attending clothing optional events, where people know that any sexual harassment will get them banned. These events allow us to wear as little or no clothing as we want without fear of constantly having to deal with others of the opposite and or same sex, sexual advances. So for me, all the argument about wither someone is comfortable taking showers with in a semi-public area seem very silly.


I have no problem being nude around other people who know how to behave, as one would if I was dressed completely to the point of you only seeing my eyes. Still I know many people are uncomfortable exposing any part of their body covered by their underwear. What gets me is areas of the USA were any Nude Art is look as indecent. Having gone to Art galleries throughout my childhood, I thought anyone who feels the need to giggle as we walked by a Nude during a class field trip, as immature.

(An unnecessary real life situation) Yet when a friend came up to visit me with this wife and 5 year old son, I had to allow for the fact that the parents were not comfortable with their son seeing Nudes in an Art Museum. People it's like the difference between a family that shows how to enjoy an good wine or beer with a meal and not become a drunken fool. Children learn either the human nude is a thing of beauty or porn, from how their parents react to the images that can easily be seen in public build-boards now. Once I explain that trying to hide the human nudes from the child would only make him wonder what all the fuss was about, they stopped trying to cover his eyes when we pasted any artwork with even a small amount of nudity in it. It was only when we came to the African exhibit in the Smithsonian that he had any questions about why two statues of a man and woman had large reproductive organs. I explain how the statues were to show the importance that people had about being Fertile and able to have healthy children for the good of the tribe, in language he understood. His reaction was of a five year old, making sense of why parents feel having children is important and wanted. (Okay I'm done with talking about my giving a tour of the National Museum of Art to a bunch of southern rednecks.)

It's how most American are raised and one of the things working in Admissions at a Major Art College you learn early on, that both the students and their parents have to be faced with, before they decide on attending the College. One of the first things a work study student learns, is that when giving prospective students and their parents tours of the College, you must walk them into at least one class where there is a nude model working. I always enjoyed the watching their faces as they walked into the classroom. for many families it was the moment of truth of the fact, that Art Students need to take Life Drawing classes, no matter what their major they were going for at MICA. for as artists we are expected and taught to look at the body as a subject of study, and not as an sexual object for ones lust. (Redneck families were always good for some laughs later.) When you are raised to not always think about nudity equals sexuality, all this talk of comfort levels of people having to take a showers in public seems silly.

In other words, Just Get Over Your Idea That Seeing a Person in the Nude is a Chance to Make Out with Them.

first edit to correct the difference between spelling of two and too.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 5:14am by ElneClare
____________________________
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

"England needs, examples of people who, leaving Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek, not greater wealth, but simpler pleasures; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions self-possession, and honouring themselves in the harmless pride and calm pursuits of peace." - John Ruskin
#668 Jan 05 2011 at 5:58 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
What Moe said.
#669 Jan 05 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Kachi wrote:
That's why gbaji (who seems to have conveniently forgotten about it suddenly) was desperately trying to explain how repealing DADT would be a step backward for gays, and that when it was introduced, it was a progressive legislation that allowed gays to be in the military as long as they kept it a secret.

Well, it was a step forward from asking "Are you a homo? Get the hell out". Gbaji really had his panties knotted over some asinine belief that, since people wanted to repeal DADT, this meant that everyone believed that DADT was the origin of prohibiting gays in the military (you know, 'cause we all thought you could be openly gay in WWII without an issue and stuff) and then went further down Idiot Creek when he declared that a DADT repeal would mean that now gays couldn't serve at all.


No. My whole point was about the use of the word "repeal" when that wasn't really what was going on.


It had nothing at all to do with the legal changes and everything to do with how they were presented to the public. Call it an observation on human nature. The psychology of political linguistics. Whatever floats your boat.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#670 Jan 05 2011 at 6:50 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. My whole point was about the use of the word "repeal" when that wasn't really what was going on.

Which, as Joph showed previously, is due entirely to your lack of understanding of what the word "repeal" means in a legal context.
#671 Jan 05 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

God, you're so adorably naive. If we were in the military together, I'd so totally consider looking at your wiener in the shower. It's probably shaped like a little daisy or a unicorn.


I'm naive? A group of people who want to repeal DADT, with the capability of repealing it in a short time, willingly takes their time? That doesn't even make any sense.

Jo wrote:
Really? That was your point? We should listen to politicians who aren't politicians but you know of course they are politicians but you trust these politicians instead of the other politicians who you know make the rules but we can't listen to because then you're dumb for listening to politicians because the not-but-really-are-politicians know more despite not being the politicians who make the rules?


My point is that one group is much more knowledgeable on how the military operates than the other. So, if I had to choose who was more accurate in their judgment, I would go with the group of people that are more knowledgeable on military operations.

The level of politics wasn't the point, it was the level of military knowledge. The "real politicians" in question have less military knowledge than the "politicians" that are currently serving in the military. I'm not quite sure how you missed that.

Ugly wrote:
Let's say 1 in 20 soldiers are gay. You shower with 20 guys every day, 365 days a year. Hell, i'll make that 1 in 100 for ya. What are the odds you've showered with a gay soldier? Now, let's say 1 in 20 change rooms has cameras. You don't use change rooms every day. Hell, you're lucky if you use them more than 10 times a year.


Wow, you're not expressing any understanding on how the military works. Showering is only an issue during training and in the field. In garrison , you're more than likely not forced to shower with anyone, but probably forced to room with someone. This is where the argument against sharing a room with a homosexual comes into play. So, putting aside your completely made up 5% of gay Soliders, you DO NOT shower with anyone during garrison. This is why the argument "you already shower with them" fails. Even if you did, SGT Johnson, who just came to the unit, never showered with gay SGT Thomas before. So, you can't say "You showered with him before, because he hasn't.

Nadenu wrote:
The argument isn't about men and women together, it's about same sex together. I went to school and had gym class with 2 lesbians. I was no more uncomfortable around them than the straight girls.


My argument is that they are the same concept, yet people make a difference, calling one group negative terms.

Nadenu wrote:
I've also never said that everyone should be comfortable with anyone in the shower. A few thousand pages back I said that I wouldn't want to be in the shower with men OR women. The point is, these people are already in the military where these kinds of things are just part of their routine. To think that showering will be some horrible experience just because gays no longer have to hide who they are is crazy.


The problem is it isn't "routine". As I stated above, Soldiers only share showers in the field or in training environments.

Kachi wrote:
Again, your point is that solely on the basis of a potential one-sided sexual attraction, one discomfort is more legitimate than the other. And it is. But barely.


Barely? One is based on known personality information, the other is based on a physical trait. The two aren't even close. The concern is with privacy of sexuality, not discomfort of a person. Like I said, a person can HATE homosexuals or heterosexuals, but that hatred has no relation to the discomfort of not wanting to be checked out.

Kachi wrote:
And you continue to try to say, "Well if only barely, then why do we segregate men and women?" And I already told you. I gave you three major reasons, and explained how gender segregation is a holdover from upbringing. You have failed utterly to refute these points.


I never said "barely", because they are the same. I responded to your upbringing argument and countered it. You were the one who never replied to it.

"That's family, not strangers. We are taught that it's ok within the same sex of our family. Then that changes rather quickly as you grow up into preteens and teenagers when you get your own room and stop changing and bathing with your siblings. So, by the time you're old enough to realize what bodies are, you have become more private with your body. So when you're placed in an open environment to be naked in front of others, it is a major change, especially if you have never been exposed to that at an early age like in sports or something. People in general still feel less comfortable changing in front of strangers. "

Kachi wrote:
No, THAT'S THE LAW, @#%^. That's why gbaji (who seems to have conveniently forgotten about it suddenly) was desperately trying to explain how repealing DADT would be a step backward for gays, and that when it was introduced, it was a progressive legislation that allowed gays to be in the military as long as they kept it a secret.


The concept is the exact same. You are not allowed to do something and you do it anyway hoping not to get caught. The concept of DADT goes beyond sexuality in the military, it's a universal concept. In the military, there are many things that are not authorized, i.e. fraternization, adultery, oral/anal sex, that many people do but aren't caught. Just because you aren't asked if you're participating in these activities, that doesn't mean that you're now "magically" allowed to do them. If you were allowed, then you wouldn't be punished upon getting caught.

Kaichi wrote:
Oh, I know. But the point is, at least as I understand it, gays are allowed in the military now, but there are to be no witch hunts (Don't Ask), and they aren't allowed to advertise it (Don't Tell). That was the purpose of DADT. It actually was a law that said, "It's ok as long as we don't know about it. Only secret gays are allowed in the military."

Seemed pretty simple to me.


Read above. That's false. Homosexuality is not authorized in the military, the military just chose to stop asking if you were gay or not. This ENABLED homosexuals to join without lying.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#672 Jan 05 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. My whole point was about the use of the word "repeal" and how I had no idea what the word meant or how it's used

Gotcha.
Alma wrote:
I'm naive?

Yes. Absolutely.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#673 Jan 05 2011 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
No. My whole point was about the use of the word "repeal" when that wasn't really what was going on.


It had nothing at all to do with the legal changes and everything to do with how they were presented to the public. Call it an observation on human nature. The psychology of political linguistics. Whatever floats your boat.


Oh, I know that's what you were on about. It was too stupid an argument to forget. "What this country needs isn't a repeal of DADT... what this country needs is a pedantic history lesson!"

Quote:
Barely? One is based on known personality information, the other is based on a physical trait. The two aren't even close. The concern is with privacy of sexuality, not discomfort of a person. Like I said, a person can HATE homosexuals or heterosexuals, but that hatred has no relation to the discomfort of not wanting to be checked out.


Huh? Sexuality is not personality information, but I guess that's really beside the point. As has been pointed out to you, I don't know, a million times, gays are already sharing facilities with straights and checking them out. Most of them have been since middle school. Anxiety about being checked out by gays... You do realize that that's what homophobia is, don't you? It's not necessarily about hating them.

Well, it's good that you can admit that it is about homophobia afterall.

Quote:
I never said "barely", because they are the same. I responded to your upbringing argument and countered it.


Ok, fine, I was paraphrasing your argument. Though I'm surprised to learn that you think that not wanting to shower with blacks out of discomfort is as legitimate as not wanting to shower with gays out of discomfort. I'm pretty sure you've actually just lost grasp of the argument.

Anyway, I already addressed the argument of your rebuttal. We ARE socialized, from a young age, and then again in adolescence, to be seen by the same gender, but not the other. Your point was somewhere between wrong and stupid.

Quote:
The concept is the exact same. You are not allowed to do something and you do it anyway hoping not to get caught. The concept of DADT goes beyond sexuality in the military, it's a universal concept. In the military, there are many things that are not authorized, i.e. fraternization, adultery, oral/anal sex, that many people do but aren't caught. Just because you aren't asked if you're participating in these activities, that doesn't mean that you're now "magically" allowed to do them. If you were allowed, then you wouldn't be punished upon getting caught.


You're an idiot if you believe this. This is not, "Everything is legal if you don't get caught." This is, "Our policy is not to inquire about homosexuality and do not advertise homosexuality in any way."

Homosexuals are allowed in the military. They are simply not allowed to let anyone know about it.
____________________________
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.
#674 Jan 05 2011 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
see sig.


So, you're going to ignore the rest of the post?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#675 Jan 05 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
see sig.


So, you're going to ignore the rest of the post?


probably.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#676 Jan 05 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Quote:
Wow, you're not expressing any understanding on how the military works. Showering is only an issue during training and in the field. In garrison , you're more than likely not forced to shower with anyone, but probably forced to room with someone. This is where the argument against sharing a room with a homosexual comes into play. So, putting aside your completely made up 5% of gay Soliders, you DO NOT shower with anyone during garrison. This is why the argument "you already shower with them" fails. Even if you did, SGT Johnson, who just came to the unit, never showered with gay SGT Thomas before. So, you can't say "You showered with him before, because he hasn't.
You having more experience in this, I'd generally take your word for it, but you've never brought this up once when the "already showering with gays" was mentioned 100x before, so I'm not sure why you'd suddenly "remember" this point now.

But if that's the case, then I guess your comfort argument is out the window as well since they'll never shower with gays anyway.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 10:12pm 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

#677 Jan 05 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Wow, you're not expressing any understanding on how the military works. Showering is only an issue during training and in the field. In garrison , you're more than likely not forced to shower with anyone, but probably forced to room with someone. This is where the argument against sharing a room with a homosexual comes into play. So, putting aside your completely made up 5% of gay Soliders, you DO NOT shower with anyone during garrison. This is why the argument "you already shower with them" fails. Even if you did, SGT Johnson, who just came to the unit, never showered with gay SGT Thomas before. So, you can't say "You showered with him before, because he hasn't.
You having more experience in this, I'd generally take your word for it, but you've never brought this up once when the "already showering with gays" was mentioned 100x before, so I'm not sure why you'd suddenly "remember" this point now.

But if that's the case, then I guess your comfort argument is out the window as well since they'll never shower with gays anyway.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 10:12pm by Uglysasquatch


I believe this is why the term "Grasping at Straws" was created. Use it wisely.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#678 Jan 05 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Kachi wrote:


Huh? Sexuality is not personality information, but I guess that's really beside the point. As has been pointed out to you, I don't know, a million times, gays are already sharing facilities with straights and checking them out. Most of them have been since middle school. Anxiety about being checked out by gays... You do realize that that's what homophobia is, don't you? It's not necessarily about hating them.

Well, it's good that you can admit that it is about homophobia afterall.



Sexuality is a personality trait. So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe? So, you're saying that a man who expresses anxiety about a woman checking him out makes him a heterophobe? The anxiety of being checked out does not mean homophobia/heterophobia, it's about "fear" or "discomfort" of being checked out. Just because that person is of a certain sex doesn't necessarily mean anything. A person could very well only feel comfortable being naked in front of certain people.

Well, it's good that you can admit that you're just an idiot after all.

Kaichi wrote:
Ok, fine, I was paraphrasing your argument. Though I'm surprised to learn that you think that not wanting to shower with blacks out of discomfort is as legitimate as not wanting to shower with gays out of discomfort. I'm pretty sure you've actually just lost grasp of the argument.


WTFRU talking about? I said that they are completely different because they are.

Kaichi wrote:
Anyway, I already addressed the argument of your rebuttal. We ARE socialized, from a young age, and then again in adolescence, to be seen by the same gender, but not the other. Your point was somewhere between wrong and stupid.


You're in denial. Your argument only holds true for young children, not adults. It's ok for two 4 year old brothers to share a bath or get dressed together. At certain ages, it's even ok for both sexes to share baths and get dressed together. As you get older, that isn't the case. You become more private with your body towards both sexes. For every family of adults who aren't married, that share showers together in their home, I can name you a family that is out of the norm.

MANY PEOPLE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH NUDITY. Period. When you're young, you don't really think about that stuff. When you get older, you become more modest. I would feel very awkward taking a shower with my dad. So, this nonsense that EVERYONE is comfortable with nudity of the same sex is not only stupid, but delusional.

Your first time being naked in front of a group of people should feel different, because it's not what you're accustomed to

Kaichi wrote:
You're an idiot if you believe this. This is not, "Everything is legal if you don't get caught." This is, "Our policy is not to inquire about homosexuality and do not advertise homosexuality in any way."

Homosexuals are allowed in the military. They are simply not allowed to let anyone know about it.


That's funny, because that's not what the DoD says in their Homosexual Conduct Policy, so quit making stuff up. According to you, we are allowed to anything I want as long as I don't get caught? So you believe that we are actually allowed to commit adultery, fraternization, oral/anal sex?

Then answer me this? If we're allowed to do those things, then why are we punished if we get caught?

People realized that asking people their sexual orientation "violated" their privacy, so therefore they removed that question. Just like no one ever asks you "Does your wife ever suck your d*ck?". It's the same act of respect, even though they aren't authorized to do either.

I know what you're trying to get at, but you can't say that homosexuality is allowed in the military, if they are chaptered out of the military for being a homosexual.




____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#679 Jan 05 2011 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Wow, you're not expressing any understanding on how the military works. Showering is only an issue during training and in the field. In garrison , you're more than likely not forced to shower with anyone, but probably forced to room with someone. This is where the argument against sharing a room with a homosexual comes into play. So, putting aside your completely made up 5% of gay Soliders, you DO NOT shower with anyone during garrison. This is why the argument "you already shower with them" fails. Even if you did, SGT Johnson, who just came to the unit, never showered with gay SGT Thomas before. So, you can't say "You showered with him before, because he hasn't.
You having more experience in this, I'd generally take your word for it, but you've never brought this up once when the "already showering with gays" was mentioned 100x before, so I'm not sure why you'd suddenly "remember" this point now.



Edited, Jan 5th 2011 10:12pm by Uglysasquatch


Because, I've stated numerous times before, I live by myself. I don't think about this because I'm generally not going to be in that situation as much as my Soldiers.

The probability showering with a homosexual is relatively the same, but not for rooming with a homosexual.

From the get go, I've said that I don't shower with homosexuals, because I live by myself. You can't blame if you thought I was one of the few in the military that did.


Ugly wrote:
But if that's the case, then I guess your comfort argument is out the window as well since they'll never shower with gays anyway.


Did you overlook when I said during training and while in the field? It's just not everyday as you proclaim it to be.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#680 Jan 05 2011 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
+1
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#681 Jan 05 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I live by myself.
Glad you are getting used to it. Something tells me that won't ever change.

I should stop posting for now... 5,050 is such a nice, round number.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 8:45pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#682Almalieque, Posted: Jan 05 2011 at 8:49 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well, given the fact that you're a dunce,I'm sure you derived that from the same way you did everything else, from the place where unicorns roam free.
#683 Jan 05 2011 at 8:50 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Quote:
Did you overlook when I said during training and while in the field?
If it's not frequent enough to be a defense for "already showering with gays", it's not frequent enough to be a comfort issue in the shower. Pick one, as it can't be one, but not the other.
____________________________
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

#684 Jan 05 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Demea wrote:
+1
I gotta get to 30k somehow.
____________________________
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

#685 Jan 05 2011 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LAST
____________________________
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]
#686 Jan 05 2011 at 9:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Did you overlook when I said during training and while in the field?
If it's not frequent enough to be a defense for "already showering with gays", it's not frequent enough to be a comfort issue in the shower. Pick one, as it can't be one, but not the other.



You're confused on the scenario... You're making the assumption that Jon showers with Mark everyday, so what's the point? That's not the case. You nor I know the frequency of a unit going to the field. It can be twice a year or it could be every month. In either case, the fact that you're overlooking is, SGT Thomas, the new guy, can be in a unit for a month or so, then has a field problem. Now he has to shower with homosexuals for x amount of days. You can't make the argument that SGT Thomas showered with Mark before, "so what's the difference now?", because he never showered with Mark before. Just because it doesn't happen everyday doesn't mean it isn't worth looking accommodating. Do you think women would accept open showers during training and while in the field? "Well,listen women, it isn't everyday, so quit complaining!"

You forget that people move in the military. Even if Jon showered with gay Mark everyday, doesn't mean he's comfortable showering with gay Billy, the new guy. It also doesn't mean that Jon is comfortable showering with Sam, the open gay guy in his new unit.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#687 Jan 05 2011 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
How do you know billy is gay?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#688 Jan 05 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
How do you know billy is gay?


Work with me.. The scenario is that Billy is gay. Pick a way.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#689 Jan 05 2011 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
But how do you know? and is Jon a friend did he tell you he isn't comfortable?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#690 Jan 05 2011 at 9:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Did you overlook when I said during training and while in the field?
If it's not frequent enough to be a defense for "already showering with gays", it's not frequent enough to be a comfort issue in the shower. Pick one, as it can't be one, but not the other.



You're confused on the scenario... You're making the assumption that Jon showers with Mark everyday, so what's the point? That's not the case. You nor I know the frequency of a unit going to the field. It can be twice a year or it could be every month. In either case, the fact that you're overlooking is, SGT Thomas, the new guy, can be in a unit for a month or so, then has a field problem. Now he has to shower with homosexuals for x amount of days. You can't make the argument that SGT Thomas showered with Mark before, "so what's the difference now?", because he never showered with Mark before. Just because it doesn't happen everyday doesn't mean it isn't worth looking accommodating. Do you think women would accept open showers during training and while in the field? "Well,listen women, it isn't everyday, so quit complaining!"

You forget that people move in the military. Even if Jon showered with gay Mark everyday, doesn't mean he's comfortable showering with gay Billy, the new guy. It also doesn't mean that Jon is comfortable showering with Sam, the open gay guy in his new unit.
Without repealing DADT, when SGT Thomas goes to the field now, he has to shower with gay Billy. see how it makes no difference? The point of my first post that started this tangent is that you're showering with enough guys to know that at some point, you're showering with a gay soldier. Repealing DADT and having that gay soldier come out, just lets you know specifically which soldier is the gay soldier. Now you can make an effort to avoid showering with that soldier whenever possible.

Edited, Jan 5th 2011 11:26pm 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

#691 Jan 05 2011 at 11:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Sexuality is a personality trait.


I'm going to need a credible source here. Sexuality is an enduring trait, whereas personality traits can vary throughout a lifetime. I've a rather extensive education of psychology, and to say that sexuality is a personality trait is contentious at best. Just because something isn't a physical trait (which sexuality is at least partially physical), doesn't mean it's a personality trait. One's religion is not a part of their personality, for instance.

Quote:
So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?


No, dumbass. Being anxious because of someone's sexuality or being seen naked by them is not the same as being afraid of being assaulted, baseless or not. Christ.

Quote:
WTFRU talking about? I said that they are completely different because they are.


Quote:
I never said "barely", because they are the same.


So like I said:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure you've actually just lost grasp of the argument.


Quote:
You're in denial. Your argument only holds true for young children, not adults. It's ok for two 4 year old brothers to share a bath or get dressed together. At certain ages, it's even ok for both sexes to share baths and get dressed together. As you get older, that isn't the case. You become more private with your body towards both sexes. For every family of adults who aren't married, that share showers together in their home, I can name you a family that is out of the norm.

MANY PEOPLE ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH NUDITY. Period. When you're young, you don't really think about that stuff. When you get older, you become more modest. I would feel very awkward taking a shower with my dad. So, this nonsense that EVERYONE is comfortable with nudity of the same sex is not only stupid, but delusional.

Your first time being naked in front of a group of people should feel different, because it's not what you're accustomed to


It's less that I'm in denial and more that you're ignorant. I've been in a lot of locker rooms, probably a lot more than you. Some boys/guys are more shy about nudity than others. Shyness is generally about body image, not expressly nudity or sexuality. People who are more secure with their body generally don't have a problem with being seen by the same sex. You'll just have to trust me-- this is a subject I am intimately familiar with. Kids are mostly ok with it otherwise because adults endorse it. That's pretty much how it works!

Quote:

That's funny, because that's not what the DoD says in their Homosexual Conduct Policy, so quit making stuff up. According to you, we are allowed to anything I want as long as I don't get caught? So you believe that we are actually allowed to commit adultery, fraternization, oral/anal sex?

Then answer me this? If we're allowed to do those things, then why are we punished if we get caught?


No, that IS what the DOD says. You're confusing (probably intentionally) homosexual CONDUCT with homosexual orientation. The DOD says very clearly that people are not to be discharged for their sexual orientation. They can, however, be discharged for homosexual conduct, which really just means that they can be discharged for sodomy, just like straight service members can be.

Didn't you say you were in the military or something? Shouldn't you know more about this than I do?

____________________________
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.
#692 Jan 06 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque The Great wrote:
You forget that people move in the military. Even if Jon showered with gay Mark everyday, doesn't mean he's comfortable showering with gay Billy, the new guy. It also doesn't mean that Jon is comfortable showering with Sam, the open gay guy in his new unit.
But how do you know? and is Jon a friend did he tell you he isn't comfortable?


I'm not in the scenario. The scenario is Jon and gay Billy.


Ugly wrote:
Without repealing DADT, when SGT Thomas goes to the field now, he has to shower with gay Billy. see how it makes no difference? The point of my first post that started this tangent is that you're showering with enough guys to know that at some point, you're showering with a gay soldier. Repealing DADT and having that gay soldier come out, just lets you know specifically which soldier is the gay soldier. Now you can make an effort to avoid showering with that soldier whenever possible.


What's "enough"? Each person is different. Just because I feel comfortable showering with Ana, doesn't mean I feel comfortable showering with Sarah, no matter how many women I've showered with in the past. For you to think otherwise is silly.

It's a big psychological difference, which is the base for men and women separation to begin with.

Kachi wrote:
I'm going to need a credible source here. Sexuality is an enduring trait, whereas personality traits can vary throughout a lifetime. I've a rather extensive education of psychology, and to say that sexuality is a personality trait is contentious at best. Just because something isn't a physical trait (which sexuality is at least partially physical), doesn't mean it's a personality trait. One's religion is not a part of their personality, for instance.


I disagree, but I'm not going to go down that tangent (only need 12 posts to 4k). Pick whatever word you choose, at the end of the day, you don't know anything about knowing someone's skin color. On the other hand, you do know something about the person by knowing what they are sexually attracted to.

Kaichi wrote:


No, dumbass. Being anxious because of someone's sexuality or being seen naked by them is not the same as being afraid of being assaulted, baseless or not. Christ.


I didn't say anything about assault, so please answer the question."So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?"

Kaichi wrote:
I'm pretty sure you've actually just lost grasp of the argument.


Difference was in reference to discrimination of skin color to discrimination of someone's sexuality. The similarity was in reference to the comfort concerns that women have for men and what men have for homosexual men. I'm not sure who mixed up what, but that should clarify up things for you.

Kaichi wrote:

It's less that I'm in denial and more that you're ignorant. I've been in a lot of locker rooms, probably a lot more than you.


This is the thing, people grow out of being exposed to others and they grow into being more conservative with their bodies UNTIL they are introduced to locker rooms. During this time, they have to go through a psychological change of thought. Even in my locker room experiences in middle school and high school, no one got naked, only undressed to their underwear. If that's the case for someone, actually showering in the public is another psychological change of thought.

So, while people like athletes may be accustomed to sharing showers with people throughout their lives, that's not true for everyone else. So, you can't assume the comfort levels for everybody and their past history.

Kaichi wrote:
Some boys/guys are more shy about nudity than others. Shyness is generally about body image, not expressly nudity or sexuality. People who are more secure with their body generally don't have a problem with being seen by the same sex. You'll just have to trust me-- this is a subject I am intimately familiar with. Kids are mostly ok with it otherwise because adults endorse it. That's pretty much how it works!


I completely agree that body image is a major factor to be comfortable with nudity, but that doesn't mean that people who are comfortable with their body has no problem with public nudity. Those are two different situations. Rather if it's from shame or sexual attraction, the over theme is that you don't want anyone to see you naked.

Kaichi wrote:
No, that IS what the DOD says. You're confusing (probably intentionally) homosexual CONDUCT with homosexual orientation. The DOD says very clearly that people are not to be discharged for their sexual orientation. They can, however, be discharged for homosexual conduct, which really just means that they can be discharged for sodomy, just like straight service members can be.




I think it's evident now that you actually didn't read the Homosexual Conduct Policy. A homosexual can get discharged out the military for being a homosexual without actually violating any Sodomy laws. This is what we argued in the last DADT thread my image argument. A person can get discharged for simply saying "I'm gay". That is not homosexual conduct, but is considered as such by the DOD. Saying "I'm gay" doesn't make you gay.

I'm not confusing conduct with orientation. You are confusing (probably intentionally) "being able to join" with "being allowed to join". As the DoD stated, your sexual orientation should be kept private, so there is no justification to just ask someone if they're sucking d*ck. That isn't ALLOWING homosexuals, but enables them to join without lying. Even if they asked your sexuality, homosexuals could still join because homosexuals don't walk around with Scarlett Letters.


Kaichi wrote:
Didn't you say you were in the military or something? Shouldn't you know more about this than I do?

I'm in the U.S Military, not the Red Ribbon Army of Unicorns and Rainbows. You know, the one you made up.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#693 Jan 06 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
I'm not in the scenario. The scenario is Jon and gay Billy.



I don't get it what are you trying to say then?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#694 Jan 06 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
No. My whole point was about the use of the word "repeal" when that wasn't really what was going on.


It had nothing at all to do with the legal changes and everything to do with how they were presented to the public. Call it an observation on human nature. The psychology of political linguistics. Whatever floats your boat.


Oh, I know that's what you were on about. It was too stupid an argument to forget.


The problem was that it was too smart an argument for most of you to deal with. You like your politics dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and don't like when someone points this out.

It's funny how uptight some of you get about this though. My observation didn't say anything about the legitimacy of the proposed legal changes at all, but to judge by the response, you'd think I'd just eaten your favorite pet or something. Very very defensive.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#695 Jan 06 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I'm not in the scenario. The scenario is Jon and gay Billy.



I don't get it what are you trying to say then?


Almalieque wrote:
You forget that people move in the military. Even if Jon showered with gay Mark everyday, doesn't mean he's comfortable showering with gay Billy, the new guy. It also doesn't mean that Jon is comfortable showering with Sam, the open gay guy in his new unit.


Well, let me try it again...

Two scenarios:

Scenario A: Jon showers with Mark in open showers. Jon finds out that Mark is gay. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. Gay Billy joins the unit. Jon is not comfortable showering with gay Billy.

Scenario B:Jon showers with Mark in open showers. Jon finds out that Mark is gay. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. Jon moves to another unit. Gay Billy is at Jon's new unit. Jon is not comfortable showering with gay Billy.


The point of these scenarios is that just because a guy is comfortable showering with one gay person or has showered with a gay person, it doesn't mean that he should be comfortable showering with another.

Women have showered with men in their past, that doesn't mean that they are comfortable showering with every other man.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#696 Jan 06 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Then it's not the fact that the person is gay that the problem but individual comfort level with individual soldiers, which to me sounds like something that you can't and shouldn't cater to. You could make billy at the new unit straight but jon is uncomfortable showering with him. You can't cater to that.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 6:30pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#697 Jan 06 2011 at 6:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The problem was that it was too smart an argument for most of you to deal with.

That must have been it :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#698 Jan 06 2011 at 7:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Then it's not the fact that the person is gay that the problem but individual comfort level with individual soldiers, which to me sounds like something that you can't and shouldn't cater to. You could make billy at the new unit straight but jon is uncomfortable showering with him. You can't cater to that.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 6:30pm by Xsarus


Not at all, that is only a possibility.

It could be very possible that Jon knows that Mark isn't interested in him, so it doesn't bother him. Billy may be a little too flamboyant for his comfort, making jokes of sorts or he could just have a "hunch" that Billy might be interested in him. In any case, of numerous possible cases, it is possible that Jon may think that gay Billy might be checking him out while certain that Mark isn't the slightest bit interested in him.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#699 Jan 06 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
lol, gbaji. It was a stupid argument, and that's all there is to it. You should be able to acknowledge that in retrospect.

Alma, let me help you out, straight from the military on the DoD policy:
Quote:

Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Armed Forces and for separation from the Armed Forces.
Sexual Orientation is NOT a bar to enlistment or to continued service.


You're wrong, you lose, good day.

As for your other bullsh*t, I'm growing tired of dealing with you, and have an upcoming trip to Vegas, so you'll just have to continue being wrong, I guess. It's not like that would probably change if I responded, so...

Bye!
____________________________
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.
#700 Jan 06 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Kachi wrote:
lol, gbaji. It was a stupid argument, and that's all there is to it.


Or... It's labeled as a stupid argument by those who don't want to be reminded that their political positions are pretty much solely based on word manipulation.

Quote:
You should be able to acknowledge that in retrospect.


I'd say the same. It's not like I invented some new definition of the word "repeal" or anything. Any honest person should be able to quickly conclude that despite the word repeal being used as a label, what we're doing isn't in fact a repeal of DADT.


I'll freely admit that it's a minor point, but that only makes it more interesting to see some people argue so strongly against it. I'm honestly sorta curious why it's so important to some of you that no one realize that "repeal" is not really the correct term for what we're doing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#701 Jan 06 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Almalieque wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I'm not in the scenario. The scenario is Jon and gay Billy.



I don't get it what are you trying to say then?


Almalieque wrote:
You forget that people move in the military. Even if Jon showered with gay Mark everyday, doesn't mean he's comfortable showering with gay Billy, the new guy. It also doesn't mean that Jon is comfortable showering with Sam, the open gay guy in his new unit.


Well, let me try it again...

Two scenarios:

Scenario A: Jon showers with Mark in open showers. Jon finds out that Mark is gay. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. Gay Billy joins the unit. Jon is not comfortable showering with gay Billy.

Scenario B:Jon showers with Mark in open showers. Jon finds out that Mark is gay. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. Jon moves to another unit. Gay Billy is at Jon's new unit. Jon is not comfortable showering with gay Billy.


The point of these scenarios is that just because a guy is comfortable showering with one gay person or has showered with a gay person, it doesn't mean that he should be comfortable showering with another.

Women have showered with men in their past, that doesn't mean that they are comfortable showering with every other man.



Ohhhh I see you were trying to make a point. Ok well how about this.

Scenario A: Jon showers with Mark in open showers. Jon finds out that Mark is gay. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. Gay Billy joins the unit. Jon is comfortable showering with gay Billy too since he just doesn't give a sh*t.

Scenario B:Jon showers with Mark in open showers. Jon finds out that Mark is gay. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. Jon moves to another unit. Gay Billy is at Jon's new unit. Jon is comfortable showering with gay Billy because he just doesn't give a sh*t.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 89 All times are in CDT