Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#702 Jan 06 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Kachi wrote:
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!


I was actually waiting for such a response... I have been reading the Homosexual Conduct Policy since yesterday, so you can't fool me in any way shape or form. It was a PDF file, so I would have to type it, but you leave me no choice. It clearly says that your sexual orientation is your own privacy. That's exactly What I said. That's why they stopped asking it. That didn't authorize you to be a homosexual.

Let me quote and actually SOURCE it for you since you refuse to read it yourself..

{....] A basis for discharge exists if - [....]

(2)The Soldier has said the he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or made some other statement that indicates the propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts....
[...]

(4)
[...]

(c) A reliable person states that he or she observed behaviors that amounts to a nonverbal statement by a Soldier that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual(that is, behavior that a reasonable person would believe intended to convey the statement that a Soldier engages in, attempts to engage in, or has the propensity or intent to engage in homosexual act)

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#703 Jan 06 2011 at 7:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
I'm not in the scenario. The scenario is Jon and *** 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 *** Mark everyday, doesn't mean he's comfortable showering with *** Billy, the new guy. It also doesn't mean that Jon is comfortable showering with Sam, the open *** 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 ***. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. *** Billy joins the unit. Jon is not comfortable showering with *** Billy.

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


The point of these scenarios is that just because a guy is comfortable showering with one *** person or has showered with a *** 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 ***. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. *** Billy joins the unit. Jon is comfortable showering with *** 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 ***. Jon is cool with showering with Mark because of their past. Jon moves to another unit. *** Billy is at Jon's new unit. Jon is comfortable showering with *** Billy because he just doesn't give a sh*t.



Nothing wrong with those scenarios you mentioned, but you can't pretend as if they are the only two scenarios. Furthermore, you can't pretend that since one man showered with one homosexual, then he should be ok to shower with another one...

Edited, Jan 8th 2011 2:32pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#704 Jan 06 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
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.

Or it was just a stupid argument.

Quote:
what we're doing isn't in fact a repeal of DADT.

The fact that you obviously don't know what a repeal is doesn't mean it's not a repeal. It just means that you're ignorant.

Quote:
that only makes it more interesting to see some people argue so strongly against it.

Gee, I feel so shamed now. I guess I better just admit that your idiotic understanding of the law is correct because I'd sure hate to have you imply that I'm ever so scared to have people know the "truth".

Or maybe you're just wrong and it's pretty trivial to point this out since, you know, you're wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#705 Jan 06 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Furthermore, you can't pretend that since one *** showered with one homosexual, then he should ok to shower with another one...
Actually he can. What you shouldn't do is pretend since he was ok showering with one ***, and is ok showering with any other ***, that everyone would be comfortable showering with any ***. What we also shouldn't do, is worry about that group, because, you know, they're bigots.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#706 Jan 06 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
I never once said it did, and I never once said there was anything wrong with people feeling uncomfortable. But segregating people based on sexual orientation is discriminatory. You are arguing that feelings might get hurt or stepped on, guess what it happens in life. Some people get over it, some people avoid it, and others they go down the right avenues to address it.

In this case Jon has a couple choices.

A. He tries to avoid showering with billy as much as he can
B. He notifys his unit cheif of the situation so maybe he can be reasinged or put on alternate duty rosters
C. He takes it in stride and tries to deal with it
D. He leaves the army.

Separating Homosexuals and Heterosexuals is discrimination. This is the point of your argument that is bigotry. Not having uncomfortable feelings, but demanding that ****'s be separated.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#707 Jan 06 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Just for additional lulz, in the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" (hahaha... nice name; stay classy, Eric Cantor!) contains this provision in it...
lolcantor wrote:
(a) Job-Killing Health Care Law- Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

(b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010- Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.
(bolding mine)

Why... it's almost as though Rep. Cantor might be lacking in the legislation naming talents but he understands that repealing a law doesn't magically make all the other laws from the past rush in to fill its place! Who'd have thunk it?? Oh... I can think of someone....

I previously wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll point out again that it was already an offense to be engage in homosexual activities while serving in the military prior to the passage of DADT

It. Does. Not. Matter. Section 654 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 is what governed homosexuality in the military. That's it. That was the law of the land. It's not like pulling up carpeting where you remove the shag and say "Now the new floor is this tile laid in 1955! Oh, wait.. we pulled this up and now the new floor is this hardwood from 1940!" Do you really think this is the case? Seriously? There was no hardwood under the DADT policy in the 1993/94 bill -- that policy was the law.

Huh.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 8:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#708 Jan 06 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Just for additional lulz, in the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" (hahaha... nice name; stay classy, Eric Cantor!) contains this provision in it...
lolcantor wrote:
(a) Job-Killing Health Care Law- Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

(b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010- Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.
(bolding mine)


Um... You just proved my point Joph.

A "repeal" restores the law to the state it was before the repealed act was passed. So if you repealed DADT, it would restore the law to the state it was before DADT was passed. As I stated repeatedly, this is not what the current changes are doing. If it was, then the law would go back to how it was prior to the passage of DADT. In which case homosexuals would not only be barred from service, but the military could go back to asking them if they are *** as a condition for enlistment, promotion, access to classified information, etc.


Which is exactly the point I made in the previous thread. This is *not* a repeal. And no amount of calling it a repeal makes it so. What Cantor is talking about *is* a repeal since they're going to try to make it as though the health care act was never passed. I honestly can't figure out how you could actually post that and still not realize that you're wrong. It's right there. You even bolded the relevant portions. A repeal returns the law to the state it was prior to the passage of the repealed act.


Are we trying to return our military code to the state it was in prior to the passage of DADT? Yes or no?

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 6:31pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#709 Jan 06 2011 at 8:31 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Kachi wrote:

You're wrong, you lose, good day.

relevant.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 8:32pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#710 Jan 06 2011 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I previously wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll point out again that it was already an offense to be engage in homosexual activities while serving in the military prior to the passage of DADT

It. Does. Not. Matter. Section 654 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 is what governed homosexuality in the military. That's it. That was the law of the land. It's not like pulling up carpeting where you remove the shag and say "Now the new floor is this tile laid in 1955! Oh, wait.. we pulled this up and now the new floor is this hardwood from 1940!" Do you really think this is the case? Seriously? There was no hardwood under the DADT policy in the 1993/94 bill -- that policy was the law.

Huh.


Yes. So a repeal of DADT will restore Section 654 back to whatever state it was prior to the passage of DADT. It will also restore any other Sections which were changed by DADT to the state they were in prior to the passage of DADT. Because that's what it means to "repeal" a Act.

Get it yet? If they do that, the law goes back to how it was before. We are not repealing DADT. We are passing a new law, which strikes out sections of the military code which were created by DADT, but that's not the same thing. I'll point out your own bolded sections from the previous post. For it to be a repeal, it would not only remove the Section in question, but it would restore the previous language to its form prior to passage of DADT.


How can you not understand what "repeal" means? It's just surprising that you're arguing with me about this. I swear it's like you suddenly can't understand English or something.

Edited, Jan 6th 2011 6:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#711 Jan 06 2011 at 9:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... You just proved my point Joph.

Hahahah...

Quote:
A "repeal" restores the law to the state it was before the repealed act was passed. So if you repealed DADT, it would restore the law to the state it was before DADT was passed.

Erm, no. Hence the additional provision that the laws would be restored. A completely unnecessary provision if this was the default rule. You would simply say "Job-Killing Health Care Law- Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed" period-full-stop.

Quote:
Are we trying to return our military code to the state it was in prior to the passage of DADT? Yes or no?

Again, you don't understand legislation which is why you thought this was some tricky question. No, we're not. That doesn't mean what you think it does. What makes it a repeal is when it plainly says that the section consisting of DADT is struck from the law.

Quote:
For it to be a repeal, it would not only remove the Section in question, but it would restore the previous language to its form prior to passage of DADT.

Erm, only if you have some newbie's understanding I guess. Which you are apparently hellbent on proving you do.

Quote:
How can you not understand what "repeal" means?

lulz.

Lectlaw.com wrote:
The abrogation or destruction of a law by a legislative act.
Law.com wrote:
to annul an existing law, by passage of a repealing statute [...] 2) n. the act of annulling a statute.


There is a general idea that a repeal of a repeal restores the original law. So if the DADT Repeal Act was in turn repealed by the Repeal The Job-Killing DADT Repeal Act, then DADT would be restored. But only because we're dealing specifically with repealing a repeal act. The military appropriations bill in 1994 didn't "repeal" anything, it simply set a new standard of rules.

I already understand that you're not able to follow along with this. I understand that you will keep saying "But repeal only means this!" like some twit arguing that the theory of gravity is just a guess because it has the word "theory" and they only grasp the most simplistic meaning of the word and can't wrap their noggin around the idea that it might have a deeper and more nuanced definition within specific professional circles but, well, it's always fun to watch you try.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#712 Jan 06 2011 at 9:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,708 posts
Lol. Interesting mental gyrations there Joph. Look. We all know that when you repeal a law, it undoes whatever that law did. That's what "repeal" means. Even grade schoolers know that you are wrong, so why not just drop it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#713 Jan 06 2011 at 9:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Look. We all know that when you repeal a law, it undoes whatever that law did. That's what "repeal" means. Even grade schoolers know that you are wrong, so why not just drop it?

LOL. That's your golden argument? "You have legal definitions and examples from legislation but I have school children who agree with me!! You hear me?!! SCHOOL CHILDREN!!!"
I just wrote:
I understand that you will keep saying "But repeal only means this!" like some twit arguing that the theory of gravity is just a guess because it has the word "theory" and they only grasp the most simplistic meaning of the word and can't wrap their noggin around the idea that it might have a deeper and more nuanced definition within specific professional circles but, well, it's always fun to watch you try.

Thanks for proving me correct so quickly. And congratulations on siding with school children over legal dictionaries.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#714 Jan 06 2011 at 11:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

I was actually waiting for such a response... I have been reading the Homosexual Conduct Policy since yesterday, so you can't fool me in any way shape or form. It was a PDF file, so I would have to type it, but you leave me no choice. It clearly says that your sexual orientation is your own privacy. That's exactly What I said. That's why they stopped asking it. That didn't authorize you to be a homosexual.

Let me quote and actually SOURCE it for you since you refuse to read it yourself..


Great, so you acknowledge that you were wrong, I was right, and gays are allowed to serve in the military so long as it's a secret. I can enjoy my trip to Vegas without that on my mind... phew!
____________________________
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.
#715 Jan 07 2011 at 12:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel wrote:
Thanks for proving me correct so quickly. And congratulations on siding with school children over legal dictionaries.
Legal dictionaries were just created by the gays to destroy the military man.
____________________________
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
#716 Jan 07 2011 at 5:25 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
You guys should really stop discriminating against gbaji.
#717 Jan 07 2011 at 6:10 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Furthermore, you can't pretend that since one *** showered with one homosexual, then he should ok to shower with another one...
Actually he can. What you shouldn't do is pretend since he was ok showering with one ***, and is ok showering with any other ***, that everyone would be comfortable showering with any ***. What we also shouldn't do, is worry about that group, because, you know, they're bigots.


Oh, I forgot who I was arguing with. You're just trolling now.. For the people who actually believe that nonsense, his statement is false because 1 person doesn't represent an entire group of people. That's like telling women who ever showered with a male significant other that it's no different showering with a group of male strangers. The only way his idiotic claim could be true is if all homosexuals were the same.

RDD wrote:
I never once said it did, and I never once said there was anything wrong with people feeling uncomfortable. But segregating people based on sexual orientation is discriminatory. You are arguing that feelings might get hurt or stepped on, guess what it happens in life. Some people get over it, some people avoid it, and others they go down the right avenues to address it.

In this case Jon has a couple choices.

A. He tries to avoid showering with billy as much as he can
B. He notifys his unit cheif of the situation so maybe he can be reasinged or put on alternate duty rosters
C. He takes it in stride and tries to deal with it
D. He leaves the army.

Separating Homosexuals and Heterosexuals is discrimination. This is the point of your argument that is bigotry. Not having uncomfortable feelings, but demanding that ****'s be separated.


Now, we're getting somewhere. If your argument is based on "discrimination", then guess what? In life we discriminate. That's what happens, there is no way around it. Discrimination is not inherently bad or good. Separation by *** is discrimination. In some situations it's justified in others it isn't justified. If you can justify it, as I did with homosexuals, then the discrimination stands. If you can't justify it, then the discrimination falls. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't justified. I don't like the fact that women have an entire 3 extra mins to run on their physical fitness test than me, but it doesn't change the justification.

Kachi wrote:
Great, so you acknowledge that you were wrong, I was right, and gays are allowed to serve in the military so long as it's a secret. I can enjoy my trip to Vegas without that on my mind... phew!


I guess you realize that you're wrong now, by your short responses and attempt to change your argument. Uhhhh.... my argument was that homosexuals are ABLE to join as long as they kept it secret. That was the whole point of DADT, to enable homosexuals to join without lying. That doesn't mean being a homosexual is allowed. You responded that I was confusing being homosexual with homosexual conduct, that those people are being discharged for homosexual conduct. I quoted in the policy where the person doesn't have to actually do any homosexual conduct, just have evidence that s/he is a homosexual.

So, you're wrong. You know you're wrong. Just admit it. It's not that hard.

By the way, you forgot to answer my question below.


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?"
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#718 Jan 07 2011 at 6:36 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
Now, we're getting somewhere. If your argument is based on "discrimination", then guess what? In life we discriminate. That's what happens, there is no way around it. Discrimination is not inherently bad or good. Separation by *** is discrimination. In some situations it's justified in others it isn't justified. If you can justify it, as I did with homosexuals, then the discrimination stands. If you can't justify it, then the discrimination falls. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't justified. I don't like the fact that women have an entire 3 extra mins to run on their physical fitness test than me, but it doesn't change the justification.


Which has already been covered, men have a ***** and women have a ******, *** men and straight men both have a *****, *** women and straight women both have a ******.

as for why women have a slightly longer time on their fitness test. That is because they have less overall muscle mass then men. Meaning they are slower, while still capable of doing stuff like a man, they are at a disadvantage due to anatomy, and they can do nothing about that.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#719 Jan 07 2011 at 6:43 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
Now, we're getting somewhere. If your argument is based on "discrimination", then guess what? In life we discriminate. That's what happens, there is no way around it. Discrimination is not inherently bad or good. Separation by *** is discrimination. In some situations it's justified in others it isn't justified. If you can justify it, as I did with homosexuals, then the discrimination stands. If you can't justify it, then the discrimination falls. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't justified. I don't like the fact that women have an entire 3 extra mins to run on their physical fitness test than me, but it doesn't change the justification.


Which has already been covered, men have a ***** and women have a ******, *** men and straight men both have a *****, *** women and straight women both have a ******.

as for why women have a slightly longer time on their fitness test. That is because they have less overall muscle mass then men. Meaning they are slower, while still capable of doing stuff like a man, they are at a disadvantage due to anatomy, and they can do nothing about that.


So,you agree that discrimination isn't inherently wrong.

If it were because of body parts, then both men and women would be separated in the office too. Men don't lose their penises in the office, nor do women lose their vaginas in the office. So, why aren't men and women separated in the office? Why are they separated in the bathroom? Now, every bathroom have stalls and urinal dividers.

If you want to live in fantasy world and believe that this has nothing to do with privacy and comfort, go ahead, but it'll be difficult to answer those questions without leading to that conclusion.

Edited, Jan 7th 2011 2:44pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#720 Jan 07 2011 at 10:00 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
If you find a nude office let me know.

Look the reason men and women are asked to shower separately is because a long long time ago the wonder Catholic Church deemed it inappropriate to see the other *** naked. This has carried on through society for hundreds and hundreds of years.

It is not something new that was made up to make women or men feel comfortable, it was something that was made up to prevent the possibility of sins. This was done way back when the church ruled the world. Long before equal rights movements, long before free speech movements long before people had any rights at all, other than the right to worship God.

Personally I think anyone should be able to shower together regardless of ***, but that is not how it works, and because of hundreds and hundreds of years and generation after generation of teaching children that nudity is wrong here we are.

The reason in this case that it is discriminatory is you are stating that *** men and *** women are not men or women. You are asking to have them separated further. *** men can like the same things, and perform the same tasks as straight men, likewise for *** women. The only thing that is different is their sexual orientation, in the sense *** men are attracted to men, and *** women are attracted to women. Other than that there is nothing different about them.

Now like I said I think everyone should have to shower together, this is not because I am some *** crazed pervert, If I want to see naked women I have the internet. But that just isn't how our societies work. Like I said before, if someone is uncomfortable then there are roads they can take to get comfortable. It is no different then any other workplace, you have a discomfort with someone you avoid them, notify your super, leave.

Separating homosexuals because they have a different sexual orientation is discrimination of their sexual orientation, it didn't work for separating Blacks and whites in schools, and it didn't work for separating boys and girls in schools. It would not surprise me that one day women and men were able to see each other naked again. But that won't happen until society itself accepts that it is not a sin, and that we give up a stupid rule imposed on us by the corrupt organization that was responsible for the most wonderful period in our history, the dark ages.

I know what you are saying, and ive not disagreed with your reasoning, I only disagree with your solution, it is ineffective, and is full of bigotry. The best solution is the same one we have everywhere else in society, if you are uncomfortable deal with it appropriately. *** men are men, *** women are women, there is nothing differet about them and therefor they should not be forced to be separated further because a few people are legitimately uncomfortable. (I say legitimately because most of the people complaining only do so because they hate homosexuality.)

Lastly, in every major country that has open service, there have not been reports of gays being any issue. In canada I think we have had maybe 5 cases of harassment in all the years it has been like this. Your argument is just simply not realistic. Unless of course it is based on a predetermined position on *** people, most people just do not give a ****.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#721 Jan 07 2011 at 10:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
So,you agree that discrimination isn't inherently wrong.

stealing from joph,
legal-dictionary.freedictionary wrote:
In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, ***, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.
USLegal.com wrote:
Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.


Alma, when people use discriminate they are referring to these definitions most of the time. You arguing about the ability to discriminate between apples and oranges is irrelevant because that's a different definition, and you very well know how they are using it. It is a completely correct use, and in this use discrimination is inherently wrong.

Edited, Jan 7th 2011 10:27am 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
#722 Jan 07 2011 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
Look the reason men and women are asked to shower separately is because a long long time ago the wonder Catholic Church deemed it inappropriate to see the other *** naked.

Good point. No other culture prior to c.50 AD or outside of the Middle East/Southern Europe ever developed customs regarding modesty.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#723 Jan 07 2011 at 11:31 AM 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]
#724 Jan 07 2011 at 11:40 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
11,982 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#725 Jan 07 2011 at 2:41 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
RDD wrote:
If you find a nude office let me know.


How does nudity have any part in the discrimination of *** in the office? Answer my questions. Why aren't men and women separated in the office? Why are they separated in the bathroom? Now, every bathroom have stalls and urinal dividers.

RDD wrote:
Look the reason men and women are asked to shower separately is because a long long time ago the wonder Catholic Church deemed it inappropriate to see the other *** naked. This has carried on through society for hundreds and hundreds of years.

It is not something new that was made up to make women or men feel comfortable, it was something that was made up to prevent the possibility of sins. This was done way back when the church ruled the world. Long before equal rights movements, long before free speech movements long before people had any rights at all, other than the right to worship God.

Personally I think anyone should be able to shower together regardless of ***, but that is not how it works, and because of hundreds and hundreds of years and generation after generation of teaching children that nudity is wrong here we are.


Overlooking the fact that you're just making up crap that sounds good to you, your argument is "well that's the way it has always been, so why change?".

rdd wrote:
The reason in this case that it is discriminatory is you are stating that *** men and *** women are not men or women. You are asking to have them separated further. *** men can like the same things, and perform the same tasks as straight men, likewise for *** women. The only thing that is different is their sexual orientation, in the sense *** men are attracted to men, and *** women are attracted to women. Other than that there is nothing different about them.


No, this isn't about treating homosexuals differently than their ***, but treating them the same in reference to the situation regardless of their ***. The real reason is about comfort. People don't feel comfortable with the possibility of someone looking at them while being nude. That's the bottom line. So, society has segregated men from women for modesty reasons. Now in 2011, more people are open about their sexuality and so the same concerns exist with men as they do *** men. So, they are treated the same, segregated for comfort reasons in the showers. If this separation occurred in the office, then you could claim unjustified discrimination.

RDD wrote:
Now like I said I think everyone should have to shower together, this is not because I am some *** crazed pervert, If I want to see naked women I have the internet. But that just isn't how our societies work. Like I said before, if someone is uncomfortable then there are roads they can take to get comfortable. It is no different then any other workplace, you have a discomfort with someone you avoid them, notify your super, leave.


So, if society agreed to the ban of homosexuality in the military, you would be ok with that?

RDD wrote:
Separating homosexuals because they have a different sexual orientation is discrimination of their sexual orientation, it didn't work for separating Blacks and whites in schools, and it didn't work for separating boys and girls in schools. It would not surprise me that one day women and men were able to see each other naked again. But that won't happen until society itself accepts that it is not a sin, and that we give up a stupid rule imposed on us by the corrupt organization that was responsible for the most wonderful period in our history, the dark ages.


Dude, really? You're not helping your team.

1) Separate But Equal didn't work because it wasn't equal, not because it was separate. People fought to end that because the only way to be treated equally was to not be separated. This stupid belief that black people wanted to hold hands and work and live along side white people is beyond delusional.

2. No one is arguing that *** people shouldn't be able to work along side or go to school along side heterosexuals.

3. What do you mean All Boys/Girls schools *didn't* work, they still exist.

RDD wrote:
I know what you are saying, and ive not disagreed with your reasoning, I only disagree with your solution, it is ineffective, and is full of bigotry. The best solution is the same one we have everywhere else in society, if you are uncomfortable deal with it appropriately. *** men are men, *** women are women, there is nothing differet about them and therefor they should not be forced to be separated further because a few people are legitimately uncomfortable. (I say legitimately because most of the people complaining only do so because they hate homosexuality.)


I like how you said "most" in your reference to making stuff up. Hating homosexuality has nothing to do with the comfort of not wanting to be checked out in the shower. There are women that I don't want checking me out in the shower. As I said, people like you, are only using hate speech as a way to scare people to agreeing with you. I hate thieves and liars, but I have no concern with them in the shower unless they are checking me out, regardless of ***. You're trying to make this about *** when it's about modesty and comfort.

RDD wrote:

Lastly, in every major country that has open service, there have not been reports of gays being any issue. In canada I think we have had maybe 5 cases of harassment in all the years it has been like this. Your argument is just simply not realistic. Unless of course it is based on a predetermined position on *** people, most people just do not give a sh*t.


Look at nude beaches.. The same argument can be made there, so why are we separating by ***? Oh, that's right, because people do care.

If you believe that there were only 5 cases in Canada where a homosexual at least checked out a heterosexual, you're sadly mistaken. As stated earlier, there was this Soldier in my last unit that was sexually assaulted by a homosexual, that's 20% of your claimed cases.

Your statement is implying that I believe their would be a noticeable increase in sexual harassment/assault cases with homosexuals. That isn't my argument. I'm not concerned with the numbers, because I don't know. My argument is that a man can feel uncomfortable with the idea that someone might be checking him out and not be a bigot/homophobe based on the same reasons used by women.

Sir X wrote:
Alma, when people use discriminate they are referring to these definitions most of the time. You arguing about the ability to discriminate between apples and oranges is irrelevant because that's a different definition, and you very well know how they are using it. It is a completely correct use, and in this use discrimination is inherently wrong.


It is not inherently wrong because within that definition it states "where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes"


I gave him and Belkira a chance to explain the reasonable distinction between the groups. Stating the distinction (i.e. ***** vs ******) is not stating the reason for discriminating against the ***** and ******. I'm not asking you what you're discriminating, I'm asking why are you discriminating against the two?

For example, RDD said that women have extra time to run in the military because they run slower. That is a reason for discriminating against having a *****. You can't say, women have extra time to run because men have penises. That doesn't make sense. So, along that same line of thinking, I want a justification for the segregation of men and women in the showers.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#726 Jan 07 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
******
27,272 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#727 Jan 07 2011 at 3:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:

How does nudity have any part in the discrimination of *** in the office? Answer my questions. Why aren't men and women separated in the office? Why are they separated in the bathroom? Now, every bathroom have stalls and urinal dividers.


Because Nudity was made to be taboo. By the church. What was the first thing Adam and Eve did when they gained knowledge. Covered their junk. It has been made so by the church and continued to be expressed throughout the generations for thousands of years. Which is why I said find me a nude office, clothing is an acceptable counter to the taboo. It has always been this way, forever and ever amen.

Quote:
Overlooking the fact that you're just making up crap that sounds good to you, your argument is "well that's the way it has always been, so why change?".


Make stuff up? It is fact, and should likely be common knowledge, even to hardcore religious types. The Church enforced the doctrine they wrote chose to include in the bible. They did so in order to control society. Nudity was taboo'd because it said so in the bible. Back in the days where there was no such thing as rights.

Previously men and women shared communal baths, were nude infront of one another, a simple read through any history book will tell you all about historical societies and any read through a recent history book (last 1000 years or so) will tell you of the wonderous things the church did to suppress people and force them to live by rules they deemed were appropriate.

Quote:

No, this isn't about treating homosexuals differently than their ***, but treating them the same in reference to the situation regardless of their ***. The real reason is about comfort. People don't feel comfortable with the possibility of someone looking at them while being nude. That's the bottom line. So, society has segregated men from women for modesty reasons. Now in 2011, more people are open about their sexuality and so the same concerns exist with men as they do *** men. So, they are treated the same, segregated for comfort reasons in the showers. If this separation occurred in the office, then you could claim unjustified discrimination.


Some people don't feel comfortable being nude in front of anyone, does that mean we should separate the entire world (its a bigger number) into 7-8 billion little personal compartments so everyone is treated the exact same, everyone gets to avoid being social, because maybe 20% of that population was uncomfortable.

It is illogical and inefficient. There are programs in place that allow for the people who are uncomfortable to get comfort. In the military society and in civilian society. There is no special *** rules, because they are not any different. *** men are men, *** women are women. In Canada (because I can't use an example from your *** backwards land of lolliberty) gays and straights have the exact same rights, the exact same rules, and the exact same opportunities. If a straight man is uncomfortable around a *** man in a workplace he tells his super he is uncomfortable working with that person. This is then dealt with. It would be the same if he had an issue with a Straight man, woman or *******.

Quote:
So, if society agreed to the ban of homosexuality in the military, you would be ok with that?


I wouldn't personally, but if the majority chose it to be so than it would be so. I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality in any aspect of society, they are just as capable as a straight person and deserve the same rights and opportunities in their lives as I do.


Quote:
Look at nude beaches.. The same argument can be made there, so why are we separating by ***? Oh, that's right, because people do care.


Nude beaches are private, they are outside the domain of public interference. It is the same as if I opened my property to be a nudist colony. There is nothing anyone can do to me. Now if one of my nudist friends decided to go to the store and went naked they could be charged with indecent exposure because of laws that are enforceable on public property.

Quote:
Dude, really? You're not helping your team.


I am not on a team, I am calling you an idiot on my own. Your idea of separation based on a insignificant amount of real data from your own country, at the same time denying years of data from other countries is ridiculous. You are basing your entire position on hypothetical situation you have concocted to support your ridiculous case that Homosexuals will cause comfort issue for straight people. The data provided to the US by places like Canada, the UK and Australia who have had gays in the military for years does not support your hypothetical situations. It is business as usual. The only way that business won't be as usual is because of preconceived notions that gays are icky or evil. There is nothing that can change peoples mind set on that, not even seperation. These people are bigots and they will remain so until the very end.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#728 Jan 07 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
RDD wrote:
Because Nudity was made to be taboo. By the church. What was the first thing Adam and Eve did when they gained knowledge. Covered their junk. It has been made so by the church and continued to be expressed throughout the generations for thousands of years. Which is why I said find me a nude office, clothing is an acceptable counter to the taboo. It has always been this way, forever and ever amen.


You do realize that doesn't make sense right? You are arguing to me that I should be comfortable with nudity while at the same time saying that it was made to be taboo. So which one is it? Should we be comfortable with nudity or should we accommodate people's insecurity with nudity?

You still haven't answered my questions "Why aren't men and women separated in the office? Why are they separated in the bathroom? Now, every bathroom have stalls and urinal dividers." If your response is "nudity",then this discrimination isn't about ***, but about nudity. Also, what about public bathrooms? Bathrooms have stalls and dividers, so men and women can both use the restroom at the same time and not see any body parts. So, why are they still separated?

RDD wrote:
Make stuff up? It is fact, and should likely be common knowledge, even to hardcore religious types. The Church enforced the doctrine they wrote chose to include in the bible. They did so in order to control society. Nudity was taboo'd because it said so in the bible. Back in the days where there was no such thing as rights.

Previously men and women shared communal baths, were nude infront of one another, a simple read through any history book will tell you all about historical societies and any read through a recent history book (last 1000 years or so) will tell you of the wonderous things the church did to suppress people and force them to live by rules they deemed were appropriate.


I will have to agree with Jophiel on this one, but I'm not going to waste any more time referencing that. Your main point is still "It's always been like that, so why change?".

rdd wrote:
Some people don't feel comfortable being nude in front of anyone, does that mean we should separate the entire world (its a bigger number) into 7-8 billion little personal compartments so everyone is treated the exact same, everyone gets to avoid being social, because maybe 20% of that population was uncomfortable.

It is illogical and inefficient. There are programs in place that allow for the people who are uncomfortable to get comfort. In the military society and in civilian society. There is no special *** rules, because they are not any different. *** men are men, *** women are women. In Canada (because I can't use an example from your *** backwards land of lolliberty) gays and straights have the exact same rights, the exact same rules, and the exact same opportunities. If a straight man is uncomfortable around a *** man in a workplace he tells his super he is uncomfortable working with that person. This is then dealt with. It would be the same if he had an issue with a Straight man, woman or *******.


You're making a comfort issue directly involving sexual attraction about comfort in general. You're also claiming that homosexuals are being treated differently, but this argument is treating them the exact same. Women have comfort issues dealing with men in the showers, so they are separated. The same exact thing is being applied to homosexual and heterosexual men and women.

The reason why there aren't any "special *** rules" is because people it wasn't til recently when more people have become more open about their sexuality. Even today, a celebrity coming out makes headlines.

RDD wrote:
I wouldn't personally, but if the majority chose it to be so than it would be so. I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality in any aspect of society, they are just as capable as a straight person and deserve the same rights and opportunities in their lives as I do.


That's a pretty effed up way of thinking. You can't come on here and fight for "homosexual gains" and then say if society says it's ok, then oh well.

Quote:
I am not on a team, I am calling you an idiot on my own. Your idea of separation based on a insignificant amount of real data from your own country, at the same time denying years of data from other countries is ridiculous. You are basing your entire position on hypothetical situation you have concocted to support your ridiculous case that Homosexuals will cause comfort issue for straight people. The data provided to the US by places like Canada, the UK and Australia who have had gays in the military for years does not support your hypothetical situations. It is business as usual. The only way that business won't be as usual is because of preconceived notions that gays are icky or evil. There is nothing that can change peoples mind set on that, not even seperation. These people are bigots and they will remain so until the very end.


If you actually opened your mind into my statements as opposed to immediately finding a way to oppose them, you would realize that this data doesn't contradict my position, because they aren't referring to the same thing. This was never an issue of the ability of heterosexual and homosexual men showering together with no increase of noted problems. This was an issue about a heterosexual man being able to say that he isn't comfortable showering with a homosexual man for the same reasons why a woman isn't comfortable showering with a man and not be called a bigot or homophobe.

You integrate men and women in the showers, at first, it would be chaos. I've said a couple of times already on this thread that there is "shock factor" involved. That "shock factor" will go away throughout time of open nudity. After a few years, it would be just as business. I've given examples such as nude beaches, nude camps or any attractive person you ever seen naked more than once.

So, I'm not sure what "hypothetical" situation you're accusing me of. If you're referring to my scenarios, that happens more often than you probably think. The only difference is the knowledge that *** Billy is ***, which is the point of the discussion. What difference would it make if you found out that the guy you were showering with, was ***?
Posters claim that nothing would change, I showed how it would change and after I did that, now you want to question the relevance of the whole thing?! Sure, ok.. whatever man...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#729 Jan 07 2011 at 5:44 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
You do realize that doesn't make sense right? You are arguing to me that I should be comfortable with nudity while at the same time saying that it was made to be taboo. So which one is it? Should we be comfortable with nudity or should we accommodate people's insecurity with nudity?


No I am not saying you should be comfortable with nudity, that is entirely up to you. All I am saying is that the reason for separation and clothing is because the Church made it Taboo to see the naked body. It made seeing the opposite *** sinful as well, as stated numerous times in the bible.

These rules were enforced on people at a time when they had no power to change them. The rules were upheld generation after generation after generation. Previous organized cultures such as greek and roman held women and men on equal footing, often times women had more authority than men. These cultures also had communal baths where men and women liberally were seen naked in front of each other.

It was not until the Church gained power that these things began to change.


Quote:
You still haven't answered my questions "Why aren't men and women separated in the office? Why are they separated in the bathroom? Now, every bathroom have stalls and urinal dividers." If your response is "nudity",then this discrimination isn't about ***, but about nudity. Also, what about public bathrooms? Bathrooms have stalls and dividers, so men and women can both use the restroom at the same time and not see any body parts. So, why are they still separated?


Because influence from our ancestors were taught than men and women should not be together unless married, this was a result of years and years of being told that the fraternizing or displaying ones self around the opposite *** was wrong. While our current society has knocked some barriers down (women working, women voting) we still hold to those middle age values that women and men should not be naked around each other.
Quote:

That's a pretty effed up way of thinking. You can't come on here and fight for "homosexual gains" and then say if society says it's ok, then oh well.


I am not fighting for homosexual gains, I am arguing with you over your ineffective solution to a non existent problem.

Quote:
The reason why there aren't any "special *** rules" is because people it wasn't til recently when more people have become more open about their sexuality. Even today, a celebrity coming out makes headlines.


Why should there be any special rules? *** men are still men, and *** women are still women. They don't magically alter in to a 3rd and 4th sexual distinction. They follow the same rules men follow, and the same rules women follow, which is the same rules everyone follows. They should not have a special rule list, because that is discrimination.

Quote:
You're making a comfort issue directly involving sexual attraction about comfort in general. You're also claiming that homosexuals are being treated differently, but this argument is treating them the exact same. Women have comfort issues dealing with men in the showers, so they are separated. The same exact thing is being applied to homosexual and heterosexual men and women.


It is not the same, homosexual men are men, they should be treated like men and the same as men. They are not women. Stop using that as a comparison.
Quote:

This was an issue about a heterosexual man being able to say that he isn't comfortable showering with a homosexual man for the same reasons why a woman isn't comfortable showering with a man and not be called a bigot or homophobe.


and if you actually read the data posted (by joph i think) you would see it states specifically terms which involved harassment from gays, or to gays. Which is directly related to this. If Comfort/Privacy is your only argument then ill refer you to this rebutle.

Grow up.

Not everything is perfect, deal with it, you don't want to shower/room with a homosexual, you don't shower or room with a homosexual. You use the same avenues that people have been using for years to avoid people that make them feel uncomfortable.

A. Avoid said person
B. Notify a superior of your discomfort around said person
C. DEAL WITH IT
D. Leave the place and find something new to do.

Why does there have to be anymore than that. There doesn't.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#730 Jan 07 2011 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
RDD wrote:
No I am not saying you should be comfortable with nudity, that is entirely up to you. All I am saying is that the reason for separation and clothing is because the Church made it Taboo to see the naked body. It made seeing the opposite *** sinful as well, as stated numerous times in the bible.

These rules were enforced on people at a time when they had no power to change them. The rules were upheld generation after generation after generation. Previous organized cultures such as greek and roman held women and men on equal footing, often times women had more authority than men. These cultures also had communal baths where men and women liberally were seen naked in front of each other.

It was not until the Church gained power that these things began to change.


At the end of the day, your argument is, "That's the way it's always been". You're making the argument that nudity is "taboo"... so as a citizen, should nudity be taboo or should it not be taboo? Change in society starts with me and you.

RDD wrote:

Because influence from our ancestors were taught than men and women should not be together unless married, this was a result of years and years of being told that the fraternizing or displaying ones self around the opposite *** was wrong. While our current society has knocked some barriers down (women working, women voting) we still hold to those middle age values that women and men should not be naked around each other.



The fact that you're hiding behind this nonsense is insane. Look at the media. *** is every where. There's a reality show called "16 and pregnant".. people are shacking up and sleeping with whomever. Look at how much money the **** industry makes. The reason why women and men are still divided in the showers is because women don't want to be checked out while taking a shower, plain and simple. There is no religious taboo to prevent that from occurring. If that were the case, that stuff that I mentioned wouldn't be here. People would practice abstinence, not shack up with each other or do sexually explicit things for others to see.


None of that nonsense addresses my questions.. Please answer my question.""Why aren't men and women separated in the office? Why are they separated in the bathroom? Now, every bathroom have stalls and urinal dividers." If your response is "nudity",then this discrimination isn't about ***, but about nudity. Also, what about public bathrooms? Bathrooms have stalls and dividers, so men and women can both use the restroom at the same time and not see any body parts. So, why are they still separated?"

You're not exposed in the bathroom behind stalls or in the office.

RDD wrote:


I am not fighting for homosexual gains, I am arguing with you over your ineffective solution to a non existent problem.


What solution and problem? My argument once again is that a heterosexual man can express discomfort with sharing a shower with a homosexual for the same reasons that a woman has with sharing a shower with a man and not be called a bigot/homophobe. I think your problem is that until this point, you don't know my goal.

RDD wrote:
Why should there be any special rules? *** men are still men, and *** women are still women. They don't magically alter in to a 3rd and 4th sexual distinction. They follow the same rules men follow, and the same rules women follow, which is the same rules everyone follows. They should not have a special rule list, because that is discrimination.


If I don't get through to you in like the next 2 posts, I might just quit. These are not any special rules. That is treating homosexuals just like we treat heterosexuals. Women don't want to be checked out while showering, so we grant them their privacy and segregate them from the men. Men don't want to be checked out while showering, so we grant them their privacy and segregate them from the homosexuals. It's the same thing. There are no special rules. The rules are the same. By you saying "Well they are both men and women" is like me saying "Both men and women are humans, so separating them is discrimination". There is only rule, separate people who might violate others privacy due to sexual interest.

RDD wrote:
It is not the same, homosexual men are men, they should be treated like men and the same as men. They are not women. Stop using that as a comparison.


Read above. It is the same thing. Men are separated from people that they might be sexually interested in while in the shower. That's it, one rule.

RDD wrote:
and if you actually read the data posted (by joph i think) you would see it states specifically terms which involved harassment from gays, or to gays. Which is directly related to this. If Comfort/Privacy is your only argument then ill refer you to this rebutle.

Grow up.

Not everything is perfect, deal with it, you don't want to shower/room with a homosexual, you don't shower or room with a homosexual. You use the same avenues that people have been using for years to avoid people that make them feel uncomfortable.

A. Avoid said person
B. Notify a superior of your discomfort around said person
C. DEAL WITH IT
D. Leave the place and find something new to do.

Why does there have to be anymore than that. There doesn't.


You say "Grow up" as if society operates off of your fantasy rebuttal. There are laws for public nudity for a reason. This really isn't getting anywhere with you.

You are completely full of BS. You ridicule the thought of a male being uncomfortable naked around a homosexual man, but do not express the same feelings towards women who have the same feelings towards a man, calling it different.

The entire concept of this entire argument is the discomfort that someone possibly being sexually attracted to someone else in the shower. You claim that I propose to treat homosexuals differently and that they should be treated the same, yet your response to that scenario differs depending on the combination. If you were really about equality, you would either agree with the scenario or not. You wouldn't change minds depending on who that "someone" actually is. Because of that, you are clearly full of it and a hypocrite.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#731 Jan 08 2011 at 12:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Revolving Door Inspector
Avatar
*****
12,727 posts
It amuses me how it's almost a guarantee to find Alma in every *** thread in the OOT/Asylum.
____________________________
FFXI: Exodus @ San d'Oria since November 19, 2003, Siren Server
FFXIV: Turk Kalahai @ Gridania, Balmung Server
Rift: Kalahai @ Sanctum, Faeblight Server
Exo @ YouTube | Exo @ Tumblr | Exo @ Twitter | Cheese
#732 Jan 08 2011 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Quote:
Oh, I forgot who I was arguing with. You're just trolling now.. For the people who actually believe that nonsense, his statement is false because 1 person doesn't represent an entire group of people. That's like telling women who ever showered with a male significant other that it's no different showering with a group of male strangers. The only way his idiotic claim could be true is if all homosexuals were the same.
Go back and reread what you quoted and make sure you comprehend what was said you @#%^ing half wit, as the bold part is part of what I said. It's funny how you complain about people automatically jumping to "let's attack Alma regardless of what he says" when you're guilty of doing the same with me.

Edited, Jan 8th 2011 9:37am 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

#733Almalieque, Posted: Jan 08 2011 at 6:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I'm not going to waste anytime trying to figure it out because
#734 Jan 09 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
I'm replying only because if I don't Alma will think that he actually has some influence.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#735 Jan 09 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,580 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm replying only because if I don't, Alma will think that he actually has some influence.

I understand a fair amount of leniency is involved in casual writing, but a coma separating that dependent clause is incredibly helpful for ease of reading.
#736 Jan 09 2011 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,901 posts
Allegory wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm replying only because if I don't, Alma will think that he actually has some influence.

I understand a fair amount of leniency is involved in casual writing, but a coma separating that dependent clause is incredibly helpful for ease of reading.


On a completely unrelated note, every so often I get the urge to edit someone elses random posts to insert unnecessary commas. I usually don't follow through with that though.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#737 Jan 09 2011 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm replying only because if I don't, Alma will think that he actually has some influence.

I understand a fair amount of leniency is involved in casual writing, but a coma separating that dependent clause is incredibly helpful for ease of reading.


On a completely unrelated note, every so often I get the urge to edit someone elses random posts to insert unnecessary commas. I usually don't follow through with that though.


On a completely related note, I need to use less commas and more periods. I am the king of the run on sentence.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#738 Jan 09 2011 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
Allegory wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm replying only because if I don't, Alma will think that he actually has some influence.

I understand a fair amount of leniency is involved in casual writing, but a coma separating that dependent clause is incredibly helpful for ease of reading.
sorry public school is where i went to
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#739 Jan 09 2011 at 6:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,982 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
I'm replying only because if I don't, Alma will think that he actually has some influence.

I understand a fair amount of leniency is involved in casual writing, but a coma separating that dependent clause is incredibly helpful for ease of reading.


On a completely unrelated note, every so often I get the urge to edit someone elses random posts to insert unnecessary commas. I usually don't follow through with that though.


D,o,e,s, ,i,t, a,t, l,e,a,s,t, k,e,e,p, you fr,,,,,,,,om wan,t,i,n,g to giv,e po,st,e,r,s r,and,o,m comM,a,s?

Edited, Jan 9th 2011 5:09pm by Kaolian
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#740 Jan 09 2011 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,901 posts
No.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#741 Jan 09 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,982 posts
Nice edit.


Serenity Now. Serenity Now. Serenity Now.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#742 Jan 09 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,580 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
D,o,e,s, ,i,t, a,t, l,e,a,s,t, k,e,e,p, you fr,,,,,,,,om wan,t,i,n,g to giv,e po,st,e,r,s r,and,o,m comM,a,s?

I will violate you in ways that you don't understand and in places that can't exist.
#743 Jan 10 2011 at 12:11 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]
#744 Jan 10 2011 at 12:56 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST?
If only.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#745 Jan 12 2011 at 2:23 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I guess you realize that you're wrong now, by your short responses and attempt to change your argument.


lol, my short responses are only an attempt to waste as little time with you as possible. Nor has my argument changed. I talk about different things from time to time because it bores me to hear you say the same stupid things over and over-- I like to get to the new ones.

Quote:

Uhhhh.... my argument was that homosexuals are ABLE to join as long as they kept it secret. That was the whole point of DADT, to enable homosexuals to join without lying. That doesn't mean being a homosexual is allowed.


No, they are ALLOWED to join as long as they keep it secret. Can you ******* read? That's what the military says. ****, you're especially thick.


Quote:
By the way, you forgot to answer my question below.


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?"


I don't think I forgot. If anything, I was ignoring it, but I'm pretty sure I already said that there was a difference between a fear or anxiety of sexual assault and anxiety from being around someone who might be attracted to you are patently different.

I did have a nice trip to Vegas though. Saw an awful lot of ***** and *** in the spa with my fellow males, and everyone seemed ok with 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.
#746 Jan 12 2011 at 6:53 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Kachi wrote:
[More pointless sh:t a couple of days later]

Shut the f'uck up you insipid c'unt. Let it f'ucking die like the rest of the world has. As you can see from the nightly news cycle no one on the face of the planet gives a flying f'uck about gays in the military anymore.

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]
#747 Jan 12 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,013 posts
Kachi wrote:

No, they are ALLOWED to join as long as they keep it secret. Can you @#%^ing read? That's what the military says. sh*t, you're especially thick.


You do realize the difference between being ABLE to join and allowed to join, right? What you're saying makes no sense.. Just because you break a rule and keep it a secret, that doesn't mean that you're allowed to do it. It means that you're able to do it without getting caught.

You said the following:

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.


You were making the argument that homosexuals don't get discharged for their sexual orientation, but because of homosexual conduct. I quoted from the policy that clearly stated otherwise. Now you're just trying to spin it and say "oh, if they keep it a secret".. OF COURSE... That has always been the case even before DADT. That doesn't mean that they were ALLOWED. You know this, you just don't want to admit that you're wrong.

Kachi wrote:
I don't think I forgot. If anything, I was ignoring it, but I'm pretty sure I already said that there was a difference between a fear or anxiety of sexual assault and anxiety from being around someone who might be attracted to you are patently different.


And I've also said that I never mentioned sexual assault in that question, so answer the question. "So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?" No where in that statement did I mention, robbery, aliens, rape, assault, The boogy man, Big Foot or leprechauns. So quit adding crap into the scenario and just answer the question.

Kachi wrote:
I did have a nice trip to Vegas though. Saw an awful lot of ***** and *** in the spa with my fellow males, and everyone seemed ok with it!


If they didn't seem ok with it, then they probably wouldn't have gone. How about that.. people voluntarily engaging in public nudity and not having a problem with it... amazing...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#748 Jan 12 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolthisthread
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#749 Jan 12 2011 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolthisthread

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

#750 Jan 13 2011 at 12:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You do realize the difference between being ABLE to join and allowed to join, right? What you're saying makes no sense.. Just because you break a rule and keep it a secret, that doesn't mean that you're allowed to do it. It means that you're able to do it without getting caught.


Dude, the RULE is that you are allowed to be in the military as long as you keep your homosexuality a secret. I @#%^ing quoted straight from the military that sexual orientation is not grounds for dismissal from the military by law. Sexual conduct and admission of homosexuality are.

I'll quote it for you again. This is from the military on DoD:

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.


Until you can acknowledge this very simple point, I don't see any point in acknowledging you.

Edited, Jan 12th 2011 10:49pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

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

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#751 Jan 13 2011 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
Kachi wrote:
Until you can acknowledge this very simple point, I don't see any point in acknowledging you.


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


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 32 All times are in CDT
Bijou, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (30)