Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#352 Dec 28 2010 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
given that the DoD said that they weren't going to implement anything "in the middle of a war", I don't see a change happening anytime soon

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

I guess 2011 will be a great year!


That's funny, because I heard the exact opposite. I actually heard that the fact that no time table was given is upsetting people. I don't know which one is accurate, but I do find it funny that you have all this faith in the DoD. This is probably the same people who ended "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Yea, we just changed the name.....and somehow people just went on about their ways....

Allegory wrote:
No, they are, at least in their mind.

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

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

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

Modern bigotry is mostly about cognitive biases.


I'm not debating on the overall concept of bigotry. I'm referencing specifically to this situation. You may be 100% accurate on your study, but that isn't the case here.

Women and men are often segregated in sleeping and showering scenarios. There is absolutely no reason why they are separated other than personal comforts. Men and women sleep together all of the time, why can't they share public rooms or showers? It doesn't matter if the person next to you is a man, woman or a dog. None of that has anything to do with you sleeping or showering. Yet, as a society, we're ok with that. At the same time, men who express the same comfort issues with other men are frown upon as if it is somehow different.

So, either the women are bigots for not wanting to be in close quarters with men or the men are not bigots. Which one is it? Unless you can show how the scenarios are somehow different, both can't be true.

Belkira wrote:

Why can't it be both...?


Because I was talking about the assumption that "everyone is heterosexual". In reality, everyone knows that everyone isn't heterosexual, but they are assumed to be and treated as such. If they are seen otherwise, then they will be kicked out. That's the whole point of DADT. His post was claiming otherwise, so the two can't coexist.

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


Did you comprehend anything I just wrote or are you purposely being dense? That's not a justification. You just stated the obvious. No two people are the same, regardless of ***, race or color. That isn't a justification to treat anyone differently. There has to be a reason other than "they are different" to treat them differently. Else, there is no point in "equality". Just because another lady at work has a "supermodel body" doesn't mean she should be treated differently than you (if you don't also have a supermodel body. Now, if your job was modeling, then now you have a justification. Working a bank, there isn't a justification. That's how it works.

So, what is your justification? If all you have is "I don't have a *****", then ok. That would clear up a lot of things.

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




Why does it end there? So you admit that it has nothing to do with the anatomy. The man's anatomy doesn't change in the office. You're just more COMFORTABLE in the office because you can't see their anatomy and they can't see yours. This is all psychological. If it were about anatomy, it would be consistent. It isn't consistent because it's not the fact that Joe has a *****, it's because you don't want to see Joe's ***** nor do you want him to see you naked.

You know this to be the truth, I'm not so sure why you decide to pretend as if it weren't. To further prove my point, let's take the pool as an example. This is where both women and men are mostly naked sharing one body of water. It's ok, why? Private parts are hidden, that's why. If it were about the anatomy, the pool would be segregated also. Only areas such as spas or other areas where people are naked are they segregated. So, this is clearly about seeing each other private parts and not the simple fact that they are different.

Belkira wrote:

You're both naked. Get it? Stop being obtuse.


How does the person next to you affect you washing yourself if that person is washing him or herself? Most people tend to shower naked, so being naked doesn't make a difference. Even still, how is that person being naked affect your ability to wash yourself?
#353 Dec 28 2010 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Alma's not even arguing the whole *** thing any more, he's just arguing against community showers... or maybe he's just ******* stupid and doesn't realize he's arguing in a lopsided circle of ******
#354 Dec 28 2010 at 8:20 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
How does the person next to you affect you washing yourself if that person is washing him or herself? Most people tend to shower naked, so being naked doesn't make a difference. Even still, how is that person being naked affect your ability to wash yourself?


But if he is *** it is totally going to different right??
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#355 Dec 28 2010 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I do find it funny that you have all this faith in the DoD.

I do? I'm just saying what I've been hearing.
Politico wrote:
EXCLUSIVE: DOD ONLY NEEDS WEEKS FOR REPEAL, REPORT SAYS – A new study by the Palm Center makes the case that DOD can get to open service in only a few weeks. Written by former Air Force Maj. Aaron Freed, who was discharged in 2005 under DADT, the report says that DOD implements policy changes before it trains the force all the time; training, as any staff sergeant or chief petty officer might say, is a continuous process. In 1994, DOD implemented DADT in about 40 days, Freed writes, and it shouldn’t even need that much time to dismantle it.
MSNBC wrote:
While the law itself does not lay out a timetable for those plans, Gates has suggested that it could take as long as a year.
San Francisco Chronicle wrote:
Defense officials have not said how long that process could take. A Pentagon task force, in a report issued last month, outlined numerous revisions to training, military education and regulations that would be needed.

Gates said he would "immediately proceed with the planning necessary to carry out this change carefully and methodically, but purposely."

Two senators said they expect the time required will be "months not years."
Aurora Sentinel wrote:
But Obama said: "We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama thinks actual implementation of the new law will be "a matter of months."

Pentagon personnel chief Clifford Stanley and his staff have already started working to put together an action plan based partly on recommendations from the study. The plan will look at a host of questions, from how to educate troops on the change to how sexual orientation should be handled in making barracks assignments.
New York Times wrote:
There will certainly be pressure to get it done in 2011,” one defense official said, indicating that repeal will be a relatively slow but not years-long process.


Just a small sampling. I don't really have a strong stake in when it happens but there's definite conversation about it being within the next year.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#356 Dec 28 2010 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Great. Another indefinitely-long *** thread. Just what we need!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#357 Dec 28 2010 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
I'll respond to the rest later, I thought I'll just respond to Joph's stats..


While the law itself does not lay out a timetable for those plans, Gates has suggested that it could take as long as a year


Now the question is how long it will be before *** men and lesbians can serve openly.

The service chiefs wanted to have more than a year to implement the new policy, citing the need to train the force and prepare it for “open service,” according to a source close to the matter.

Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, for example, may demand that physical modifications be made to accommodate concerns among some Marines about showering with other Marines who are serving openly. All of this could take time.


Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed but questions remain about how long it will take for the new law to go into effect. What kind of timeline can be expected?


All I googled was "DADT Timeline". As you can see, it was not a biased search and none of the results came back expressing any time line. All stated that they needed time.

So as I said, I don't know which one is accurate, but from what I've heard, there is no time line.


I will address everyone's posts in the morning. I have to get up early...
#358 Dec 28 2010 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That's not a justification.


Sure it is, when it comes to communal naked places.

That was easy. We didn't even need the rest of your drivel!

#359 Dec 28 2010 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
All I googled was "DADT Timeline". As you can see, it was not a biased search and none of the results came back expressing any time line.

Erm, "it could take as long as a year" is a timeline. It means "within a year" or, to put numbers on it, within 2011 given that it's currently 2010.

Expanding on your Frumforum (actually Politico) link:
Quote:
Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, for example, may demand that physical modifications be made to accommodate concerns among some Marines about showering with other Marines who are serving openly. All of this could take time.

Amos may have backing on Capitol Hill, where Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Marine, has been pushing the Pentagon to phase in any new policy.

That's kind of amusing since Webb is one of the senators saying he expects a roll-out time line of "months, not years".

None of them give the implication that it has to take longer than a year or that it can't be done while we're fighting any wars. I'm not sure why you thought those contradicted mine (especially when you used one of mine).

The Pentagon report has a section about other nations who have converted to allowing homosexuals and reports that by-in-large they simply removed any explicit mention of homosexuality from their policies and had little to no significant impact on their military functioning including no impact to their recruiting or retention goals. Even segments of the foreign militaries who worried about scary showers and stuff went along without a hitch. Like I said before, other countries have figured it out. According to the report, it's as difficult as saying "make it happen".

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 9:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#360 Dec 29 2010 at 4:31 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, for example, may demand that physical modifications be made to accommodate concerns among some Marines about showering with other Marines who are serving openly. All of this could take time.


[/quote]

Anybody that has served in the military, has ALREADY showered with *** members of the same ***. They've done so for the most part, knowing full well, or suspecting that those people were ***. Anyone that claims otherwise is a fool, and a liar. There have always been *** people in the military, and they have always showered with their straight counterparts. Whether they serve openly or not is irrelevant. Almost nobody in the military is going to come out as *** and shock people, everyone around them is going to respond with "Yup, I figured he/she was *****".

The point is moot. STFU and move on.
#361 Dec 29 2010 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 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]
#362 Dec 29 2010 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma can just be "that guy" in the showers whom wears swimming trunks if he's uncomfortable with dudes, be it *** or straight, seeing his junk.

If he's still uncomfortable being around gays even after the trunks, then he's not as comfortable with his own sexuality as he thought he was.
____________________________
"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


#363Almalieque, Posted: Dec 29 2010 at 9:08 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's interesting because Belkira claims otherwise. So, which one is it?
#364 Dec 29 2010 at 9:25 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's not a justification.


Sure it is, when it comes to communal naked places.

That was easy. We didn't even need the rest of your drivel!



You ignored my "drivel" because you have no counter for it.

I'll ask again:

"How does the person next to you affect you washing yourself if that person is washing him or herself? "

Maybe you don't know what "justification" means, because according to the English dictionary, that isn't a justification.


1. a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends: His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.

2.an act of justifying: The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.

3.the state of being justified.

4.Also called justification by faith. Theology. the act of god whereby humankind is made or accounted just, or free from guilt or penalty of sin.

5.Printing. the spacing of words and letters within a line of type so that all full lines in a column have even margins both on the left and on the right.


Given that, the action itself, can't be the justification for the action. The question is being asked, why are you segregating men from women. Your response that men are different from women does not give any additional information. We already know that, that's why we're asking you why you decided to segregate themselves in the first place. You know, kinda like Brown v. Board of Education in 1954?

"Why should black children and white children be separated"-
"Because black children are black and white children are white, they aren't the same"-
"Oh, my.. that's a great justification!"

All you have done is state the obvious and pretend as if it meant something...but RDD stated something interesting...

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

Do you agree with this? Why or why not. I believe that this is more along the lines of your opinion, but you don't want to say that because then I'll be right that it's no different. So, instead, you try to act like it's about anatomy, even though you admitted that it's only an issue when you're naked. So, it can't be about the anatomy.

#365 Dec 29 2010 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's not a justification.


Sure it is, when it comes to communal naked places.

That was easy. We didn't even need the rest of your drivel!



You ignored my "drivel" because you have no counter for it.

I'll ask again:

"How does the person next to you affect you washing yourself if that person is washing him or herself? "


I did answer that. Multiple times. Because you are both naked. And boy parts and girl parts are different.

Want to answer how someone being a homosexual is an issue if you're both washing yourself in the shower? Want to justify how that's an issue to allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals? Because you can't pretend that there is no affect if it's men and women showering together, but there is a problem if there's a straight man and a *** man showering together.

So like I said before: Drivel. Would you like me to get all fancy and quote you the definition of that? Because I'm starting to think you don't undrestand what it means. You clinging to a desperate plea of, "But... PRIVACY!!!" is, indeed, drivel.

ETA: As for asking me to support or deny another poster's arguments, no. If you honestly can't understand my point, give this up. Anatomy only matters when you're naked and showering. If you honestly can't understand that, then you really must be functionally retarded.

Edited, Dec 29th 2010 9:37am by Belkira
#366 Dec 29 2010 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Women are women, men are men. Our society has provided for separate facilities for them forever. Whether it's necessary or not is an interesting argument, however it's irrelevant to this one.

The civilian world seems to have little issue using public facilities even knowing full well the guy peeing next to you might be *** - or might be straight - or whatever.





____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#367 Dec 29 2010 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
In thinking about it, another reason that men and women are, for the most part, kept seperated when in communal naked spaces has to do with mitigating risk. I'm not sure how many men realize this, but if a woman is to be in a doctors office and asked to remove any clothing by a male doctor, a female nurse is asked to step into the room. This is just as much for the doctor's protection (maybe even moreso, really) as for the woman's protection. I wonder if that plays a factor here, as well.
#368 Dec 29 2010 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Teen girls grow into women. Likewise boys grow into men. Boys have wet dreams. Girls get periods. Curiosities abound.

Men get hard-ons. Women shave their entire body (it seems like anyways). Some men are circumcised. Some are not. Sperm can live for moments outside the body. Nursing womens ******* leak and are swollen.

The thing is women have boobs and a ******, men have a *****. Men pee differently than women. Women pull bloody plugs from their bodies. Issues arise with our different *** parts. We learn to deal with these issues, privately, from others that have the same *** parts an so have experienced the same issues.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#369 Dec 29 2010 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
What's the confusion? The last thread ridiculed me for saying it was stupid to try to have this all done at once, that the sodomy rules has nothing to do with DADT. Now you're saying that there was a package deal the whole time. Which one is it? Are the rules being changed all at once or not? Make up your mind.

You never answered my question. If you're saying that I specifically made various claims, go ahead and quote me so I know exactly what you're whining about. If you're using some nebulous and meaningless "you all" then stop expecting me to respond to whoever in the world you're thinking of.

Edited, Dec 29th 2010 12:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#370 Dec 29 2010 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
No, I said that under DADT, you're showering with homosexuals with the military aware of this based on the fact that homosexuals are allowed to be in the military. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.


You failed because the point wasn't that homosexuals are allowed in the military, but homosexuals are not allowed in the military, but the military will not question your sexuality, creating the assumption that everyone is heterosexual till proven otherwise. You are confusing "being allowed" with "being able to". Even before DADT was established, homosexuals were able to join. All they had to do is say "no" to the question of their sexuality. Removing that question doesn't allow homosexuals in the military, it enables homosexuals to join without lying. The act of them being homosexual is still punishable under UCMJ. If they were "allowed" to join, then they couldn't be kicked out for being homosexual now could they?
Totally pointless, whether you look at it as allowed or as able, that doesn't change the point at all, under DADT, you're showering with homosexuals with the military aware of this.

Almalieque wrote:
What's the confusion? The last thread ridiculed me for saying it was stupid to try to have this all done at once, that the sodomy rules has nothing to do with DADT. Now you're saying that there was a package deal the whole time. Which one is it? Are the rules being changed all at once or not? Make up your mind.
Apparently you were having trouble following that last thread, because the point that was made was that the sodomy laws shouldn't STOP DADT from being repealed. People freely admitted that the sodomy laws didn't really make sense, and that there might be other changes, but that the starting point should be repealing DADT and then working out the details. You were insisting we deal with all these other things first and keep putting DADT off.
____________________________
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
#371 Dec 29 2010 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#372 Dec 29 2010 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
How convenient that you left out the quote "Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed but questions remain about how long it will take for the new law to go into effect. What kind of timeline can be expected?"

You seem to think that means something more than it means. It's means that it still remains to be seen what the exact timeline will be. People who have been offering suggestions about how long it'll take are all shooting within the 2011 mark. More to the point, they're not saying "We can't implement anything if there's a war".
Quote:
Besides, we're practically in 2011, so "could take as long as a year" could very well be in 2012. I admit, that is semantics.

We're practically in January 2011. "As long as a year" from Jan 1, 2011 is Jan 1, 2012, not December 31, 2012.
Quote:
Oh, I didn't fully understand your question. I get it now. I'll have to look back in the last thread. It'll take me a while, but I distinctly remember you laughing at me for mentioning the survey. It'll just take me a while since I don't have premium.

Well, let me know. Sounds better than being expected to answer to half-remembered statements from "you guys".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#373 Dec 29 2010 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So me having a ***** somehow prevents you from washing yourself? How so?


It doesn't. It is, however, the reason that we segregate communal naked places. Stop trying to change the subject, please.


Almalieque wrote:
That's funny, because the person next to me can be a boy, girl, man, woman, straight, ***, bi, aroused, ************* having ***, participating in a group orgy or even be a freakin marching band and none of that prevents me from being able to lather up a wash cloth and wash myself. Now, would I want to do that? No, why? Because of various levels of comfort.

So, I'm curious on how a person of different body parts physically prevents you from being able to wash yourself and not me or anyone else? Does your body physically shut down if there's a man in the shower, preventing you from lifting your arms? Or is this all psychological like you and everyone else already knows it is?


When did we go from, "Why are we segregating the showers between sexes?" to "How does this prevent you from doing X?" Because those are two totally different questions, Alma. Two questions that are completely unrelated. NO ONE has made the claim that a man and a woman are incapable of showering together. You just sound stupid.

Almalieque wrote:
I'm not claiming any problems with homosexuals in the showers. My entire point has been that I have a problem with people labeling men bigots for not wanting to shower with homosexual men because it's no different than why women don't want to shower with men, comfort reasons.


Almalieque wrote:
Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of *** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.


Edit: This is easier than trying to paraphrase you. You are, indeed, using "scary homosexuals in showers!!!!!" as a justification to not repeal DADT.

Almalieque wrote:
Until you're able to show how the person next to you somehow prevents you from washing yourself, all you are doing is expressing psychological discomfort. If this was all about anatomy, then it wouldn't matter if you're naked or not, like an all boys or an all girls school. They are segregated for reasons beyond physical traits, such as the difference in classroom behavior.


And until you stop twisting the discussion around to make it into a shape you like, I really don't have much more to say to you.

Edited, Dec 29th 2010 9:13pm by Belkira
#374 Dec 29 2010 at 9:08 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jo wrote:

You seem to think that means something more than it means. It's means that it still remains to be seen what the exact timeline will be. People who have been offering suggestions about how long it'll take are all shooting within the 2011 mark. More to the point, they're not saying "We can't implement anything if there's a war".


I read it on AKO, which I can look for, and heard it somewhere else which I don't remember. I'll try to find a reference, but in any case my point was that the military leaders said that they need more than a year and the politicians claim that it can be done in no time...... which means that there is no actual time line, just desires.

Jo wrote:

We're practically in January 2011. "As long as a year" from Jan 1, 2011 is Jan 1, 2012, not December 31, 2012.


I admitted that it was semantics, not to be taken seriously.

Jo wrote:
Well, let me know. Sounds better than being expected to answer to half-remembered statements from "you guys".


Ok..

Almalieque wrote:
I'll be patiently waiting as it seems that you and maybe 2 others are the only ones actually following the case. I wonder what effects, if any, will this have on the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. The government sent out emails to military personnel asking for feedback. I'm glad that they at least made an attempt to hear our opinions...


Omega Vageta wrote:
They don't care what you think dude, they just care that you follow orders.


Almalieque wrote:
That's a whole lot of effort for not caring.


Jophiel wrote:
Opening a Hotmail account?


Almalieque wrote:
WTF are you talking about? If you could get on AKO, which you can't, you'll see the effort that I'm referring to. I simply cut/paste the email referencing that effort...

Edit: You actually think the government uses hotmail/yahoo/etc. accounts to disperse information? Really?


Omega wrote:
You do realize that your thoughts don't matter, right? If its repealed its repealed & you will either follow orders & work with the now out of the closet gays, or you'll GTFO.


Jophiel wrote:
No, but I mistakenly thought you'd be smart enough to pick up on intentional flippancy. So I guess I was wrong about something this morning but it wasn't Hotmail accounts.

With that said, opening an "inbox" for "opinions" is hardly a whole lot of effort. Your local gas station has an "opinion box" in the employee break room. If you're referring to effort no one else can see then it's not exactly compelling to say "See this email! Lots of effort! Trust me!"


You basically downplayed the email, yet now you're using the "70%" result of the very same email in your argument.

#375 Dec 29 2010 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Erm, I didn't downplay the fact that they were having a study, I was laughing at your assertions that they were putting "a whole lot of effort" into getting opinions based on your quoted message saying to e-mail them your opinions.

I mocking you, not the study.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#376 Dec 29 2010 at 9:34 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
It doesn't. It is, however, the reason that we segregate communal naked places. Stop trying to change the subject, please.


I'm not changing the subject. My whole point is that there is no reason why men and women are segregated other than personal comforts. You claimed that it had to do with the anatomy, so I asked you how does my anatomy prevent you from showering? You answered that it doesn't, so it's not based on anatomy, but comfort levels. If it were based on anatomy, then the work office would be segregated as well. It's not because people are clothed and you even admitted to that.

Belkira wrote:
When did we go from, "Why are we segregating the showers between sexes?" to "How does this prevent you from doing X?" Because those are two totally different questions, Alma. Two questions that are completely unrelated. NO ONE has made the claim that a man and a woman are incapable of showering together. You just sound stupid.


Read above...

My argument has always been that the reason why men and women are segregated in showers/rooms, etc. is psychological comforts, the same psychological comforts expressed by men with homosexual men. You claimed that it wasn't psychological, but physical, so I asked you how are you physically prevented from showering? You aren't affected, so the only other reason is psychological.

I sound stupid? lol... get real... Instead of admitting the obvious, men and women are segregated in communal areas because of comfort levels, you defend physical trait segregation with no additional reason to support why...

Belkira wrote:
Noooooo. That's not true. Not at all. You have said many, many times, "I have my own, personal reasons for not wanting DADT repealed, but the general brought up a good point that I hadn't thought about: Privacy issues. That's a very good point!"


I think you're confusing my argument for SSM. I said I was against the repeal of DADT based on image as long as sodomy laws existed, but a 4 star had a better point that I haven't thought about because I live and shower by myself. This is where you ridiculed me for "changing opinions" based off of what someone else said and doubted that I wasn't ever in support of it in the first place.

In any case, in this thread, I responded to the OP on an entirely different point "A man can want not to shower or room with a homosexual and not be a bigot and the reasoning is the same as why women don't want to room or shower with a man". That has been my point the entire time. Just because you got confused in the mix, doesn't mean I've been changing subjects.

My very first response to this thread..

Almalieque wrote:
idiggory wrote:


The whole argument stems from the idea of the *** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine *** guys. You know, all those *** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...


o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.

According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used...


I merely responded that he was making stuff up that the only reasons against open homosexuality in the military was based on bigotry.

Belkira wrote:
And until you stop twisting the discussion around to make it into a shape you like, I really don't have much more to say to you.


As stated above, I haven't been twisting anything. You just started to catch on what my point was. You have been stuck in some fairy tale argument that I was never presenting and now that you've seen the distinction, you are claiming that I'm twisting stuff around....

Nope.. Once again, the argument is that straight men can choose not to want to share close quarters with *** men and not be bigots. Their reasoning is no different than what women provide to be segregated from men in the same scenarios. Society has created a double standard to accept the comfort levels for women but not men. That's not necessarily a "bad" or "good" thing, but you can't pretend that it doesn't exist and calling men bigots for having the same feelings as women do is wrong.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 67 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (67)