Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#752 Jan 13 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,926 posts
Allegory wrote:
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.


In a scary way or a hawt way?

FYI: all those commas were Kao's

Also; LAST

Edited, Jan 13th 2011 2:37pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#753 Jan 13 2011 at 1:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Kachi wrote:
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:


Why don't you reference your source and we can start from there. I *believe* 1 of 3 things has occurred, but I can't know either way unless you reference your source.

1. You reading this out of context.

2. You pulled this from a bad source, i.e. a Pro-homo site with bad information.

3. You just made it up.

Assuming what you wrote is legit, I'm assuming the first option is what has occurred. I quoted, with a reference, directly from the Homosexual Policy that stated that sexual orientation is enough to be removed from service. So either there's a date issue, one being outdated or there's a comprehension issue. I quote again for you...

{....] 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)



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


That's BS..

I've been asking you the same question before we even gone down to this route and you've be ignoring them ever since and that was only one of the questions that you've eluded. I ask again,"So, you're saying that a woman who expresses anxiety about a man checking her out makes her a heterophobe?"

If you're going to ignore it, you should at least have a legit justification, because now you seem as if you just don't want to admit the double standard.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#754 Jan 13 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,037 posts
LASTLASTLASTLASTLASTLASTLASTLAST
____________________________
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.
#755 Jan 13 2011 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,638 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
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:


Why don't you reference your source and we can start from there. I *believe* 1 of 3 things has occurred, but I can't know either way unless you reference your source.

1. You reading this out of context.

2. You pulled this from a bad source, i.e. a Pro-homo site with bad information.

3. You just made it up.

Assuming what you wrote is legit, I'm assuming the first option is what has occurred. I quoted, with a reference, directly from the Homosexual Policy that stated that sexual orientation is enough to be removed from service. So either there's a date issue, one being outdated or there's a comprehension issue. I quote again for you...

{....] 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)



Oddly enough, your quote there proves his point.
#756 Jan 13 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
OH MY GOD STOP IT
#757 Jan 13 2011 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
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:


Why don't you reference your source and we can start from there. I *believe* 1 of 3 things has occurred, but I can't know either way unless you reference your source.

1. You reading this out of context.

2. You pulled this from a bad source, i.e. a Pro-homo site with bad information.

3. You just made it up.

Assuming what you wrote is legit, I'm assuming the first option is what has occurred. I quoted, with a reference, directly from the Homosexual Policy that stated that sexual orientation is enough to be removed from service. So either there's a date issue, one being outdated or there's a comprehension issue. I quote again for you...

{....] 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)



Oddly enough, your quote there proves his point.
Help me out here as I'm not following too closely on this anymore. How doe sit prove Kachi's point that you can't be discharged?
____________________________
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

#758 Jan 13 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira wrote:

Oddly enough, your quote there proves his point.


Only if you believe saying "I'm gay" is homosexual behavior or displaying behaviors that you might do something homosexual makes you gay.

In that case, you are absolutely correct.

Me, on the other hand, don't believe saying you're **** makes you gay. I worked with a female at McDonald's who wanted to be and pretended to be a **** and we all knew she wasn't. As much as she tried to act like a lesbian, when it came down to the test, she went after the men. My theory was that she didn't see herself attractive enough to get a guy so maybe if she played a butch role, then maybe she can get a woman. Doesn't make sense to me, but eh...

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#759 Jan 13 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,934 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Help me out here as I'm not following too closely on this anymore. How doe sit prove Kachi's point that you can't be discharged?

Being **** is fine, but you can't admit you're **** or have homosexual relations. That's what Kachi said, and exactly what Alma quoted.

"Being gay" is a personality trait or a mental state, it's not based on actions. Both of them say the actions (talking or doing) will get you kicked, but Alma doesn't seem to realize people can be **** and not do those things. Or he just quoted the wrong section.

This might also be Alma admitting that it's totally fine to be attracted to naked guys in the shower, as the rules say nothing about being **** (at least in the part he quoted).

Of course none of this matters. Alma will just not understand it and claim everyone else is wrong.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#760 Jan 13 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,934 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:

Oddly enough, your quote there proves his point.
I worked with a female at McDonald's who wanted to be and pretended to be a **** and we all knew she wasn't. As much as she tried to act like a lesbian, when it came down to the test, she went after the men. My theory was that she didn't see herself attractive enough to get a guy so maybe if she played a butch role, then maybe she can get a woman. Doesn't make sense to me, but eh...


Pretty much this is exactly what I figured. To Alma, you can't be **** if you're not acting the right way. Instead of saying "Hey, maybe she finds girls attractive too," he thinks that she faked it because she wasn't attractive.

My first thought on reading that was "She's probably bisexual, or confused about what she wants," not "She's too ugly to get a guy so she fakes liking girls." I must be a bleeding heart liberal Smiley: lol
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#761 Jan 13 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,638 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:

Oddly enough, your quote there proves his point.


Only if you believe saying "I'm gay" is homosexual behavior or displaying behaviors that you might do something homosexual makes you gay.

In that case, you are absolutely correct.


No. The quote says, "If you say you're **** or someone says they saw you participating in homosexual activities, you're discharged." Kachi said, "You are allowed to be gay, just not tell anyone or participate in a homosexual act."

Do you see how they are the same? If not, you're a lost cause.
#762 Jan 13 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:

Oddly enough, your quote there proves his point.


Only if you believe saying "I'm gay" is homosexual behavior or displaying behaviors that you might do something homosexual makes you gay.

In that case, you are absolutely correct.


No. The quote says, "If you say you're **** or someone says they saw you participating in homosexual activities, you're discharged." Kachi said, "You are allowed to be gay, just not tell anyone or participate in a homosexual act."

Do you see how they are the same? If not, you're a lost cause.


Im going to go with lost cause.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#763 Jan 14 2011 at 9:20 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
LockeCole wrote:
Pretty much this is exactly what I figured. To Alma, you can't be **** if you're not acting the right way. Instead of saying "Hey, maybe she finds girls attractive too," he thinks that she faked it because she wasn't attractive.

My first thought on reading that was "She's probably bisexual, or confused about what she wants," not "She's too ugly to get a guy so she fakes liking girls." I must be a bleeding heart liberal

[...]

Of course none of this matters. Alma will just not understand it and claim everyone else is wrong.




This is exactly why I can disregard your opinion and think that "I'm right and everyone else is wrong". I'm telling you a fact and instead of just taking it at face value, you ASSUME that I don't know what I'm talking about when I worked there for 5 years and you probably haven't ever stepped foot in that city. What makes you think that you have a better understanding on that situation? If Jophiel, Ugly, Nadenu, Belkira, etc. said the same thing, would you make the same the assumption?

EVERYONE knew that she wasn't gay. That's the whole reason why I brought it up in the first place. When word got out that she had **** with one of the male employees, it solidified our original claim that she was just full of it. Many people have tested her, hence the reason why I mentioned it in the first place. There were a number of homosexual (open and presumed) and open bisexuals that worked there. Heck, at one point, the store manager was a flamming, cross-dressing **** that made out with guys in public. So, the atmosphere was very welcoming if she weren't gay. That's what made her want to "fit" in even more.


So, you can throw that "You think you know everything" garbage out the window. When I get rated down on a ding thread or rated down for saying "Merry Christmas" in a freakin Merry Christmas thread, it is blatantly obvious that much of these posts are not argued for content, but simply because of my name. That was even admitted in my ding thread. So excuse me for not quickly converting to your opinion. When people grow up (i.e. Kachi stop ignoring a simple question), then I can take you more seriously. On the other hand, when people refuse to answer simple questions, it then becomes apparent that this isn't about "finding the truth", but "proving me wrong" on whatever stance that I have.

LockeCole wrote:
Being **** is fine, but you can't admit you're **** or have homosexual relations. That's what Kachi said, and exactly what Alma quoted.

"Being gay" is a personality trait or a mental state, it's not based on actions. Both of them say the actions (talking or doing) will get you kicked, but Alma doesn't seem to realize people can be **** and not do those things. Or he just quoted the wrong section.

This might also be Alma admitting that it's totally fine to be attracted to naked guys in the shower, as the rules say nothing about being **** (at least in the part he quoted).




False: His argument is that you are only kicked out for homosexual conduct and not sexual orientation. Me saying "I'm gay" is not a homosexual action nor does admit to homosexual conduct. The quotes that I've presented says "propensity or intent to engage in homosexual act", that means that the person didn't actually do homosexual act. Me saying "I want to sleep with Joe's wife" isn't the same as sleeping with Joe's wife nor can you get kicked of for having the "propensity or intent to engage in adultery". I'm treating this scenario the same way everything else is portrayed in the military. You all, are treating this as some special case.

Belkira wrote:
No. The quote says, "If you say you're **** or someone says they saw you participating in homosexual activities, you're discharged." Kachi said, "You are allowed to be gay, just not tell anyone or participate in a homosexual act."

Do you see how they are the same? If not, you're a lost cause.
----------------------------


Speaking of lost cause, if you can't even interpret and or comprehend a few sentences, then this is a lost cause. You admitting that you're **** is not admitting to any homosexual act. We argued this in the last thread about sodomy, remember? I argued that allowing gays would give the image of contradicting the Sodomy rules. You, specifically, were one of the ones who argued that being **** is more than sex, it's a state of being. I agreed to that by saying that's why I said "image" and that the military has the rule of "Perception is reality". Even if it's false, if it appears to be true, then it's true.

This is consistent with that thought. You saying that you are **** is not the same thing as being gay. The whole point that I'm trying to convey to you is that DADT didn't allow homosexuals in the military, it enabled them in the military without lying. That was the compromise that was made. We wont ALLOW homosexuals in the military, but we will no longer ASK their sexual orientation because that is their personal business anyway. This is what I believe Kachi's quote is referring to, but I need to see it in context to know either way.

The bottom line is, if you were ALLOWED to join, then you wouldn't be kicked out for it. No where did it ever say in that policy or anything that I signed that you were allowed to do any of those activities. It stated that you could be discharged for those activities. If you were allowed to do those activities, especially given the touchy topic, they would have explicitly said that. What you all had done was added in verbiage that didn't exist. From my understanding, it was practically the same exact policy, minus asking your sexual orientation.

This counter argument of "you're allowed to, just keep it a secret" is just plum silly. That has always been the case in reference to be able to join. Homosexuals don't wear Scarlett Letters, so there isn't a way to tell. As long as you keep your sexual orientation, adultery, fraternization or any other activity to yourself, then you're ok. DADT, just made it official.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#764 Jan 14 2011 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I worked with a female at McDonald's who wanted to be and pretended to be a **** and we all knew she wasn't. As much as she tried to act like a lesbian, when it came down to the test, she went after the men.

That's one **** of an employee review. We were just graded on watching the fry timer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#765 Jan 14 2011 at 10:07 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I worked with a female at McDonald's who wanted to be and pretended to be a **** and we all knew she wasn't. As much as she tried to act like a lesbian, when it came down to the test, she went after the men.

That's one **** of an employee review. We were just graded on watching the fry timer.


She was a manager, not a crew worker.

By watching the fry timer, you mean not letting the fries burn? If so, that's pretty low standards.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#766 Jan 14 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,934 posts
Almalieque wrote:

False: His argument is that you are only kicked out for homosexual conduct and not sexual orientation.

Yes, that is Kachi's argument.
Quote:
Me saying "I'm gay" is not a homosexual action nor does admit to homosexual conduct.

No it's not. However, the codes YOU linked say explicitly:
Quote:
(2)The Soldier has said the he or she is a homosexual or bisexual

So Kachi is right. You can't say it or do it, but you can be it. The rest of your paragraph oddly ignores exactly what you quoted. Notice the next word in the quote from the rules is OR. You don't need to say "I want to sleep with dudes." You can just say "I'm gay" and you're out. Which is what Kachi said. Which is kind of the point I was making, you just claim everyone else is wrong because you don't understand it. Odd, when you quoted the rules yourself, then ignore them. Smiley: laugh


Quote:
'm telling you a fact and instead of just taking it at face value, you ASSUME that I don't know what I'm talking about

Your opinion isn't a fact, but I'll admit, it was my bad for even trying to jump into a discussion with you about a scenario you yourself made up. You're right, I don't know the girl. You simply wrote "She says she's a lesbian, but dates guys, and we all knew she wasn't **** but was just unattractive." And she even slept with a guy? Woo-hoo! The point still stands - being "gay" does not necessarily mean you act on it or even say it. It's internal. It's attraction. You could sleep with dozens of women and still wish they had a dong. And we call that... homosexuality! Smiley: nod
Quote:
When people grow up (i.e. Kachi stop ignoring a simple question), then I can take you more seriously.

Happy to see your behavior is dictated by others. And not even me! For you to take me seriously, someone else needs to grow up? Mature, dude Smiley: rolleyes

As my own scenario, several summers ago my best friend from high school hooked up with a girl. She was a freak in bed - they got busted by the cops while in his car once, and she swore up a storm at them because she was **** they got interrupted just as she was about to orgasm.

She's a lesbian. She's been dating the same girl for about three years now. She tried out my friend because she was curious, and while it was fun, she just was attracted to girls, not guys. It didn't stop her from having **** with guys, but it wasn't due to attraction (her own words).

I feel bad for my friend; I still tease him about "turning her gay" Smiley: lol

Edit: Thinking it over, you might just have a knee-jerk reaction to when someone disagrees with you. It seems that way, judging by your "Until everyone else grows up, I won't take you seriously" comment. So it's quite possible you understand, but refuse to admit it because you hate to lose?

Edited, Jan 14th 2011 11:34am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#767 Jan 14 2011 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
She was a manager, not a crew worker.

By watching the fry timer, you mean not letting the fries burn? If so, that's pretty low standards.

lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#768 Jan 14 2011 at 11:10 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Locke wrote:
So Kachi is right. You can't say it or do it, but you can be it. The rest of your paragraph oddly ignores exactly what you quoted. Notice the next word in the quote from the rules is OR. You don't need to say "I want to sleep with dudes." You can just say "I'm gay" and you're out. Which is what Kachi said. Which is kind of the point I was making, you just claim everyone else is wrong because you don't understand it. Odd, when you quoted the rules yourself, then ignore them.



You are really lost on this. Kachi is making two statements. His first statement is that you are kicked out for homosexual activities not your homosexual orientation. You said yourself, admitting to being **** doesn't make you gay, so you're not being discharged for homosexual conduct, but for homosexuality.

So what he had said is false.

ADDTIONALLY, he said that homosexuals were allowed as long as they keep it a secret.

THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STATEMENTS. Both can't be true. So pick one. If you're being kicked out for sexual conduct and not orientation, then finding out that you're **** isn't just for a discharge. You would have be to charged with a specific sexual conduct.

There is no way to know if someone is **** without either the person saying s/he is **** or doing something that is what someone considers gay. People saying that they are gay, doesn't make them gay. Just like me saying that I slept with Joe's wife doesn't mean I slept with Joe's wife. I wouldn't get discharged for adultery just saying that I slept with Joe's wife.

The quote also says if it appears that you have the propensity or intent to... That means you haven't done or said anything that admits that you're **** or have done any homosexual activities. This means that it APPEARS, that you are an homosexual. If it were truly "as long as YOU keep it secret", then you shouldn't be kicked out because it APPEARS that you MIGHT do something gay. That's literally saying "We think that you might be gay, so you're being discharged". The fact that they are not sure on the matter, means if you were gay, then it is still a secret.

If you actually read the UCMJ, it doesn't just say "Thou shalt not do x". It explains exactly what "x" is, so there is no confusion on what "x" is. That's exactly what DoD has done with homosexuality.

The military is saying that homosexuality by defining EXACTLY what the military considers homosexuality. Otherwise, there is no way that anyone can tell or be judged as such. The DoD has created a standard of what it is considered "homosexuality". You're simply taking that as "oh, well as long as no one knows, then it's ok", when that has always been the case before DADT with every rule in the military.

Locke wrote:
Your opinion isn't a fact, but I'll admit, it was my bad for even trying to jump into a discussion with you about a scenario you yourself made up. You're right, I don't know the girl. You simply wrote "She says she's a lesbian, but dates guys, and we all knew she wasn't **** but was just unattractive." And she even slept with a guy? Woo-hoo! The point still stands - being "gay" does not necessarily mean you act on it or even say it. It's internal. It's attraction. You could sleep with dozens of women and still wish they had a dong. And we call that... homosexuality!


This is how you have no credibility with me. Honestly, I respect RDD more than you at this point. After I tell you the story, then try to clarify it, you're still claiming that I "made it up". Based on what? Absolutely nothing but your own ignorance.


This isn't me assuming anything. The entire store would have had to be wrong on this. It's simple. If you talk the talk, but don't walk the walk, then there is a disconnect. What if a guy who's always making sexist comments about how he would nail this girl and that girl, but every time a decent looking female approaches him, he backs off. But, he turns around and nails the first dude that approaches him, who is low on the attractive scale?

Are you telling me, that you wouldn't think that he's just faking the funk? Oh, wait, that's right. Homosexual people don't pretend to be heterosexual.. THAT'S SILLY!!!!

Dude grow up...

Locke wrote:
Happy to see your behavior is dictated by others. And not even me! For you to take me seriously, someone else needs to grow up? Mature, dude Smiley: rolleyes

As my own scenario, several summers ago my best friend from high school hooked up with a girl. She was a freak in bed - they got busted by the cops while in his car once, and she swore up a storm at them because she was **** they got interrupted just as she was about to orgasm.

She's a lesbian. She's been dating the same girl for about three years now. She tried out my friend because she was curious, and while it was fun, she just was attracted to girls, not guys. It didn't stop her from having **** with guys, but it wasn't due to attraction (her own words).

I feel bad for my friend; I still tease him about "turning her gay"


Dictated by others? What gave you that impersonation? I have no respect for you, so I couldn't care less what you think because I know that you're full of BS. You told me a story about your friend just now and I assume that you're telling the truth even though I disagree with you. I tell you a story and you act like that I'm making stuff up or miss-analyzing the situation.

You see the difference?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#769 Jan 14 2011 at 11:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,934 posts
Smiley: oyvey

Take a breather sparky. You're wrong on multiple accounts. I'm glad to know that, among other things, you hold no respect for me. It makes me feel warm inside Smiley: grin

When I said you made up the scenario... you did. Did you make up the story? No idea, but I'll assume no. Your scenario was exactly what you gave and I quoted. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning - I don't think you made it up out of thin air, if that's how you took it. You did make it up for us though, with your own view on it. A girl said she was gay, you said she's ugly, and she went after guys. I agree, there could be a disconnect, and likely is. But saying you know someone better than they know themselves is unlikely, especially given the level of disconnect you display day-to-day in here. I already explained the situation, and if you don't accept it, that's fine. If you don't like my story, fine too. I just wanted to show a counterpoint to your idea that "We all knew she was straight even though she said she was gay."

Quote:
There is no way to know if someone is **** without either the person saying s/he is **** or doing something that is what someone considers gay. People saying that they are gay, doesn't make them gay. Just like me saying that I slept with Joe's wife doesn't mean I slept with Joe's wife. I wouldn't get discharged for adultery just saying that I slept with Joe's wife.


Ah, this is so tough, you're sooooo close to understanding! Yes, actions don't dictate your homosexuality. That's the point! Hence in your story why I said "It doesn't matter if she went after a guy, if she's only attracted to girls." The codes say that you can get kicked for actions, NOT for being gay... that was Kachi's point. You have to say or do or act in some particular fashion to get kicked out. But your sexual orientation itself is not listed as grounds for dismissal. Kachi was completely right - you can be **** and be in the military before DADT was repealed. You just couldn't let anyone else know.

And lastly,
Quote:
Dictated by others? What gave you that impersonation?

What impersonation? Last time I checked, we're all people here. Or trolls. Mostly people though?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#770 Jan 14 2011 at 11:54 AM 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]
#771 Jan 14 2011 at 12:22 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,788 posts
Screenshot


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

#772 Jan 14 2011 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Screenshot


You'll have to buy me premium to see it.

____________________________
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]
#773 Jan 14 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,202 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Screenshot


You'll have to buy me premium to see it.



Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#774 Jan 14 2011 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
Moe's been hanging out in Lower Guk again I see...
#775 Jan 14 2011 at 1:42 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
She was a manager, not a crew worker.

By watching the fry timer, you mean not letting the fries burn? If so, that's pretty low standards.

lulz


because working at Mcdonalds requires high standards at all right. There is a reason that the majority of employees are 15 and 16 years old. It is a joke job.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#776 Jan 14 2011 at 1:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Locke wrote:
Smiley: oyvey

Take a breather sparky. You're wrong on multiple accounts. I'm glad to know that, among other things, you hold no respect for me. It makes me feel warm inside Smiley: grin

When I said you made up the scenario... you did. Did you make up the story? No idea, but I'll assume no. Your scenario was exactly what you gave and I quoted. I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my meaning - I don't think you made it up out of thin air, if that's how you took it. You did make it up for us though, with your own view on it. A girl said she was gay, you said she's ugly, and she went after guys. I agree, there could be a disconnect, and likely is. But saying you know someone better than they know themselves is unlikely, especially given the level of disconnect you display day-to-day in here. I already explained the situation, and if you don't accept it, that's fine. If you don't like my story, fine too. I just wanted to show a counterpoint to your idea that "We all knew she was straight even though she said she was gay."


My point to you was the fact that you felt a need to bring a counterpoint to my story in the first place. Once again, I took your story as is. I didn't try to counter it to interject multiple possibilities that could have occurred because you know the situation better than me. You, on the other hand, are still implying that I either misinterpreted her or possibly misinterpreted her as opposed to just taking the story as is.

She wasn't a lesbian, she was clearly pretending to be a **** to get attention just like homosexuals pretend to be heterosexual to avoid attention. If you think otherwise, then answer my question about the "straight" guy who claims to have **** with multiple girls but runs away every time a decent girl approaches him, but turns around and nails an ugly **** dude.

Locke wrote:
Ah, this is so tough, you're sooooo close to understanding! Yes, actions don't dictate your homosexuality. That's the point! Hence in your story why I said "It doesn't matter if she went after a guy, if she's only attracted to girls." The codes say that you can get kicked for actions, NOT for being gay... that was Kachi's point. You have to say or do or act in some particular fashion to get kicked out. But your sexual orientation itself is not listed as grounds for dismissal. Kachi was completely right - you can be **** and be in the military before DADT was repealed. You just couldn't let anyone else know.


Kachi is making two statements. His first statement is that you are kicked out for homosexual activities not your homosexual orientation. You said yourself, admitting to being **** doesn't make you gay, so you're not being discharged for homosexual conduct, but for homosexuality.

So what he had said is false.

ADDTIONALLY, he said that homosexuals were allowed as long as they keep it a secret.

THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT STATEMENTS. Both can't be true. So pick one. If you're being kicked out for sexual conduct and not orientation, then finding out that you're **** isn't just for a discharge. You would have be to charged with a specific sexual conduct.

The quote also says if it appears that you have the propensity or intent to... That means you haven't done or said anything that admits that you're **** or have done any homosexual activities. This means that it APPEARS that you are an homosexual. If it were truly "as long as YOU keep it secret", then you shouldn't be kicked out because it APPEARS that you MIGHT do something gay. That's literally saying "We think that you might be gay, so you're being discharged". The fact that they are not sure on the matter, means if you were gay, then it is still a secret. Else, they would no for sure, which it wouldn't any longer be a secret.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#777 Jan 14 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
She was a manager, not a crew worker.

By watching the fry timer, you mean not letting the fries burn? If so, that's pretty low standards.

lulz


because working at Mcdonalds requires high standards at all right. There is a reason that the majority of employees are 15 and 16 years old. It is a joke job.


I moved you up above Locke and you say something like this? Now, I'm embarrassed. You do realize that crew work is designed for teenagers right? That's not where the money comes in, it's not even worth it as a store manager. Once you're a supervisor over a number of stores, THEN you start making money.

I'm sorry if you didn't realize that concept. I'm sure that's practically true every where. The guy at the check out counter at Kroger's probably isn't make that much money in comparison to the guy that is responsible for x many amount of Kroger's....

I seem you aim low... keep that up, you'll never be disappointed.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#778 Jan 14 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,934 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His first statement is that you are kicked out for homosexual activities not your homosexual orientation. You said yourself, admitting to being **** doesn't make you gay, so you're not being discharged for homosexual conduct, but for homosexuality.

No. You are being discharged for saying you are gay. It's not your orientation. If you lied and said you were **** when you're actually straight, you could still be kicked out. Why? Because of your actions. No one can know for sure whom you do or do not find attractive. If you say it, even if it's a lie, you'd get kicked out.

This is a silly argument because it's all semantics. But Kachi is right, semantically. You have the right idea behind the rules ("Gays can't be in the military" is obviously the aim), but it's not true because it's only the actions, not their orientation, that can be used to get them out.

So you're both right, in a way, but Kachi's statements are both correct. The rules you quoted govern behavior, not orientation. I'm guessing the only way you could argue this is saying that "homosexual behavior" doesn't include "Saying I'm gay," which is ridiculous, because Kachi said:
Quote:
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 highly doubt you're trying to argue a couple of words while ignoring the rest of his post, but crazier things have happened.

The rest of your post also focuses on behavior, actions, etc., and not actual attractive (ie, being gay). It's not a lifestyle I feel anyone would choose and be happy (not being able to be yourself), but people can and do live it in the military.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#779 Jan 14 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Almalieque wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
She was a manager, not a crew worker.

By watching the fry timer, you mean not letting the fries burn? If so, that's pretty low standards.

lulz


because working at Mcdonalds requires high standards at all right. There is a reason that the majority of employees are 15 and 16 years old. It is a joke job.


I moved you up above Locke and you say something like this? Now, I'm embarrassed. You do realize that crew work is designed for teenagers right? That's not where the money comes in, it's not even worth it as a store manager. Once you're a supervisor over a number of stores, THEN you start making money.

I'm sorry if you didn't realize that concept. I'm sure that's practically true every where. The guy at the check out counter at Kroger's probably isn't make that much money in comparison to the guy that is responsible for x many amount of Kroger's....

I seem you aim low... keep that up, you'll never be disappointed.


I managed @ 2 Mcdicks when I was 18 one stand alone and one in walmart. You know what I did with those two jobs when I entered the "real" work force? Took them off my resume. Want to know why? because employers (like myself currently) look and see Mc **** as a Job everyone does, it is not special, you are no more qualified to do things that any other person that worked there does, even as a manager. It is a High School job, akin to working at a Kwiki Mart, or a Bowling alley. I learned more valuable management assets as a Summer Camp Director, it is still on my resume because it is a unique position, and a unique set of abilities you learn.

McDicks is a joke job. If someone came to me and asked to be a super on one of my construction teams and cited management at Mcdicks as a valid source of leadership experience I would laugh in their face.


Edited, Jan 14th 2011 7:25pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#780 Jan 14 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Screenshot


You'll have to buy me premium to see it.



Screenshot

qua?
____________________________
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]
#781 Jan 14 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Quote:
because employers (like myself currently) look and see Mc **** as a Job everyone does, it is not special, you are no more qualified to do things that any other person that worked there does, even as a manager.
I don't know what Mcdonalds are like where you live, but around here they're spotless and the staff are generally fairly decent, all things considered. So when someone provides a resume with McDonalds on it with any "significant" time employed there, it at least shows they have some half decent work ethic, as opposed to someone working at a bowling alley. Not a major plus, but one nonetheless.
____________________________
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

#782 Jan 14 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
His first statement is that you are kicked out for homosexual activities not your homosexual orientation. You said yourself, admitting to being **** doesn't make you gay, so you're not being discharged for homosexual conduct, but for homosexuality.

No. You are being discharged for saying you are gay. It's not your orientation. If you lied and said you were **** when you're actually straight, you could still be kicked out. Why? Because of your actions. No one can know for sure whom you do or do not find attractive. If you say it, even if it's a lie, you'd get kicked out.

This is a silly argument because it's all semantics. But Kachi is right, semantically. You have the right idea behind the rules ("Gays can't be in the military" is obviously the aim), but it's not true because it's only the actions, not their orientation, that can be used to get them out.

So you're both right, in a way, but Kachi's statements are both correct. The rules you quoted govern behavior, not orientation. I'm guessing the only way you could argue this is saying that "homosexual behavior" doesn't include "Saying I'm gay," which is ridiculous, because Kachi said:
Kaichi wrote:
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 highly doubt you're trying to argue a couple of words while ignoring the rest of his post, but crazier things have happened.

The rest of your post also focuses on behavior, actions, etc., and not actual attractive (ie, being gay). It's not a lifestyle I feel anyone would choose and be happy (not being able to be yourself), but people can and do live it in the military.


The quote also says if it appears that you have the propensity or intent to... That means you haven't done or said anything that admits that you're **** or have done any homosexual activities. This means that it APPEARS that you are an homosexual. If it were truly "as long as YOU keep it secret", then you shouldn't be kicked out because it APPEARS that you MIGHT do something gay. That's literally saying "We think that you might be gay, so you're being discharged".

If the DoD is not sure about your sexuality, then your true sexuality is indeed a secret. You still being kicked out is evident that it has nothing to do with the ability to hold a secret.

This has turned into a game of semantics. As such Kaichi didn't say "actions" he said "homosexual conduct":

"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."

His argument was based on the difference of homosexual conduct vs homosexual orientation. Saying that you're **** is neither. The DoD treats an admittance as "homosexual conduct" because saying that you're **** and/or being caught doing something **** are the ONLY ways you can tell if someone is **** or not. The only thing left would be the military saying "You are not authorized to have homosexual thoughts or feelings"... HTF is anyone supposed to monitor or measure that? This is why homosexuals are enabled but not allowed, because if a person THINKS you MIGHT do something **** without an admittance or any homosexual conduct, you can still be discharged.

Anyway, we're wasting a lot of time until Kaichi posts his source. I can very well be wrong, but unless I see the entire context, I can only go with what I posted and what I know.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#783 Jan 14 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
because employers (like myself currently) look and see Mc **** as a Job everyone does, it is not special, you are no more qualified to do things that any other person that worked there does, even as a manager.
I don't know what Mcdonalds are like where you live, but around here they're spotless and the staff are generally fairly decent, all things considered. So when someone provides a resume with McDonalds on it with any "significant" time employed there, it at least shows they have some half decent work ethic, as opposed to someone working at a bowling alley. Not a major plus, but one nonetheless.


That's because he's either not telling the truth or the place he worked at was a major dump/crack house. No one in their right mind would put an 18 year old as a supervisor (i.e., not store manager, which is what he's claiming) over other store managers with more qualifications and experience. Unless he's a high school drop out, he is inexperienced at the age of 18 to be THE, not a, store manager let alone a supervisor over multiple stores.

He lied about his uberness of a RDM, so he's more than likely lying about this as well. If I didn't work there during high school and college, I would almost believe that nonsense.

Edited, Jan 15th 2011 2:05am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#784 Jan 14 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
One of my friends was an assistant manager at 17 for a drug store. Another was an assistant manager at a McDonald's at 19. I'm sorry you didn't know any smart people with strong work ethics.
____________________________
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

#785 Jan 14 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
One of my friends was an assistant manager at 17 for a drug store. Another was an assistant manager at a McDonald's at 19. I'm sorry you didn't know any smart people with strong work ethics.


I didn't say assistant manager. I was offered assistant manager in high school. I'm talking about being in charge of MULTIPLE stores.

Let me break down the Chain of Command..

Crew-worker- slave worker
Assistant Manager- Shift manager
Store Manager- In charge of a store
Supervisor- In charge of three to five store Managers
Regional & Beyond-

If you're being offered a supervisor position in McDonalds at the age of 18, then something is SERIOUSLY wrong with that entire chain area.

I'm sorry you didn't understand how things work..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#786 Jan 14 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Wow, first time I've ever seen that chain before. Everywhere I've ever worked and in any managerial documents I've ever seen, supervisor is the bottom of the barrel in the management category. Pretty sure my version of supervisor is what he was referring to, but if not...

What you said.

Edited, Jan 14th 2011 9:42pm 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

#787 Jan 15 2011 at 1:27 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
@Alma, I've already addressed the question at least twice-- you just disagree with the answer; however, have yet to present a point of disagreement that makes me think you're not just stubborn and full of **** If you ask, "Why is blood red?" and I answer, "Hemoglobin," and you say, "No, blood is actually blue," then wtf am I supposed to say? You've responded to the correct answer with nonsense. In this case, you have yet to acknowledge a difference between a female's fear of being nude around males, and a male's discomfort of being nude around males. Until you do, I have no reason to believe that discussing it further won't result in more nonsense.

Quote:
False: His argument is that you are only kicked out for homosexual conduct and not sexual orientation. Me saying "I'm gay" is not a homosexual action nor does admit to homosexual conduct.


No, I've said both things. You can be kicked out for telling someone (DURR DURR DON'T TELL), or engaging in behavior. You took one example I gave in the many attempts to explain it to your stupid **** where I DIDN'T mention that you can't say it, either, and somehow thought that suddenly my point had changed from "you have to keep it a secret (even though I said it numerous times)," to, "It has to be homosexual conduct, like having **** with a dude." And obvious comprehension failures like this are the reason why I can't take you seriously.

This isn't even a debate anymore. The military says that gays cannot be discharged for their sexuality. They can be discharged for admitting to being homosexuals, being found out as homosexuals, and/or engaging in homosexual behavior. However, there is no rule stating that gays cannot serve-- in fact they explicitly say that gays CAN serve.

Here's what wikipedia has to say:
Quote:
Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the term commonly used for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal the sexuality of closeted homosexual or bisexual servicemembers or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). The policy prohibits people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." (10 U.S.C. § 654(b)) The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specifies that service members who disclose they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct shall be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces" (10 U.S.C. § 654(e)).

As it exists, DADT specifies that the "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a servicemember's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation. Violations of this aspect through unauthorized investigations and harassment of suspected servicemen and women resulted in the policy's current formulation as "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue, don't harass."[1]


Quote:
The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.


Gee, that took 10 whole seconds. Check wiki's sources if you doubt any of that.

Here's an article from the Dept. of Defense. Of course it confirms my point. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42812

And further, the part that I quoted before was from one of the briefing notes (mentioned in that article) that was directly used to teach military personnel about DADT.

What is just extra, extra pitiful, is that you could have easily figured this out on your own in 2 minutes if you weren't so desperately determined to avoid admitting the inevitable: You're wrong. Try to deal with it in some more graceful way than this sad floundering. Everyone here will respect you so much more for 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.
#788 Jan 15 2011 at 8:24 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Wow, first time I've ever seen that chain before. Everywhere I've ever worked and in any managerial documents I've ever seen, supervisor is the bottom of the barrel in the management category. Pretty sure my version of supervisor is what he was referring to, but if not...

What you said.

Edited, Jan 14th 2011 9:42pm by Uglysasquatch



If he worked at McDonalds, as he claimed, then he knows the chain. In any case, he stated that he managed 2 McDonalds at the age of 18. I will admit, it is possible that he meant two assistant managers and not two store managers (which I think is impossible) or a supervisor (which is unrealistic).

Terms may vary, but the positions are the same. You have shift manager, store manager, store(s) manager, region managers, etc. Regardless of the name of the position, no one would put an 18 year old (unless he's super uber) in a management position over multiple stores.


Anyway, rereading his post, the guy's an idiot either way for removing any management experience from his resume.

Kaichi wrote:
@Alma, I've already addressed the question at least twice-- you just disagree with the answer; however, have yet to present a point of disagreement that makes me think you're not just stubborn and full of sh*t. If you ask, "Why is blood red?" and I answer, "Hemoglobin," and you say, "No, blood is actually blue," then wtf am I supposed to say? You've responded to the correct answer with nonsense. In this case, you have yet to acknowledge a difference between a female's fear of being nude around males, and a male's discomfort of being nude around males. Until you do, I have no reason to believe that discussing it further won't result in more nonsense.


No, you have not answered MY question. You created a separate question for you to answer by interjecting sexual assault when that was never part of the question. You are implying that women only feel anxiety about nudity in front of males due to sexual assault and that is not only false, but silly.

All of my "friends" are females, they don't express fear of sexual assault with me, i.e. alone together in their/my house with little clothing on, that doesn't mean they feel comfortable changing clothes in front of me. Crap, females that I've seen naked before, would still dress in private. Many of the females that I've seen naked before don't want to be seen using the restroom. So, if you're implying that this is all about fear of being sexually assaulted, then you're wrong. People fear assault more with strangers, but much of this is simply about privacy.

I'm giving you a scenario where the woman does not express fear of sexual assault, just not wanting to be seen naked by certain men in public places. If you think that is impossible or unrealistic, then argue that point, else just answer the question.


Kaichi wrote:
No, I've said both things. You can be kicked out for telling someone (DURR DURR DON'T TELL), or engaging in behavior. You took one example I gave in the many attempts to explain it to your stupid **** where I DIDN'T mention that you can't say it, either, and somehow thought that suddenly my point had changed from "you have to keep it a secret (even though I said it numerous times)," to, "It has to be homosexual conduct, like having **** with a dude." And obvious comprehension failures like this are the reason why I can't take you seriously.


You're confusing things around, but let's try this.

My quote also says if it appears that you have the propensity or intent to... That means you haven't done or said anything that admits that you're **** or have done any homosexual activities. This means that it APPEARS that you are an homosexual. If it were truly "as long as YOU keep it secret", then you shouldn't be kicked out because it APPEARS that you MIGHT do something gay. That's literally saying "We think that you might be gay, so you're being discharged".

If the DoD is not sure about your sexuality, then your true sexuality is indeed a secret. You still being kicked out is evident that it has nothing to do with the ability to hold a secret.

Kaichi wrote:
This isn't even a debate anymore. The military says that gays cannot be discharged for their sexuality. They can be discharged for admitting to being homosexuals, being found out as homosexuals, and/or engaging in homosexual behavior. However, there is no rule stating that gays cannot serve-- in fact they explicitly say that gays CAN serve.


Read above. Admitting that you're **** is not homosexual conduct but is considered as such by the DoD. The only reason why DADT was being repealed in the first place is because homosexuality is not authorized in the military. If it were authorized, then you wouldn't be discharged for it, plain and simple. The only thing DADT did was to enable homosexuals to join and serve without having to lie or be a target for unfairly investigations.

That was a compromise. DoD isn't going to unfairly target homosexuality anymore. DoD doesn't allow homosexuality any more than it does fraternization and adultery "as long as you keep it a secret".

Kaichi wrote:

Here's what wikipedia has to say:


That's a nice try, but I want the reference of the source that we've been arguing for in the past days. Why would pull something from the Homosexual Policy then back it up with a wiki article? Besides the fact that this article doesn't contradict anything that I've said, I'm not going on a tangent to argue another article, especially since you claimed that you pulled the previous statement from the Policy. Let's argue policy to policy.

Kaichi wrote:
Gee, that took 10 whole seconds. Check wiki's sources if you doubt any of that.

Here's an article from the Dept. of Defense. Of course it confirms my point. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42812

And further, the part that I quoted before was from one of the briefing notes (mentioned in that article) that was directly used to teach military personnel about DADT.

What is just extra, extra pitiful, is that you could have easily figured this out on your own in 2 minutes if you weren't so desperately determined to avoid admitting the inevitable: You're wrong. Try to deal with it in some more graceful way than this sad floundering. Everyone here will respect you so much more for it.


Read above. Since when do people reference things without sources? How are you going to try to put this on me for not sourcing YOUR references that you presented? Right now, you're just throwing out random sources, that's not what I asked for. You quoted a specific line at least twice as evidence of what the DoD Homosexual Policy states, so please give me a source to that statement, so we can start from there.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#789 Jan 15 2011 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Quote:
Anyway, rereading his post, the guy's an idiot
I knew there was something we could agree on.
____________________________
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

#790 Jan 15 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
lol Alma-- I told you that I couldn't find the source again. I gave you a different source from the military that says the exact same thing, and you just want to pretend that it shouldn't count because it's not the first one I referenced? This is not some secret, obscure policy. I could probably find you a dozen reliable sources that say the same thing. Are you going to get hung up on one of them?

You're the saddest fucking debater I've ever seen.
____________________________
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.
#791 Jan 15 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
You'd think Alma would be in favor of the repeal because it'd let him know who the icky homos are ahead of time.
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#792 Jan 15 2011 at 6:41 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Kachi wrote:
lol Alma-- I told you that I couldn't find the source again. I gave you a different source from the military that says the exact same thing, and you just want to pretend that it shouldn't count because it's not the first one I referenced? This is not some secret, obscure policy. I could probably find you a dozen reliable sources that say the same thing. Are you going to get hung up on one of them?


You just contradicted yourself...


I just wanted to see that sentence in the Homosexual Policy. I don't care about the actual reference. How do I know which source you used at first? You claimed that it came directly from the policy. So, if this isn't some secret obscure policy... and your sources all said the same thing, that sentence should be in ANY of your sources.... So give me *a* source that has the Homosexual Policy stating that sentence that you quoted.


Kaichi wrote:
You're the saddest fucking debater I've ever seen.


Lol, me the saddest debater?

Let's take a look at this..

1. I ask you a simple question. Instead of answering the question, you interject unrelated information saying that you are actually answering the question and I don't like your answer. I explained how not all women are concerned about sexual assault and if you disagree with that, then explain. You have yet responded.

2. You source a statement that supposedly contradicts my entire argument with no reference. I ask you to reference that statement, you say that you can't find it, but gives me random sources that you believe says the same thing. Then you ridicule me for not referencing your own source. Not only that, none of your references included the Homosexual Policy stating that statement in which you claim.

So, if anything, you're the one grasping at straws.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#793 Jan 15 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Sweetums wrote:
You'd think Alma would be in favor of the repeal because it'd let him know who the icky homos are ahead of time.


??- I guess you haven't been paying attention in the last 16 pages
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#794 Jan 15 2011 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
I guess we could argue the semantics of the law and military code forever, but it gets boring. Alma, what do you see wrong with open gays in the military? Why is it a problem, in your eyes?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#795 Jan 15 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Alma, what do you see wrong with open gays in the military? Why is it a problem, in your eyes?
Because some soldiers, who "aren't homophobes", will be uncomfortable showering around people they know are gay. And for the first in recorded history, the military is concerned about the comfort of their soldiers, apparently.
____________________________
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

#796 Jan 15 2011 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
The thing is, I don't see how group shower rooms are any more efficient than separate stalls anyways.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#797 Jan 15 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Alma, what do you see wrong with open gays in the military? Why is it a problem, in your eyes?
Because some soldiers, who "aren't homophobes", will be uncomfortable showering around people they know are gay. And for the first in recorded history, the military is concerned about the comfort of their soldiers, apparently.


Command Climate Surveys would like to say "Hello to you" along with EO reps and IG.. they also would like to say "hello" Don't fault me of your own ignorance.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#798 Jan 15 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,458 posts
With or without DADT, teh gayz are still going to stare at your junk.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#799 Jan 15 2011 at 9:52 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,678 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Alma, what do you see wrong with open gays in the military? Why is it a problem, in your eyes?
Because some soldiers, who "aren't homophobes", will be uncomfortable showering around people they know are gay. And for the first in recorded history, the military is concerned about the comfort of their soldiers, apparently.


Command Climate Surveys would like to say "Hello to you" along with EO reps and IG.. they also would like to say "hello" Don't fault me of your own ignorance.
WTF are those? Are you trying to dispute my sarcastic comment regarding the military taking soldiers' comfort into consideration?
____________________________
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

#800 Jan 15 2011 at 9:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Alma, what do you see wrong with open gays in the military? Why is it a problem, in your eyes?
Because some soldiers, who "aren't homophobes", will be uncomfortable showering around people they know are gay. And for the first in recorded history, the military is concerned about the comfort of their soldiers, apparently.


Command Climate Surveys would like to say "Hello to you" along with EO reps and IG.. they also would like to say "hello" Don't fault me of your own ignorance.
WTF are those? Are you trying to dispute my sarcastic comment regarding the military taking soldiers' comfort into consideration?


Yes
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#801 Jan 15 2011 at 11:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Alma, I linked the Wikepedia page on DADT, and an article form the Department of Defense on the policy. Both say exactly what I've already said. Further, I told you that my original source was training material that the military used.

If that's not good enough, I don't know what exactly you want (other than to be right, which unfortunately is impossible). Take a little time away from being a **** poster and actually do some reading and you'll learn very quickly how wrong you are.

So I say again: Saddest **** debater I've ever seen.
____________________________
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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 60 All times are in CDT