Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#802 Jan 16 2011 at 1:25 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Kachi wrote:
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 sh*tty poster and actually do some reading and you'll learn very quickly how wrong you are.


I don't see how this is hard for you to understand. I presented the ACTUAL Homosexual Policy and you are referencing articles of peoples interpretation of it, none of which have contradicted my claim ( I didn't check the very last link). What I want you to do is to show me in the actual Homosexual Policy where it supports your claim. Once again, if the DoD isn't sure about your sexuality, then your sexuality is a secret. You have not contradicted that.

I'm not calling you a liar, but you seem suspect. You source this "magical" reference, with no reference. I ask you to reference it, you say you can't find it, but then ridicule me because you were able to find soooo much information that you believe says the same thing because it's common information. Yet, none of your new references contain the verbiage that you used. Furthermore, that would imply that you spent more time searching for the original quote than what you have done the last references, since you weren't able to find it the second time. HTF did you "lose" it? You don't remember what words you googled?

So, while you might be telling the truth, no one can fault me for not jumping into belief in your story. I'm arguing what the Homosexual Policy says, not what civilian Joe, Politician Joe, or Colonel Joe thinks what the policy says. So, if you can't show me in the actual Homosexual Policy where it supports your claim, then you're just wasting more time.


Kaichi wrote:

So I say again: Saddest @#%^ing debater I've ever seen.


So, does this mean you will actually answer my question? Avoiding questions because you don't want to admit that you're wrong isn't a good debating quality. Else, you don't have any grounds to insult someone's debating technique when you don't even answer simple yes/no questions.

Edited, Jan 16th 2011 9:29am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#803 Jan 16 2011 at 2:09 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I answered your question. You didn't like the answer. Nothing else to discuss.

Read the article I linked from the Dept. of Defense. Or don't, and I'll summarize it for you: You're wrong.

Getting a little tired of you trying the same **** over and over. It's obviously not working.
____________________________
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.
#804 Jan 16 2011 at 5:29 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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
You may want to cite some specifics with links if you wish to dispute it, otherwise, I've got IME and TFR as back up for my claims.
____________________________
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

#805 Jan 16 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Kaichi wrote:
I answered your question. You didn't like the answer. Nothing else to discuss.


This isn't the only question/statement that you dodged anyway. You have yet countered the statement that if the DoD isn't sure about your sexuality, then your sexuality is indeed a secret. That completely contradicts your claim of "as long as you keep it a secret".

There's a difference between responding to a question and answering the question. That's like me asking you if you would rather live in California or New York and you say "Texas". You responded to the question, but you didn't answer it.

I asked you if you call women who express anxiety of men seeing them naked, not because of sexual assault or harassment, heterophobes. You have not said "yes" or "no", you said "Texas". You IMPLIED that the ONLY reason why ALL women that experience anxiety of men seeing them naked is because of sexual assault. You didn't STATE that was your claim, you just left it up in the open. So, I gave counter examples to that implication and said that if that is indeed your implication, then please defend it. You have not defended your implication.

So, I ask you a question, you respond with an implication, but no answer. I ask you to solidify your statement by either answering the question or explaining the perceived implication and you haven't responded. So, no you haven't addressed any of my concerns, you're just making implications without defending them.

I say again, if you don't want to answer the question because you think all anxiety is due to sexual assault/harassment, then say "No, I don't refer to those women as bigots/heterophobes because ALL women ONLY express anxiety of SEXUAL ASSAULT and not because of any sort of modesty, shame or privacy".

I'll help you out, just copy and paste that quote, then we can move on. If that is not your answer, then please tell me which part is inaccurate and I'll fix it or better yet, just answer the freakin question.

Kaichi wrote:
Read the article I linked from the Dept. of Defense. Or don't, and I'll summarize it for you: You're wrong.


Again, I want you to show me in the policy where it supports your claim, not what other people think it says. If you can't show me in the Policy, that I freakin provided by the way, then we're wasting time. You know how many people think Doggy-style **** is unauthorized in the military due to the sodomy laws? This is because they didn't take the time out to read the actual document where it says vaginal **** is authorized, which means it doesn't matter what position you're in as long as it's vaginal sex.

So, until you show me in the actual Homosexual Policy, which you can google, where it states that sentence, then we're wasting time. At the end of the day, it's what's in the Homosexual Policy that governs everything, not what you, me, Mr. Smith or General Smith thinks. Just like everyone stated earlier about the repeal in the first place. Every military personnel can be against it, that doesn't mean it can't and/or wont happen.

Ugly wrote:
You may want to cite some specifics with links if you wish to dispute it, otherwise, I've got IME and TFR as back up for my claims.


Wait, what if I told you that I "lost" it and say that I already answered your question like Kaichi did?

Anyways, besides the fact that I've mentioned these topics in other threads, I'm actually surprised that you would think that comfort isn't an issue that the military takes in concern. Any Army leader knows the saying "Take care of your Soldiers, and they will take care of you". This means if you show concern about their morale and well being, they will go that extra mile to ensure success in your missions.

Anyway, I will start with Command Climate Surveys

The Command Climate Survey is required for use by commanders of company-size (and smaller) units.
[...]

Contains 24 preset questions, for example:
◦“Officers in this unit care about what happens to their Soldiers.”
◦“What level of conflict/stress are you experiencing in this unit?”
◦“To what extent do the persons in your chain of command treat you with respect?”
◦“How would you rate your current level of morale?”

[..]

Contains 60 preset questions, for example:
◦“I know what is expected of me on the job.”
◦“I feel my work performance is evaluated fairly.”
◦“Persons in my work group/work unit work effectively as a team.”
◦“To what extent do supervisors in your directorate treat you with respect?”





I.G. (Inspector's General)

Within the United States Armed Forces, the position of Inspector General is normally part of the personal staff serving a general or flag officer in a command position. The Inspector General's office functions in two ways. To a certain degree they are ombudsmen for their branch of service. However, their primary function is to insure the combat readiness of subordinate units in their command.

An armed services inspector general also investigate noncriminal allegations and some specific criminal allegations, to include determining if the matter should be referred for criminal investigation by the service's criminal investigative agency.

The Air Force Inspector General (IG) Complaints Program, described in the Airman's Guide by Boone Nicolls, was established to address the concerns of Air Force active duty, reserve, and Guard members, civilian employees, family members, and retirees, as well as the interest of the Air Force. One of the first responsibilities of the Air Force IG is to operate a credible complaints program that investigates personnel complaints: Fraud, Waste, and Abuse (FWA) allegations; congressional inquiries; and issues involving the Air Force mission. Personnel complaints and FWA disclosures to the IG help commanders correct problems that affect the productivity, mission accomplishment, and morale of assigned personnel, which are areas of high concern to Air Force leaders at all levels


EO Equal Opportunity

www.armyg1.army.mil/eo/ - wrote:
Mission The Equal Opportunity (EO) program formulates, directs, and sustains a comprehensive effort to maximize human potential to ensure fair treatment for military personnel, family members, and civilians without regard to race, color, gender, religion, or national origin, and provide an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior.




Edited, Jan 17th 2011 1:22am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#806 Jan 16 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
Quote:
Wait, what if I told you that I "lost" it and say that I already answered your question like Kaichi did?
I'd laugh at you and make up some acronyms, like I already did.
____________________________
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

#807 Jan 16 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You have yet countered the statement that if the DoD isn't sure about your sexuality, then your sexuality is indeed a secret. That completely contradicts your claim of "as long as you keep it a secret".


I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make here, but I'm sure it's a stupid and pedantic one that attempts to dodge the fact that you were wrong when you made the claim that homosexuals weren't allowed/supposed to be in the military.

Quote:
I asked you if you call women who express anxiety of men seeing them naked, not because of sexual assault or harassment, heterophobes.


And I answered no. General discomfort has not and never has been considered a valid reason for segregation in our population in general. We aren't talking about general discomfort. You're being intentionally obtuse again.

The DoD has announced how the policy is to be interpreted. It's completely **** ridiculous that you think we should ignore THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR OWN POLICY. That's like saying the Supreme Court has no place interpreting the Constitution. THAT'S THEIR JOB. Nevermind that historically, allowing gays in the military was the reason DADT was implemented! How stupid do you have to be to think that they intentionally changed the legislation from "No gays allowed," to "Still no gays allowed!"?

Answer: Exactly as stupid as everyone says.

Quote:
I think we're done here.
____________________________
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.
#808 Jan 16 2011 at 10:45 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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
Uh, fucking duh
____________________________
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.
#809 Jan 17 2011 at 8:16 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Kachi wrote:
I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make here, but I'm sure it's a stupid and pedantic one that attempts to dodge the fact that you were wrong when you made the claim that homosexuals weren't allowed/supposed to be in the military.


This is why I want to argue with what the Homosexual Policy said and not what other people said about it. In my quote that I gave you, the policy said that you can get discharged if it looks like you might do something gay. That means, you didn't do anything **** nor did you admit to being gay. I've stated that numerous times now. That means, the military doesn't actually know your sexuality, they are assuming it, which means that they don't know, which means your sexuality is indeed a secret.

The fact that you're responding to this as if it were your first time reading this, only supports the idea that you weren't actually reading all of my posts.

Kaichi wrote:
And I answered no.
Thank you, finally! See, that wasn't that hard.

Kaichi wrote:
General discomfort has not and never has been considered a valid reason for segregation in our population in general. We aren't talking about general discomfort. You're being intentionally obtuse again.



Obtuse? Need I remind you that my entire argument is that a man can express discomfort about public nudity with homosexuals and not be a bigot/homophobe? That's not obtuse at all, it's exactly the same thing. Since you don't refer to women as heterophobes for expressing discomfort about public nudity with heterosexuals, why do you call men homophobes and bigots for having the same feelings towards homosexuals?

General discomfort? We're not talking about general discomfort. We're talking about privacy with nudity, there's a big difference. If people were separated in the office, then you can make the 'General discomfort" argument, but that isn't the case.

There are well known accepted scenarios that involve privacy. These are in the restroom, changing clothes and in any place where there might be nudity. Guess what Sherlock?! These are the exact scenarios that we are referring to. This isn't some general discomfort, "I don't want share an office next to **** Bill", that you are referring to.

Men and women are separated for privacy issues. You can deny that all you want, but that is the truth. Even now a days, locker rooms and bathrooms all have dividers, stalls and curtains. So if you think this isn't about maximizing privacy, then you're sadly mistaken.

Kaichi wrote:
The DoD has announced how the policy is to be interpreted. It's completely @#%^ing ridiculous that you think we should ignore THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THEIR OWN POLICY. That's like saying the Supreme Court has no place interpreting the Constitution. THAT'S THEIR JOB. Nevermind that historically, allowing gays in the military was the reason DADT was implemented! How stupid do you have to be to think that they intentionally changed the legislation from "No gays allowed," to "Still no gays allowed!"?


I'm not naive to think there's no possibility of me being wrong, I just want you to show me in the policy where I'm wrong. What's ridiculous is you refusing to show me in the Policy that supports what you say the DoD claims. Like the discussion I had earlier in this thread. At this level, the DoD is nothing but politicians. They will say anything to please and shut the people up. I've said this before, a single person maybe intellectual, but a mass of people becomes less intellectual.

Example 1: In this very same case, the Chief of Staff claims that repealing DADT needs to be done. Ok, so tell me why the military didn't make any self progress to repeal it themselves? How come he didn't give a time line, saying that it would best to wait till the war is over. Yea, when is that exactly??? This lead straight into my next example.

Example 2: A few months ago, there was a ton of heat with the "War in Iraq". President Obama made this big speech on how "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is over. People were excited that OIF was done... yet, we're still over there. Nothing has changed but the name and maybe the focus of the battle. Now, the media is off their backs and nothing had changed.

These two examples are the reasons why I want you to show me in the policy. If you want to fall prey to the mass of people who don't know what's going on, but just follows what the media says, then so be it. For me, until I see it in writing, it doesn't exist and you're making this overly complicated because I even sourced the policy for you.

Kaichi wrote:
How stupid do you have to be to think that they intentionally changed the legislation from "No gays allowed," to "Still no gays allowed!"?

Answer: Exactly as stupid as everyone says.


If you would have actually read the policy, you know, the one I sourced, you would understand. I already answered that question for you. The reason for the change was because your sexuality is your privacy. The military was unfairly targeting homosexuals by asking them their sexuality. The compromise for DADT was that they were not going to ask you your sexuality or try to disclose it. That enabled homosexuals a chance to join without lying and serving without being unfairly targeted. That is what DADT is all about. No where did it say that homosexuality was now authorized, because if it were, you wouldn't be discharged for it.





Edited, Jan 17th 2011 7:03pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#810 Jan 17 2011 at 11:41 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]
#811 Jan 17 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
^^ The Golden Last.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#812 Jan 17 2011 at 2:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
^^ The Golden Last.


You all know you like this....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#813 Jan 17 2011 at 11:02 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
you weren't actually reading all of my posts.


Oh, you have no idea.

I'm just glad you finally understand that you were wrong about homosexuals not being allowed in the military. You may try to dance around the semantics of it, but you know, and I know, and practically everyone else that knows anything about it knows that that was the purpose of DADT.
____________________________
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.
#814 Jan 18 2011 at 5:59 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
kachi wrote:

Oh, you have no idea.


I know more than you think. I've been quoting myself, without the quotes, these past couple of pages. I quoted one paragraph at least 4 times in a row to the same response. It was evident that the section wasn't read. Trust me, the silliness of responding to the same paragraph is pretty funny! lol

Kachi wrote:


I'm just glad you finally understand that you were wrong about homosexuals not being allowed in the military. You may try to dance around the semantics of it, but you know, and I know, and practically everyone else that knows anything about it knows that that was the purpose of DADT.


Oh, so you're going to ignore the statements in the Policy.. ok..I'll take that as an admittance.

I honestly don't know what society you've been living in, but I thought it was common knowledge that DADT was a compromise for the ability of homosexuals to join, not the authorization of homosexuality. This was even substantiated in the previous Presidential Primaries. Apparently, you didn't get the memo. So, you can ignore the policy all you want, but as long as you finally see that the policy doesn't support the nonsense that you're claiming, i.e. you're wrong, then it's all good. When you find otherwise in the policy, then we can continue.

Well, I think this has been very productive. You learned that DADT was a compromise, not the authorization of homosexuality. You realized that a man can choose not to want to share a shower with a homosexual and not be a bigot/homophobe because it's no different with many reasons why women not wanting to shower with men. Furthermore, separation for privacy is completely different than "general comfort". You realized that the size and physical ability of a person next to you doesn't increase the probability of rape or sexual assault. Plus much more...

I just made you a better person..

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#815 Jan 18 2011 at 9:52 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
^^ The Golden Last.


You all know you like this....

I don't. I genuinely wish you would end up on the wrong end of a "training accident".

And 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]
#816 Jan 18 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,004 posts
Hey Moe, you're close to Alma (well, closer than I am anyway) can't you make that training accident happen for us?
____________________________
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.
#817 Jan 18 2011 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Where is he?
____________________________
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]
#818 Jan 18 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
The sky is green.
The sky is blue.
No, green!
No, blue.
GREEEN!
You're dumb. I give up.
Hah, I win! The sky is green!

ITT: Alma successfully filibusters me with stupidity. I can no longer argue with someone who so thickly confuses their own stubborn foolishness for victory.
____________________________
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.
#819 Jan 18 2011 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,004 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?
Somewhere in the USA, I'm sure he has been more specific but it's all more or less the same to me.
____________________________
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.
#820 Jan 18 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?
Somewhere in the USA, I'm sure he has been more specific but it's all more or less the same to me.

To paraphrase Billy Bob Thornton: No offense, Mr. Aethien, but it's a big assed country.
____________________________
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]
#821 Jan 18 2011 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,004 posts
I'd give you more details but that's all I know.
Maybe if you ask him nicely he'll tell you where he lives so you can shoot him in the face.
____________________________
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.
#822 Jan 18 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Kachi wrote:
The sky is green.
The sky is blue.
No, green!
No, blue.
GREEEN!
You're dumb. I give up.
Hah, I win! The sky is green!

ITT: Alma successfully filibusters me with stupidity. I can no longer argue with someone who so thickly confuses their own stubborn foolishness for victory.


I'm the Filibuster?lol... let's recap

Scenario 1: You claim that the policy says one thing.I source the policy where it says something different and ask you to show me where in the policy where it states your claim. You refuse to do so..instead, you give me quotes of what OTHER people say..

Scenario 2: I ask you a simple yes or no question where you respond with an implication. Only after multiple posts later do you actually answer the question.

Scenario 3: Instead of addressing the statements directly pulled from the Policy that contradicts your "as long as you keep it secret" statement, you respond with the accusation that I was twisting words around..


If anyone here is the filibuster, it's you. You refuse to address the comments directed to you. Instead you spend your time saying that I'm wrong and making stupid posts such as debating the color of the sky....exactly what a filibuster would do.......

You completely failed the comprehension of DADT, just admit it to yourself and move on. I don't need your admittance. Unless you can show me in the policy where I'm wrong, then I already know that I'm right.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#823 Jan 18 2011 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?
He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 5:51pm 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

#824 Jan 18 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?
He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 5:51pm by Uglysasquatch
You can get varus and alma in one car trip!
____________________________
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.
#825 Jan 18 2011 at 4:02 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,785 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?
He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 5:51pm by Uglysasquatch
You can get varus and alma in one car trip!


Depends how quickly they can jump out of the way...
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all **** for a basement"

#826 Jan 18 2011 at 4:03 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?

He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

You can get varus and alma in one car trip!

Now if I could just get Nads to let me drop by and drop off I'd contemplate the trip.
____________________________
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]
#827 Jan 18 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?
He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 5:51pm by Uglysasquatch
You can get varus and alma in one car trip!


It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......

Oh, don't worry about where I'm at now, I'll be in Iraq soon.. You can come "get me" there....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#828 Jan 18 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......


But I notice it doesn't surprise you.
#829 Jan 18 2011 at 4:48 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......


But I notice it doesn't surprise you.


That's because it has been done numerous times before. I already addressed the issue of why there isn't a comparison in the first place, that's why I find it amusing that people are STILL making the comparison.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#830 Jan 18 2011 at 5:35 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Where is he?

He calls TN home, but I don't think he's stationed there.

You can get varus and alma in one car trip!

Now if I could just get Nads to let me drop by and drop off I'd contemplate the trip.


No one's stopping you, goob.
#831 Jan 18 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,477 posts
At the risk of perpetuating this thread, I suspect you guys are arguing over some pretty minor differences in perception. It seems like it boils down to whether there's a difference between "being gay" and "engaging in homosexual activity". And while I'll grant that from an internalized perspective, there is a difference, from an external viewpoint there really isn't.

From a third parties perspective there's no way to know that someone is **** unless that person engages in sexual activities with someone of the same sex. We pretty much make that the defining characteristic in the first place, right? Someone can think of themselves as **** or straight, but their actions are going to define how the rest of us view them. And certainly, from a legal standpoint, that's the only criteria you can use. It's not like we put people in jail for "being a thief". We put them in jail for stealing things.

Similarly, the military code speaks about actions, not states of being. And while it's certainly possible to "be gay" without taking any of the actions the military uses in this context, that's a pretty pedantic point to make. Um... But as far as I can tell, you guys have been arguing about this for at least 2 pages, so I figured I'd point it out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#832 Jan 18 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
gbaji wrote:
At the risk of perpetuating this thread, I suspect you guys are arguing over some pretty minor differences in perception. It seems like it boils down to whether there's a difference between "being gay" and "engaging in homosexual activity". And while I'll grant that from an internalized perspective, there is a difference, from an external viewpoint there really isn't.

From a third parties perspective there's no way to know that someone is **** unless that person engages in sexual activities with someone of the same sex. We pretty much make that the defining characteristic in the first place, right? Someone can think of themselves as **** or straight, but their actions are going to define how the rest of us view them. And certainly, from a legal standpoint, that's the only criteria you can use. It's not like we put people in jail for "being a thief". We put them in jail for stealing things.

Similarly, the military code speaks about actions, not states of being. And while it's certainly possible to "be gay" without taking any of the actions the military uses in this context, that's a pretty pedantic point to make. Um... But as far as I can tell, you guys have been arguing about this for at least 2 pages, so I figured I'd point it out.


My main point in this side argument is that DADT was put in place to enable homosexuals to join without lying or being unfairly targeted. DADT did NOT authorize homosexuality, just allowed ALL personnel to keep their sexuality to themselves. Kaichi is arguing that DADT was the authorization of homosexuality in the military, as long as you keep it a secret. I pointed out to him that it had nothing to do with you being able to keep a secret if you can get discharged for doing what may be perceived as an "intent" of doing something gay. Also, if it were authorized, you wouldn't be discharged for it anyway.

DADT just removed the DoD's "need to know" of your sexuality because it isn't their business in the first place. Homosexuality isn't/wasn't any more authorized than adultery and fraternization.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 2:33am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#833 Jan 18 2011 at 7:34 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,150 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'll be in Iraq soon..


Christ on a bike! If you didn't feel sympathy for the Iraqis before, then surely a pang of regret for their predicament now....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#834 Jan 18 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You completely failed the comprehension of DADT, just admit it to yourself and move on. I don't need your admittance. Unless you can show me in the policy where I'm wrong, then I already know that I'm right.


Apparently so did the authors of the legislation and the Dept. of Defense, according to you.

You're a laughing stock. I seriously don't think I've ever seen a less successful argument.
____________________________
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.
#835 Jan 18 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
You completely failed the comprehension of DADT, just admit it to yourself and move on. I don't need your admittance. Unless you can show me in the policy where I'm wrong, then I already know that I'm right.


Apparently so did the authors of the legislation and the Dept. of Defense, according to you.



Where is that in the policy again? You have yet shown that contradiction in the policy that governs this very topic. What a coincidence that the policy supports my claim.. but I guess, you also believe that the war in Iraq is over because that was what the media implied, including the Commander and Chief.....

kaichi wrote:
You're a laughing stock. I seriously don't think I've ever seen a less successful argument.


My words exactly, either show me in the policy or shut up... It's really that simple. At this point, you're just +1'ing

Paul wrote:
Christ on a bike! If you didn't feel sympathy for the Iraqis before, then surely a pang of regret for their predicament now....


Yea, they better watch out because I'll debate them on homosexuality in the military!!!! >.> really dude? Seriously? Go back to being silent.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 4:15am by Almalieque

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 4:25am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#836 Jan 18 2011 at 8:46 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Just give it up, Alma. The DoD says you're wrong-- I already linked it to you. You honestly think you can interpret their policy better than they can? Proving yourself more and more the fool.
____________________________
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.
#837 Jan 18 2011 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......


But I notice it doesn't surprise you.


That's because it has been done numerous times before. I already addressed the issue of why there isn't a comparison in the first place, that's why I find it amusing that people are STILL making the comparison.
This response right here is a great example of why you'll always be lumped in with him.
____________________________
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
#838 Jan 18 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Kachi wrote:
Just give it up, Alma. The DoD says you're wrong-- I already linked it to you. You honestly think you can interpret their policy better than they can? Proving yourself more and more the fool.


Uh, wait.. just like you "answered" my question before, right?

You gave me a quote where you claimed it came from the policy, when I asked you to show me that quote in context, you claimed that you "lost" it. Yet, at the same time you say it's sooooooooo easy to find it and yet you haven't produced it. I wasn't going to say it before, because I was giving you a benefit without a doubt, but I'm going to call you out on it now. You're full of BS. You obviously made that quote up...


Either show me in the policy or STFU.. There's no amount of whining and complaining that you can do to escape that.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#839 Jan 18 2011 at 9:04 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It amuses me how I'm always somehow thrown in with Varus......


But I notice it doesn't surprise you.


That's because it has been done numerous times before. I already addressed the issue of why there isn't a comparison in the first place, that's why I find it amusing that people are STILL making the comparison.
This response right here is a great example of why you'll always be lumped in with him.


Explain...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#840 Jan 18 2011 at 9:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Explain...
Yeah, not really my job to explain all the myriad of things you misunderstand, or completely miss. I can't be bothered.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 9:06pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#841 Jan 18 2011 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You gave me a quote where you claimed it came from the policy, when I asked you to show me that quote in context, you claimed that you "lost" it. Yet, at the same time you say it's sooooooooo easy to find it and yet you haven't produced it. I wasn't going to say it before, because I was giving you a benefit without a doubt, but I'm going to call you out on it now. You're full of BS. You obviously made that quote up...


I didn't say that that single quote was sooooo easy to find. I said similar sources were ridiculously easy to find. I linked you to two of them. Your response was, "Well, that's not written explicitly in the policy... show me in the policy!" which makes you look like a total fool.

But for you to think that I would actually forge a quote to win a debate with you, lmao. You're seriously the saddest piece of **** I've ever had the pleasure of talking to. If nothing else, the very definition of a sore loser.
____________________________
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.
#842 Jan 18 2011 at 9:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Explain...
Yeah, not really my job to explain all the myriad of things you misunderstand, or completely miss. I can't be bothered.

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 9:06pm by Xsarus


So, in other words, you're just making stuff up... cool. That is to be expected... You know by now that I would ask for an explanation, so for you to take time out to write not one, but two posts and probably three, is evident that you have no substance. The amount of effort you placed in your last two posts could have placed in making your first post relevant.

Kaichi wrote:
I didn't say that that single quote was sooooo easy to find. I said similar sources were ridiculously easy to find. I linked you to two of them. Your response was, "Well, that's not written explicitly in the policy... show me in the policy!" which makes you look like a total fool.


You said that particular quote CAME from the policy and other sources are so easy to find. So, find another source with that statement, which came from the policy. Or, here's an idea, how about finding that quote from the policy that I sourced you, which you claimed it came from?

Kaichi wrote:
But for you to think that I would actually forge a quote to win a debate with you, lmao. You're seriously the saddest piece of sh*t I've ever had the pleasure of talking to. If nothing else, the very definition of a sore loser.


Yea, you're right because not referencing it in the first place and "losing" it and not yet providing it is way more believable than you just making it up? Dude get real...you would have had to google three or four words and I'm sure you didn't go past 2 pages of results. So go back, find the quote or STFU. It's really that simple.....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#843 Jan 18 2011 at 9:38 PM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
This is the gayest thread ever.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#844 Jan 18 2011 at 10:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Smiley: lol I love it

People have explained, you ignore it. /shrug

Edited, Jan 18th 2011 10:09pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#845 Jan 19 2011 at 6:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
I'm going to need a another contender if we want to make it 20 pages, preferably someone who is willing to debate the policy and not hearsay .... I stuck a fork in Kaichi, he's done.

Sir X wrote:
People have explained, you ignore it. /shrug


So, as I predicted, you have nothing. No one has explained anywhere the comparison, they just made the comparison. When I countered to say that all of Varus's posts are about "liberal agendas" with every other word being "liberal", there was no counter back. You're wasting way more time telling me that I "ignored" it than the amount of time it would take for you to just tell me. If I am ignoring it, then why even bother to bring it up? Oh, that's right, because it was never said to begin with..

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 2:38pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#846 Jan 19 2011 at 6:41 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]
#847 Jan 19 2011 at 7:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,004 posts
Alma, shut the @#%^ up and focus on the important thing here: Giving Moe your adress so you can have a "training accident".

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 2:03pm by Aethien
____________________________
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.
#848 Jan 19 2011 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Alma, it's fallacious for you to keep mouthing off about being "victorious" every single time someone becomes too frustrated by your stubbornness to continue arguing.

Honestly, that's an argumentative technique that most people are supposed to grow out of when they hit their teens. It's ridiculously immature for someone of your age. You'd do well to do some self-critique and ask yourself why so many different people all react to you this way.

I mean, you won't, since that's your modus operandi. But it'd really do you some good.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#849 Jan 19 2011 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,677 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Alma, it's fallacious for you to keep mouthing off about being "victorious" every single time someone becomes too frustrated by your stubbornness to continue arguing.

Honestly, that's an argumentative technique that most people are supposed to grow out of when they hit their teens. It's ridiculously immature for someone of your age. You'd do well to do some self-critique and ask yourself why so many different people all react to you this way.

I mean, you won't, since that's your modus operandi. But it'd really do you some good.
And this is where the similarities between you (Alma) and Varus are. This quote could easily start withthe name Varus instead of Alma and it would still apply.
____________________________
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

#850 Jan 19 2011 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,004 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
ask yourself why so many different people all react to you this way.
It's a conspiracy!
____________________________
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.
#851 Jan 19 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,670 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
You'd do well to do some self-critique and ask yourself why so many different people all react to you this way.

Silly, the Asylum has a collective conscience.

bzzzzzzzzz
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Jophiel, TirithRR, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (41)