Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#402 Dec 31 2010 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not denying that. That's why I say double standards aren't inherently bad or good.

If you thought this was true, you wouldn't keep trying to use some emotionally laden phrase as a bludgeon for your arguments.

Quote:
It's only logical to make the separation as it is currently done, but at the same time, people shouldn't act like the men's concern is somehow different than women's concern in reference to comfort.

They are different. For one thing, they're considerably less significant from a statistical point of view.

Quote:
oh, as for the downplaying of the survey, I kept forgetting to reply. I can't prove that you were just "making fun of me" and not downplaying the survey

You're right you can't because that's exactly what was happening. But feel free to make up your own reality in your head to justify your ******** if it makes you feel better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#403 Dec 31 2010 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
No, in my world, homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men in reference to sexual desires.


This just made me realize your problem:

Either you got diddled as a child, in which case your fear is based upon a misconception, but that misconception is at least understandable.

Or you know zero *** people. So all of this shit you're spewing is based upon some sort of hypothetical nightmare that is only in your head.

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


#404 Dec 31 2010 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#405 Dec 31 2010 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
you're both idiots if you think those are the only reasons that exist for why men and women are seperated in communal naked places.


Those were the only major ones I could think of. If you know of others, please share.


I have offered two other reasons, though one is sort of related to your "rape" reason. (1)The anatomy difference, which seems to make Alma's eyes roll and foam to flick from his lips, and (2) mitigating the risk of actual or accused sexual assault. I was really thinking more along the lines of "accused." Like I said before, when a woman goes to a male doctor and is expected to remove any clothing, a female nurse is brought into the room. I speculate that's more for the doctor's protection than for the woman's. She can't sue him for sexual harassment, because there's a witness in the room. But when I go to my female doctors, that's simply not an issue.
#406 Dec 31 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
In Alma's world, all *** men have no restraint and will go at any other male no matter his orientation or where they are. Or if they're even attracted to said "vulnerable male".


No, in my world, homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men in reference to sexual desires.


Why do you insist that there's more to it other than what it really is?


Because all the men I know, straight or ***, have restraint.

It's been YEARS since some guy dry humped me in an elevator.

dammit
#407 Dec 31 2010 at 2:03 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jo wrote:
If you thought this was true, you wouldn't keep trying to use some emotionally laden phrase as a bludgeon for your arguments.


False: My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots. To show that, I demonstrated that there is a double standard where women who have the same concerns aren't considered bigots. That has nothing to do with me thinking double standards are good or bad. So, no, you're wrong.

Jo wrote:
They are different. For one thing, they're considerably less significant from a statistical point of view.


They are the exact same concerns, just one scenario is statistically lower than the other. The possibility of it occurring doesn't change the fact that they have the same concerns.

Jo wrote:
You're right you can't because that's exactly what was happening. But feel free to make up your own reality in your head to justify your ******** if it makes you feel better.


Whatever man....

Omega wrote:
This just made me realize your problem:

Either you got diddled as a child, in which case your fear is based upon a misconception, but that misconception is at least understandable.

Or you know zero *** people. So all of this **** you're spewing is based upon some sort of hypothetical nightmare that is only in your head.


Orrrrr.. I'm a man, who know other men, heterosexual and homosexual, of all ages and realize that biggest difference is only what we considered attractive.

My "problem" is that I live reality. I don't live in this fantasy world where people are only attracted to certain people who have their same sexuality. Yea, because we all know that men don't like seeing lesbians making out... of course not.... Get real..

Belkira wrote:
I have offered two other reasons, though one is sort of related to your "rape" reason. (1)The anatomy difference, which seems to make Alma's eyes roll and foam to flick from his lips, and (2) mitigating the risk of actual or accused sexual assault. I was really thinking more along the lines of "accused." Like I said before, when a woman goes to a male doctor and is expected to remove any clothing, a female nurse is brought into the room. I speculate that's more for the doctor's protection than for the woman's. She can't sue him for sexual harassment, because there's a witness in the room. But when I go to my female doctors, that's simply not an issue.


1) That's because that's just nonsense that you made up. If it were about the "anatomy", you would feel the same way clothed as well. Your breast don't go away when you're in the office. You know it's because of comfort, you just don't want to admit it. If you aren't consistent in the segregation, then it is evident there is more to it.

2) So, basically comfort, because in a unisex shower, there would also be witnesses, plenty of them. Matter of fact, you would statistically have more witnesses.

Nadenu wrote:
Because all the men I know, straight or ***, have restraint.

It's been YEARS since some guy dry humped me in an elevator.


Exactly, didn't say that they didn't have restraint. That's why I said that there is no reason why men and women aren't integrated in the showers other than comfort. That's my whole point, thank you for agreeing with me.
#408 Dec 31 2010 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
False: My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots. To show that, I demonstrated that there is a double standard where women who have the same concerns aren't considered bigots. That has nothing to do with me thinking double standards are good or bad. So, no, you're wrong.

Well, I guess you'd know what you were thinking.

Quote:
Whatever man....

Man, what a double standard. :(
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#409 Dec 31 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Nadenu wrote:
Because all the men I know, straight or ***, have restraint.

It's been YEARS since some guy dry humped me in an elevator.


Exactly, didn't say that they didn't have restraint. That's why I said that there is no reason why men and women aren't integrated in the showers other than comfort. That's my whole point, thank you for agreeing with me.


You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.
#410 Dec 31 2010 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.
#411 Dec 31 2010 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Alma, just get over it.
DADT changes only 1 thing and that's that *** people in the military don't have to hide the fact that they're *** anymore. It's not a big deal, nothing really changes.

If people are uncomfortable with it they're uncomfortable with it now too or just delusional.
____________________________
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.
#412 Dec 31 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma, just get over it.
DADT changes only 1 thing and that's that *** people in the military don't have to hide the fact that they're *** anymore. It's not a big deal, nothing really changes.

If people are uncomfortable with it they're uncomfortable with it now too or just delusional.


Almalieque for the Umpteenth time wrote:
My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots.

#413 Dec 31 2010 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#414 Dec 31 2010 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
CBD wrote:
Now than I can shower with other men while screaming "I'M ***!!", I plan on joining the military. It just wasn't the same without the yelling and obvious pixie dust wafting off my skin.


I've been wondering where you were in this thread.


I got lost in a pile of clothing at work. I think I'm back now.

What's weird about this thread is that Alma is sort of acknowledging that he has no real point. It almost makes me feel like I should just leave again.
____________________________
Mazra wrote:
When you cast Moonfire on someone, it's not some Druid base on the moon launching a precision deathbeam across space to strike people
#415 Dec 31 2010 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,911 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque for the Umpteenth time wrote:
My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots.

Sure, you could also be ignorant to the facts or just be plain stupid. You get to pick one: stupid, ignorant, bigoted. I know you don't like to hear that, and will probably chalk it up to bias, but that really is how obvious this issue is.

It is going to be viewed as one of the big civil rights duhs of American history, alongside integration of women and blacks into the military, alongside women suffrage and the end of slavery. Should your potential children ever read this thread, they will probably be ashamed, and your potential grandchildren will definitely be. I'm not trying to put you down here, but I do want to emphasize how obvious this question will seem to future generations.

For those supporting homosexual rights, the situation is a forgone conclusion. This has never been a fight about whether gays will gain equal rights, but when they will. Everything achieved by social conservatives pertaining to gays' rights is only a stall.

Edited, Dec 31st 2010 6:12pm by Allegory
#416 Dec 31 2010 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
What Bard said.
____________________________
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.
#417 Dec 31 2010 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
CBD wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
CBD wrote:
Now than I can shower with other men while screaming "I'M ***!!", I plan on joining the military. It just wasn't the same without the yelling and obvious pixie dust wafting off my skin.


I've been wondering where you were in this thread.


I got lost in a pile of clothing at work. I think I'm back now.

What's weird about this thread is that Alma is sort of acknowledging that he has no real point. It almost makes me feel like I should just leave again.


No, what I've acknowledged is that I'm not participating in these made up arguments that people are creating, only the nonsense that the OP mentioned (opponents think *** military servicemen are sissies who can't fight).

What you have noticed is that I was never debating the stuff that they were projecting. It's not that I don't have a point, but my point was something completely different than what has been argued.
#418 Dec 31 2010 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.


I don't think I said anything about women.

Numbnut.
#419 Dec 31 2010 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
hey alma you are at an even post count!.

Edited, Dec 31st 2010 8:43pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#420 Dec 31 2010 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I have offered two other reasons, though one is sort of related to your "rape" reason. (1)The anatomy difference, which seems to make Alma's eyes roll and foam to flick from his lips, and (2) mitigating the risk of actual or accused sexual assault. I was really thinking more along the lines of "accused." Like I said before, when a woman goes to a male doctor and is expected to remove any clothing, a female nurse is brought into the room. I speculate that's more for the doctor's protection than for the woman's. She can't sue him for sexual harassment, because there's a witness in the room. But when I go to my female doctors, that's simply not an issue.


I don't really think those add on the reasons I gave. Anatomical differences relate to those body shame and sexual innocence reasons I gave, and sexual innocence and rape relate to sexual assault accusations (when I said "rape" I was being hyperbolic-- I was referring to any kind of sexual assault/harassment). But yes, those are valid points.

Quote:
Correction, Comfort is the MAIN reason for the segregation.


Not really, at least not in the way you mean. The main reason for adult gender segregation is that it's a holdover from our upbringings. We grow up doing it, and we don't bother trying to change it, because that would involve a psychological rewiring that simply isn't practical versus any potential "benefits." Basically, we start doing it as kids and never really consider doing it any other way.

You could argue that "we're not comfortable with the idea of changing it," just like "we're not comfortable with changing with homosexuals," but that's tantamount to defending homophobia. We already change with homosexuals-- we probably all have at some point.

Quote:
You say weak, yet all of society (practically world wide) segregates men and women on the same inconvenience.


You either missed my point or you're just wrong. Women are still allowed to do those jobs, and my point was that gays should be allowed to as well. It's a minor inconvenience to allow women to serve if you provide separate facilities, but we let them serve. There's no stronger an argument for prohibiting gays from serving.

Quote:
Women are still restricted from performing certain jobs and there is no outcry, because no one cares beyond women being able to serve.


No, they're not. Women are not restricted from performing virtually any job in which they are physically capable of performing the essential tasks. If they are, they are only an easily-settled lawsuit away from being allowed.

Quote:
I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated.


They're not exactly the same though-- not even close. Men have a distinct physical (not to mention socially systemic) advantage against women. *** men do not have that same advantage against other men.
____________________________
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.
#421 Dec 31 2010 at 9:23 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.


I don't think I said anything about women.

Numbnut.


Yea, I know.. that was kind of the point, keep up.
#422 Dec 31 2010 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.


I don't think I said anything about women.

Numbnut.


Yea, I know.. that was kind of the point, keep up.


Keep up with what? You haven't had a point since you started posting in this thread.

Junior.
#423 Dec 31 2010 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
I don't buy into the comfort argument. When has comfort been a concern for the military? They're repeatedly sent thousands of miles away from home to live in heavily cramped quarters. They're put in places where people are trying to shoot and bomb them. They are trained to shoot and bomb people in return. This is okay, but the potential of a homosexual checking out their junk when they shower is just too uncomfortable? Please.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#424 Dec 31 2010 at 10:17 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Kachi wrote:
Not really, at least not in the way you mean. The main reason for adult gender segregation is that it's a holdover from our upbringings. We grow up doing it, and we don't bother trying to change it, because that would involve a psychological rewiring that simply isn't practical versus any potential "benefits." Basically, we start doing it as kids and never really consider doing it any other way.


This has nothing to do with upbringing. As other posters stated, we are taught that our private parts should be kept private, that includes both men and women, heterosexual or homosexual. So, in our first open shower experience, we have to rewire our psychological thinking. So there is no difference.

Kachi wrote:
You could argue that "we're not comfortable with the idea of changing it," just like "we're not comfortable with changing with homosexuals," but that's tantamount to defending homophobia. We already change with homosexuals-- we probably all have at some point.


That's the thing, it isn't homophobia, that's just BS that proponents say to scare people into their views. If men are homophobes for not feeling comfortable of changing in front of homosexuals, then those women are heterophobes for not feeling comfortable for changing in front of men. The thought of the two are equally stupid, yet you only want to recognize one.

Kachi wrote:
You either missed my point or you're just wrong. Women are still allowed to do those jobs, and my point was that gays should be allowed to as well. It's a minor inconvenience to allow women to serve if you provide separate facilities, but we let them serve. There's no stronger an argument for prohibiting gays from serving.


I was referencing to showers, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. You say that it is a "weak" argument, yet the same segregation occurs for the same exact reason practically world wide.

Kachi wrote:
No, they're not. Women are not restricted from performing virtually any job in which they are physically capable of performing the essential tasks. If they are, they are only an easily-settled lawsuit away from being allowed.


I'm sorry, I'm talking about the U.S military, which military are you referring to? Anybody in the U.S military can tell you that women do not have the same opportunities as men.

Kachi wrote:
They're not exactly the same though-- not even close. Men have a distinct physical (not to mention socially systemic) advantage against women. *** men do not have that same advantage against other men.


You are making the assumption that an assault has already occurred, which is the prejudice I'm referring to. You are making the assumption that a heterosexual man is unable to shower next to a woman without control. If not, then what's the problem?

As for the advantages of the men, you don't know the physical advantage unless you actually seen the two men. That's like saying a man can't fight a man because they're physically equal. That's stupid. Once again, there was a male soldier in my last unit sexually assaulted by a *** man. It all depends on the size of the two people. It's possible for a woman to overpower a man as well. It's just the likelihood of that is not as high. It's all about the size of the people, not the *** or sexuality of the people.

Allegory wrote:
Sure, you could also be ignorant to the facts or just be plain stupid. You get to pick one: stupid, ignorant, bigoted. I know you don't like to hear that, and will probably chalk it up to bias, but that really is how obvious this issue is.

It is going to be viewed as one of the big civil rights duhs of American history, alongside integration of women and blacks into the military, alongside women suffrage and the end of slavery. Should your potential children ever read this thread, they will probably be ashamed, and your potential grandchildren will definitely be. I'm not trying to put you down here, but I do want to emphasize how obvious this question will seem to future generations.

For those supporting homosexual rights, the situation is a forgone conclusion. This has never been a fight about whether gays will gain equal rights, but when they will. Everything achieved by social conservatives pertaining to gays' rights is only a stall.


Only stupid, ignorant or bigoted people believe discrimination based on a psychological trait is the same as physical trait, so you choose. I seriously can't believe the amount of denial on this thread. The main reason why women don't want to share showers with men is that they are AFRAID of getting raped, sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and or don't want men looking at their goods. I guarantee you those are in the top 3 reasons of a woman not wanting to shower with men, PERIOD. To pretend otherwise is just plain stupid.




Edited, Jan 1st 2011 6:18am by Almalieque

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 6:20am by Almalieque
#425 Dec 31 2010 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Keep up with what? You haven't had a point since you started posting in this thread. ever.

Junior.


Fixed.
#426 Dec 31 2010 at 10:42 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Keep up with what? You haven't had a point since you started posting in this thread.

Junior.


You mean this one?

Almalieque for the Umpteenth time +1 wrote:
My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots.


Wow, that's crazy, that's even on this very same page.. Your failure to read isn't a failure on my part.

let me walk you through it, since you couldn't get it.

Do you believe heterosexual men would have "Better things to do" rather than checking out the women that they are attracted to in a shower?

Belkira wrote:
Fixed.


Awwww. you're still ****-hurt for looking like a fool by trying to convince me that I was changing points. You must have felt pretty silly when I can quote where I've TOLD you my very point multiple times through out the thread. This is the very same point you said that I was "changing" to... it's ok.. You can admit that you were wrong, it's ok.

Punk Floyd wrote:
I don't buy into the comfort argument. When has comfort been a concern for the military? They're repeatedly sent thousands of miles away from home to live in heavily cramped quarters. They're put in places where people are trying to shoot and bomb them. They are trained to shoot and bomb people in return. This is okay, but the potential of a homosexual checking out their junk when they shower is just too uncomfortable? Please.


From the moment they decided to separate women and men, they took comfort into consideration.

You would be surprised. I thought you were once in the military? The military is very political when it comes to certain things. The higher you get up the chain, the less stuff you can do and more things you can't do. When my dad was in the Navy, they had to undergo training prior to being integrated with women on the ship. If they didn't care about "comfort", there wouldn't have been any training.

Every time there is a change of command, there is supposed to be a climate survey to see how the unit feels about things being conducted. Not only that, the DoD sent us surveys on how we would feel if DADT was removed and that was used in the basis of their argument.

Also, people joined to go thousands of miles away to live in a heavily cramped quarters to shoot and kill people. That's why many have joined. So, women join the military to be thousands of miles away, living in a heavily cramped quarters to shoot and kill people and the potential of men checking out their breast, thighs and behinds is just too uncomfortable? Wake up call: Those women didn't join to be a piece of eye candy for men to drool over. They joined to accomplish a mission in the military.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 80 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (80)