Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#852 Jan 19 2011 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
Silly, the Asylum has a collective conscience.

bzzzzzzzzz

We is not amused.
____________________________
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]
#853 Jan 19 2011 at 8:56 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Silly, the Asylum has a collective conscience.

bzzzzzzzzz

We is not amused.
I don't imagine We is, with a thread like this still going. How about you get a more effective Last! working in here.
____________________________
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

#854 Jan 19 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Mostly because I can't be arsed to add the little TM thingy.
____________________________
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]
#855 Jan 19 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

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?


No, retard. I said that particular quote came from the MILITARY, which it did. It came from a powerpoint that they used to train military leaders on DADT policy. As you should know, you can't google a string of words from a powerpoint and get it to return on a search. The fact remains that a simple google search yielded me the DoD page in seconds, explaining the policy on DADT, and that glancing through the other hits, they all said the same thing. But you're going to write off the DoD, so what source would be good enough?

Apparently, the most authoritative source on the subject as far as you're concerned, is you.

I can easily see why people refer to you as a gbaji/varus hybrid. You rather artfully display the worst qualities of the both of them. I never thought it possible for there to be a more detestable poster than varus (aside from the comedic value), but at least he's concise with his idiocy.

Congratulations on being my new least favorite person, you poster-child of an irredeemable child-poster.
____________________________
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.
#856 Jan 19 2011 at 4:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
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


I said that he can come meet me in Iraq...

Eske 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.


Don't fault me because you fail to follow a thread. I've said at least 3 times already that I'm not naive to think I'm not wrong, I just want him to prove me wrong with the policy, because that's the only thing that matters.

I've given him plenty of time to reference his quote in the policy, which I freakin referenced for him TWICE and he has yet done so.

He "gave up" because he has nothing from the policy to substantiate his claim. You're on his side, so therefore you assume that he's giving up in frustration. If I can admit being wrong to RDD, I can admit being wrong to anyone on this forum.

So, honestly, you tell me what would you think?

Kaichi: You know Jesus has a twin brother?

You: What? No, I didn't hear that, I don't believe that.

Kaichi: See, look here, Pastor Smith said that the Bible said "Jesus has a twin brother"

You: Ok, show me where that's at in the Bible

Kaichi: I can't because I lost it, silly you for not taking 4 seconds to google it yourself, see even Pastor Jonson said it.

You: Ok, but can you show me in the Bible where it supports Jesus being a twin?

Kaichi: You're the worst debater ever!!!

I gave this guy plenty of time to prove himself and him not proving himself doesn't automatically make me right, but it sure does make it seem so.

Ugly wrote:
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.


Read above.

I could also change the name to Ugly and no one would know the difference, so what's your point? We can both type in English?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#857 Jan 19 2011 at 4:33 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I could also change the name to Ugly and no one would know the difference, so what's your point? We can both type in English?
But people would view it differently. While you may want to deny it, perception is reality on something like this.

I should point out that I'm replying to this:
Almalieque wrote:
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...
you may not agree with it, but it is what it is.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 6:45pm 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

#858 Jan 19 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:

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?


No, retard. I said that particular quote came from the MILITARY, which it did. It came from a powerpoint that they used to train military leaders on DADT policy. As you should know, you can't google a string of words from a powerpoint and get it to return on a search. The fact remains that a simple google search yielded me the DoD page in seconds, explaining the policy on DADT, and that glancing through the other hits, they all said the same thing. But you're going to write off the DoD, so what source would be good enough?

Apparently, the most authoritative source on the subject as far as you're concerned, is you.

I can easily see why people refer to you as a gbaji/varus hybrid. You rather artfully display the worst qualities of the both of them. I never thought it possible for there to be a more detestable poster than varus (aside from the comedic value), but at least he's concise with his idiocy.

Congratulations on being my new least favorite person, you poster-child of an irredeemable child-poster.


So, a power point.. You know what would settle this once and for all, either way??? You showing me in the Homosexual Policy (which I've referenced and you can google)! I'm not sure why you think a power point overwrites the Policy..

You know who is the most authoritative source on the subject is? President Obama.. and you know what he said?

Post Politics
New home.
Still the best political coverage.
Obama's speech on August 31 declares combat in Iraq over

Saying it is "time to turn the page" on one of the most divisive chapters in American history, President Obama declared the U.S. war in Iraq over Tuesday night, telling the nation that he was fulfilling his campaign pledge to stop a war he had opposed from the start.

"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended," Obama said in his second prime-time address from the Oval Office. He heralded his belief "that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization."

In his speech, the president sought to unshackle the nation from a military invasion, begun by his predecessor, that was supposed to swiftly depose a dictator, seize hidden weapons of mass destruction and leave behind a democratic government.

Instead, it dragged on for more than seven years as U.S. troops battled a growing insurgency. The war became a recruiting tool and training ground for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Obama noted the "huge price" the United States paid during the long, wrenching conflict. Over the course of the war, 1.5 million troops served in Iraq, many of them returning for multiple tours. More than 4,400 died, and 32,000 were wounded.

The demands of the war stretched the limits of American military readiness, and its $740 billion cost far outpaced the original estimates.

After making the case in his remarks for withdrawing combat troops, Obama quickly pivoted to his other priorities. He said resources could now shift to the war in Afghanistan and to boosting the economy, which he labeled "our most urgent task."



Yea, we're still in Iraq. We ended the "combat" portion, but we're still there with a different name of the mission. If you can't see how you're just a statistic in politics for blindly accepting what people saying as opposed to checking what's in the fine print, especially when it's presented to your face, then that's a personal problem. Just don't act like that I'm the crazy one for wanting you to prove something true in the governing document as opposed to a slide show made by COL Snuffy.

This is no different, President Obama said some words and made some changes to make it seem like there was a BIG difference, but in reality, nothing really changed. The same thing happened with DADT, homosexuality is still not authorized. These are all political stunts to appear that he has completed his promises even though they are still in progress.

Ugly wrote:
But people would view it differently. While you may want to deny it, perception is reality on something like this.

[...]
you may not agree with it, but it is what it is.


I completely understand, which is my point. This isn't about what I actually stand for, but "Alma annoys me, Varus annoys me, man there just alike". That's completely stupid and I'm just arguing the logical sense. Just because you're allergic to peanut butter and crab, doesn't mean the two are the same. So, for anyone to make that comparison beyond "what you're allergic to" is silly. Our post contents are radically different. He's a hard core Conservative who think Liberals are taking over the world and believes that's all he should talk about. I'm an Independent with Conservative and Liberal views who really don't care what we're talking about.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#859 Jan 19 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
25,561 posts
No it's because you're almost as dumb as varus and equally bad at debating.
____________________________
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.
#860 Jan 19 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kaichi: You know Jesus has a twin brother?

You: What? No, I didn't hear that, I don't believe that.

Kaichi: See, look here, Pastor Smith said that the Bible said "Jesus has a twin brother"

You: Ok, show me where that's at in the Bible

Kaichi: I can't because I lost it, silly you for not taking 4 seconds to google it yourself, see even Pastor Jonson said it.

You: Ok, but can you show me in the Bible where it supports Jesus being a twin?

Kaichi: You're the worst debater ever!!!

That is the saddest and most pathetic attempt to assert a point I've ever seen. You are literally on the level of a fourth grader here.
#861 Jan 19 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
No it's because you're almost as dumb as varus and equally bad at debating.


Explain...

Everyone's "Explanation" is their original claim.

You say almost as dumb as Varus... but people have agreed to other posters as being idiots(even on this thread), yet I'm not compared to them. Why? They agree with the mass. Do you think it's a coincidence that I'm only compared with the people who tend to argue against the mass? Or do you believe the only "stupid" people on these forums are myself, Gabaji and Varus? If not, there should be a stupidity comparison with these other posters as well.

Second, bad at debating? I present the governing document on the subject and ask my opponent to substantiate his claim in that document and he refuses to. How exactly is that "bad at debating"? He uses a slide show documentation that probably came from some random unit doing EO/legal training and he argues that somehow trumps the actual Homosexual Policy? Really? Seriously? Do you believe that? That isn't a rhetorical question either. Do you or do you not believe the actual Homosexual Policy trumps any contradictory language presented in a slide show? If there is a contradiction, which would you agree is actually correct?

Seriously, you guys will have to come up with more than "that's the way it is" if you want any sensible person to believe that. When I got rated down in a Merry Christmas thread for saying "Merry Christmas", it was blatantly obvious that people are not judging my content. They just don't like me. Others have admitted to that in this thread. So let it go.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#862 Jan 19 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Kaichi: You know Jesus has a twin brother?

You: What? No, I didn't hear that, I don't believe that.

Kaichi: See, look here, Pastor Smith said that the Bible said "Jesus has a twin brother"

You: Ok, show me where that's at in the Bible

Kaichi: I can't because I lost it, silly you for not taking 4 seconds to google it yourself, see even Pastor Jonson said it.

You: Ok, but can you show me in the Bible where it supports Jesus being a twin?

Kaichi: You're the worst debater ever!!!

That is the saddest and most pathetic attempt to assert a point I've ever seen. You are literally on the level of a fourth grader here.


Explain..

Why do you think there are so many denominations in religion? I was approached by a cult religion in Korea who tried to convince me that God had a wife. You know what they used to try to make their argument? Hint: It wasn't a slide show..... They used the Bible, because even they knew if you were going to try prove to someone that God had a wife, you're going to need to show it in the Bible, because that's the governing book. Anything outside the Bible, preferably the King James Version, is suspect.

Just like in this thread, they literally got tired of arguing with me and left. It was hilarious because they were the one insisting to talk to me at first.

So please explain to me how that was the saddest and most pathetic attempt to assert a point?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#863 Jan 19 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
You say almost as dumb as Varus... but people have agreed to other posters as being idiots(even on this thread), yet I'm not compared to them. Why?
Because they're not idiots in 90%+ of their posts. Unlike you and varus.
____________________________
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

#864 Jan 19 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
You say almost as dumb as Varus... but people have agreed to other posters as being idiots(even on this thread), yet I'm not compared to them. Why?
Because they're not idiots in 90%+ of their posts. Unlike you and varus.


Explain.

What's idiotic about a person who admits to the possibility of being wrong, but wants to be proven wrong in the governing document?

How is a person claiming that a power point slide trumping the actual policy not idiotic?

You're confusing "not idiots with 90%+ of their posts" with "not agreeing with the mass 90%+ of the post"...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#865 Jan 19 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Explain..

You are re-imagining the disagreement to your liking--casting yourself as more flattering and the person you dislike as less so--and then repeating it back to someone hoping they'll accept your interpretation. That is what children do when asked to tell their story about a disagreement with another child.

Is there a comedy show that hasn't done the joke at least once?
Almalieque wrote:
Just like in this thread, they literally got tired of arguing with me and left. It was hilarious because they were the one insisting to talk to me at first.

Regardless of whether everyone else in this thread is wrong or not, I hope you are at the very least aware of why people argue with you. To pretty much everyone here, you are a joke. You are not taken seriously. People do not have debates with you because they are interested in your opinion or because they wish to prove something to you. They are merely providing quotes for you to respond to because they want to hear a ridiculous refutation. They leave because they become bored.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 7:45pm by Allegory
#866 Jan 19 2011 at 8:02 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Allegory wrote:
You are re-imagining the disagreement to your liking--casting yourself as more flattering and the person you dislike as less so--and then repeating it back to someone hoping they'll accept your interpretation. That is what children do when asked to tell their story about a disagreement with another child.


Actually, that was pretty close to what actually happened. I didn't exaggerate any statements. Since you disagree, please take that same scenario and correct it without falling prey to your own accusation.

Allegory wrote:
Regardless of whether everyone else in this thread is wrong or not, I hope you are at the very least aware of why people argue with you. To pretty much everyone here, you are a joke. You are not taken seriously. People do not have debates with you because they are interested in your opinion or because they wish to prove something to you. They are merely providing quotes for you to respond to because they want to hear a ridiculous refutation. They leave because they become bored.


Of course I realize that, because the feeling is mutual. I would even argue that I think most people on this thread are a bigger joke than they actually think I am. I don't take anyone here seriously because I know that the most people that I argue with are immature, ignorant, biased followers who argue for the sake of insult as opposed to gaining knowledge.

As I mentioned before, you gain from arguing with idiots, because those are the people you'll end up having to convince in real life scenarios. The stuff people argue to avoid admitting that they *might* be wrong is ridiculous. A few years ago, you argued that it was possible for a car to transform into a future model car without human intervention. It took pages and pages before someone stepped in and just said, "that's stupid". I think it was you or someone else who argued that not having sex is the same as having an abortion. You have people on this thread who believe privacy has nothing to do with segregation in public nude areas. The list just goes on and on. I don't believe these posters believe their own crap that they say, they're more interested to see if I would concede to such a dumb argument.

There are number of lurkers who probably agree with me, so I'm not labeling everyone as idiots, but the people who commonly argue with me present idiotic comments to say the least. When people compare me to Varus or rate my Merry Christmas post down, it only validates my claim.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#867 Jan 19 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
So, a power point.. You know what would settle this once and for all, either way??? You showing me in the Homosexual Policy (which I've referenced and you can google)! I'm not sure why you think a power point overwrites the Policy..

You know who is the most authoritative source on the subject is? President Obama.. and you know what he said?


Why on EARTH would Obama be the most authoritative source on the subject of DADT? He wasn't even a federal employee when DADT was implemented.

All you keep saying is, "Show me in the policy!" You know damn well that it doesn't say explicitly one way or the other in the policy, just like many other legislative amendments and even the @#%^ing constitution. The legislators who presented DADT explained the purpose of their legislation when they presented it-- I linked you to that, and you weren't satisfied. The Department of Defense, who is responsible for understanding the meaning of the legislation, explained what it meant-- I linked it to you, and you weren't satisfied. I quoted you from a powerpoint that the military used to train their leaders on the policy-- you demanded a link, and when I couldn't find it, you called me a liar.

You've very transparently created a situation where your demands for being convinced that you're wrong are so unreasonable that they cannot be met, where any reasonable intelligent person would have looked at the evidence I presented and said, "Ah, I stand corrected." Or if you were gbaji, you would have changed the subject. Claiming to be open-minded and then demanding an unreasonable level of proof makes you look like a fool, and to no great surprise, that's what everyone thinks of you.

Now, I'd like to point out that I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I don't even think gbaji is an idiot-- just not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and determined to try to make smart arguments for stupid positions, and usually failing (like you, except without this next part). However, he at least makes a decent point from time to time and clearly has some intelligence even if he applies it in the most inappropriate of ways. It'd be a feat if he didn't as much as he writes. But I don't think I've ever seen you say anything that even resembles something a smart person would say. If I didn't take your word that you have some sort of job, I'd swear you were a middle-schooler, which honestly makes the fact that you're an adult that much sadder.

And that's why this thread, as I imagine many others are, has become about why you're a buffoon. I hope you resist the urge to pull out the first defense mechanism in your arsenal to preserve your misguided self esteem, and instead actually take a moment of critical introspection to grow as a person. Hell, I will be impressed if you just shut up.
____________________________
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.
#868 Jan 19 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Almalieque wrote:
A few years ago, you argued that it was possible for a car to transform into a future model car without human intervention. It took pages and pages before someone stepped in and just said, "that's stupid". I think it was you or someone else who argued that not having sex is the same as having an abortion.

Happen to remember any search-able terms? I think it'd be fun to re-read a few of those.

Edit: well found the abortion thread, lulz.

Edited, Jan 19th 2011 8:38pm by Allegory
#869 Jan 19 2011 at 9:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
Allegory wrote:
To pretty much everyone here, you are a joke. You are not taken seriously. People do not have debates with you because they are interested in your opinion or because they wish to prove something to you. They are merely providing quotes for you to respond to because they want to hear a ridiculous refutation. They leave because they become bored.
#870 Jan 19 2011 at 9:13 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You're confusing "not idiots with 90%+ of their posts" with "not agreeing with the mass 90%+ of the post"...
No I'm not. However, even if I am, it's still the perception everyone has of you on this forum. While you may not agree with it, it is how you're viewed and why people continue to lump you in with varus. No amount of explaining how you're not like varus will change that, only you're actions.
____________________________
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

#871 Jan 19 2011 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Allegory wrote:
To pretty much everyone here, you are a joke. You are not taken seriously. People do not have debates with you because they are interested in your opinion or because they wish to prove something to you. They are merely providing quotes for you to respond to because they want to hear a ridiculous refutation. They leave because they become bored.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#872 Jan 19 2011 at 11:19 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
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


I said that he can come meet me in Iraq...

Eske 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.


Don't fault me because you fail to follow a thread.


Smiley: facepalm



There are no words...
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#873 Jan 19 2011 at 11:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Kaichi wrote:
Why on EARTH would Obama be the most authoritative source on the subject of DADT? He wasn't even a federal employee when DADT was implemented.


Uh... I was making the transition to the war in Iraq, you know, that entire block that you conveniently looked over. Why don't you reread that and explain to me how the Commander and Chief can say that the war in Iraq is over, yet we're still over there?

If you can't see the relevance, then you can't be helped. The Commander and Chief implies that the war in Iraq is over
when it really isn't. He didn't necessarily lie, he just left out all of the details when saying that, because that's what people wanted to hear. President Obama is over the DoD and I just showed you in his speech how it was very misleading from the truth. So, your "The DoD said so" does not trump what's clearly written in the policy. Just like President Obama's words don't trump the fact that we are still in Iraq.

Kaichi wrote:
All you keep saying is, "Show me in the policy!" You know damn well that it doesn't say explicitly one way or the other in the policy, just like many other legislative amendments and even the @#%^ing constitution. The legislators who presented DADT explained the purpose of their legislation when they presented it-- I linked you to that, and you weren't satisfied.


That's funny, because I quoted in the policy where it contradicts your claim. All I'm asking you to do is to do the same. There is nothing wrong with using other people's interpretations to substantiate your claim from the policy, but you have to actually make one first.

This is why I'm "anal" about your response. You have made ZERO effort in reading the policy. You're not even thinking for yourself. I presented to you a counter argument to your claim using the policy and instead of taking the time out to read the policy to find a counter to that argument, you post what other people say. So, if you want to use their opinion to help yours, then fine, but at least have a statement to work off of.

Kaichi wrote:
The Department of Defense, who is responsible for understanding the meaning of the legislation, explained what it meant-- I linked it to you, and you weren't satisfied.


Oh, you mean, the same department whose Commander and Chief said that the war in Iraq was over? Yeaaaaaa.... forgive me for not being a blind idiot.

Kaichi wrote:
I quoted you from a powerpoint that the military used to train their leaders on the policy-- you demanded a link, and when I couldn't find it, you called me a liar.


If you remember correctly, I assumed at first that you just read it out of context. That's the reason why I asked you to post the link. I gave you plenty of time to find it.. "I can't find it" at this point, is complete and utter BS, even if the quote did exist. You can look at your posts to see what day you posted that quote, go look in your broswer's history and go to that specific day and pull it up. I find it hard to believe that you can't remember the words that you googled. I find it even harder to believe that you went past the first or second page of results. So either way, you're not putting any effort into it. You're either lying, lazy or a lazy liar. Pick one.

Besides, a slide show does not trump the policy. My last OPD that consisted of our BDE legal literally skipped the DADT slides saying that it didn't matter because President Obama was going to repeal it anyways and any case would just bring unwanted negativity from the media to the BDE CDR, unit and the military in general. He didn't write that down in his slides, but said it. None of that is substantiated in the policy, that was 100% his opinion. So forgive me for not being a blind idiot.


Kiachi wrote:
You've very transparently created a situation where your demands for being convinced that you're wrong are so unreasonable that they cannot be met, where any reasonable intelligent person would have looked at the evidence I presented and said, "Ah, I stand corrected." Or if you were gbaji, you would have changed the subject. Claiming to be open-minded and then demanding an unreasonable level of proof makes you look like a fool, and to no great surprise, that's what everyone thinks of you.


Unreasonable? I'm asking you to use the Homosexual Policy, the governing document on this situation, as the foundation of your argument, not what somebody else said. HTF is that unreasonable? You're just being too lazy to do your own homework. Even if the policy wasn't straight forward, if it really means what the others claim to mean, then surely you would be able find something from the policy to at least support your claim. I didn't read the whole thing myself, so maybe there's a sentence that completely contradicts my entire claim. I don't know.. but you wont know until you actually read it yourself.

Kaichi wrote:
Now, I'd like to point out that I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I don't even think gbaji is an idiot-- just not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and determined to try to make smart arguments for stupid positions, and usually failing (like you, except without this next part). However, he at least makes a decent point from time to time and clearly has some intelligence even if he applies it in the most inappropriate of ways. It'd be a feat if he didn't as much as he writes. But I don't think I've ever seen you say anything that even resembles something a smart person would say. If I didn't take your word that you have some sort of job, I'd swear you were a middle-schooler, which honestly makes the fact that you're an adult that much sadder.


Really? So you honestly believe public nudity has nothing to do with personal privacy? Yea, man, you're delusional. If you can't think of any intellectual argument that I've made, then you're plum delusional. I already listed some positions that I've made in previous arguments and I could go on and some people would only object to them if I said I were for them, plain and simple.

Kaichi wrote:
And that's why this thread, as I imagine many others are, has become about why you're a buffoon. I hope you resist the urge to pull out the first defense mechanism in your arsenal to preserve your misguided self esteem, and instead actually take a moment of critical introspection to grow as a person. Hell, I will be impressed if you just shut up.


Really dude? Seriously? When you get the cojones to read the policy and argue with me what really matters, the governing document, then you can talk about growth and development. At this point,you're so delusional that you're believing in your own lies as truth.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#874 Jan 19 2011 at 11:29 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You're confusing "not idiots with 90%+ of their posts" with "not agreeing with the mass 90%+ of the post"...
No I'm not. However, even if I am, it's still the perception everyone has of you on this forum. While you may not agree with it, it is how you're viewed and why people continue to lump you in with varus. No amount of explaining how you're not like varus will change that, only you're actions.


You do realize that was my entire point? You're the only person who is agreeing with me. Everyone else is claiming that there is some relationship. I'm simply saying that there is no relationship other than you don't like him and you don't like me, but everyone is pretending that it's based off of merit.

My actions will never change. I would rather be right and against the mass as opposed to being a clueless, mindless, immature follower who wants to be "cool" by agreeing with the mass. The simple fact that posters, such as yourself, keep bringing up "image" in this forum, only supports the fact that you value image in the first place, which is lulz to say the least.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#875 Jan 19 2011 at 11:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Three things:

1) It's pretty sad, but also telling, that after all this time you can't even get a five-letter name right.

2) You have not shown in the policy where sexual orientation is grounds for a bar from enlistment, and you can't because it doesn't exist.

3) I honestly can't be bothered to read even half of that post because the past indicates that it's an awful lot of stupid.
____________________________
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.
#876 Jan 19 2011 at 11:34 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
My actions will never change. I would rather be right and against the mass as opposed to being a clueless, mindless, immature follower who wants to be "cool" by agreeing with the mass. The simple fact that posters, such as yourself, keep bringing up "image" in this forum, only supports the fact that you value image in the first place, which is lulz to say the least.


It's HILARIOUS that you think you're even close to being the only person here who doesn't care what others think of them. This is the fucking internet, dude. Get a clue. The LAST motivation people have for thinking you're a retard is to look cool.
____________________________
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.
#877 Jan 19 2011 at 11:35 PM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
So, the crux of the current issue is that Kachi says that DADT allows homosexuals to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret, and Alma says that DADT enables homosexuals to to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret.

Seems... Well, silly just doesn't seem to be strong enough. Semantics are a bitch.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#878 Jan 19 2011 at 11:35 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,427 posts
Kachi wrote:
Three things:

1) It's pretty sad, but also telling, that after all this time you can't even get a five-letter name right.

2) You have not shown in the policy where sexual orientation is grounds for a bar from enlistment, and you can't because it doesn't exist.

3) I honestly can't be bothered to read even half of that post because the past indicates that it's an awful lot of stupid.


1) spelling has no place on the internet.
2) in his make believe world it does let him have that.
3) yes and its why Ive always enjoyed his posts.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#879 Jan 19 2011 at 11:58 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
So, the crux of the current issue is that Kachi says that DADT allows homosexuals to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret, and Alma says that DADT enables homosexuals to to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret.

Seems... Well, silly just doesn't seem to be strong enough. Semantics are a bitch.


Right. Alma thinks that DADT "enabled" (rather than allowed) them to because the military likes to enable people to break their rules, and because they weren't "able" to enlist if they kept it a secret in the first place. It's an utterly ridiculous argument made all the worse by his insistence to defend it in spite of all contrary indication.
____________________________
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.
#880 Jan 20 2011 at 5:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You do realize that was my entire point?
No. Again, you read what you want to read. You are wrong 90%+ of the time. It's a perception that's been created because of the fact that you are wrong. Like varus, you sometimes manage to dance around the point, but rarely are you ever close to it. Leave it to you to see what you wanted to see in my last post though (just like varus would).
____________________________
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

#881 Jan 20 2011 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
So, the crux of the current issue is that Kachi says that DADT allows homosexuals to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret, and Alma says that DADT enables homosexuals to to enlist in the army so long as they keep their sexuality a secret.

Seems... Well, silly just doesn't seem to be strong enough. Semantics are a bitch.


Right. Alma thinks that DADT "enabled" (rather than allowed) them to because the military likes to enable people to break their rules, and because they weren't "able" to enlist if they kept it a secret in the first place. It's an utterly ridiculous argument made all the worse by his insistence to defend it in spite of all contrary indication.


Does the word really matter...? Enabled, allowed, same difference, really. Let's face it, you're both right. Under DADT, the military was allowing homosexuals to enter the military, but they will still kick them out if they find out they are homosexual. So they were allowing people to break their rules. Does saying they were enabling people to break their rules make that much of a difference?
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#882 Jan 20 2011 at 9:25 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
14,829 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm simply saying that there is no relationship other than you don't like him and you don't like me, but everyone is pretending that it's based off of merit.
Aux contrare, people like Varus.
____________________________
LOOK here.
#883 Jan 20 2011 at 2:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Kachi wrote:
Three things:

1) It's pretty sad, but also telling, that after all this time you can't even get a five-letter name right.

2) You have not shown in the policy where sexual orientation is grounds for a bar from enlistment, and you can't because it doesn't exist.

3) I honestly can't be bothered to read even half of that post because the past indicates that it's an awful lot of stupid.


1. My bad... Why are people so sensitive about their fictional names?

2. I showed you in the policy where a person can get discharged for appearing to have the intent of doing something homosexual. That means, the person didn't actually do anything nor admit to anything. This means that their sexuality is a secret.

3. You're not responding because you have no response.
a. Explain to me how the President said that the war in Iraq is over, yet we're still there.
b. You say you can't find your quote, why don't you check your browser history on the day of the post and
just find it?


Kachi wrote:

Right. Alma thinks that DADT "enabled" (rather than allowed) them to because the military likes to enable people to break their rules, and because they weren't "able" to enlist if they kept it a secret in the first place. It's an utterly ridiculous argument made all the worse by his insistence to defend it in spite of all contrary indication.


The military isn't enabling them to break the rules any more than people committing adultery or fraternization. You're pretending that this is somehow different or special. The military was unfairly targeting homosexuality when it wasn't their business in the first place and so they adjusted the rules to say that they are not going to ask you, but homosexuality is still not authorized in the military. This is why you can still be discharged. This is a simple concept.

Belkira wrote:
Does the word really matter...? Enabled, allowed, same difference, really. Let's face it, you're both right. Under DADT, the military was allowing homosexuals to enter the military, but they will still kick them out if they find out they are homosexual. So they were allowing people to break their rules. Does saying they were enabling people to break their rules make that much of a difference?


In everyday talk, there is no difference. I've caught myself numerous times changing "allowed" to "enabled" to stay consistent. At the same time, when you're arguing a concept of rather homosexuality is authorized or not in the military, then it does make a difference. If homosexuality were authorized, then you wouldn't be discharged for it. Simply saying "You can't be gay" doesn't cover all of the scenarios that you can be discharged for, i.e. a heterosexual woman making out with another woman. This is why the military explicitly defines what is homosexual activity. With this distinction, it is possible to say that you're not being discharged for your sexual orientation, but sexual acts, but the way the policy defines sexual acts, it includes all homosexuals. So, at the end of the day, they are still not authorized. This is why I've been trying to get Kachi to argue the policy as opposed to other people's interpretations.

Ugly wrote:
No. Again, you read what you want to read. You are wrong 90%+ of the time. It's a perception that's been created because of the fact that you are wrong. Like varus, you sometimes manage to dance around the point, but rarely are you ever close to it. Leave it to you to see what you wanted to see in my last post though (just like varus would).


I read your response exactly how you wrote it and it 100% agreed with the point that I've been trying to make. You can try to throw around additional nonsense, i.e. being wrong 90% of the time on subjective matters, just to not agree with me, but what I quoted is exactly my point.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#884 Jan 20 2011 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
The first 3 words in the post you quoted were the most important. You just chose to ignore them.
____________________________
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

#885 Jan 20 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
In everyday talk, there is no difference. I've caught myself numerous times changing "allowed" to "enabled" to stay consistent. At the same time, when you're arguing a concept of rather homosexuality is authorized or not in the military, then it does make a difference. If homosexuality were authorized, then you wouldn't be discharged for it. Simply saying "You can't be gay" doesn't cover all of the scenarios that you can be discharged for, i.e. a heterosexual woman making out with another woman. This is why the military explicitly defines what is homosexual activity. With this distinction, it is possible to say that you're not being discharged for your sexual orientation, but sexual acts, but the way the policy defines sexual acts, it includes all homosexuals. So, at the end of the day, they are still not authorized. This is why I've been trying to get Kachi to argue the policy as opposed to other people's interpretations.


So, in other words, it doesn't matter, but you're going to argue it anyway for the hell of it.

Gotcha.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#886 Jan 20 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
The first 3 words in the post you quoted were the most important. You just chose to ignore them.


You're right.. that wasn't intentional..

So, then back to the topic. It is not statistically possible to be wrong 90%+ of the time on subjective topics. I listed like 4 previous debates in this very thread that hardly anyone would disagree with NOW that they were disagreeing with THEN only because that was the topic at hand and it was my argument. If I took more time, I could probably bring up more.

How about this, since I'm sooooo wrong all of the time, name some previous debates, as I did earlier, with my positions that were wrong. You can use the same ones that I just brought up if you don't remember of feel like doing research.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#887 Jan 20 2011 at 3:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
In everyday talk, there is no difference. I've caught myself numerous times changing "allowed" to "enabled" to stay consistent. At the same time, when you're arguing a concept of rather homosexuality is authorized or not in the military, then it does make a difference. If homosexuality were authorized, then you wouldn't be discharged for it. Simply saying "You can't be gay" doesn't cover all of the scenarios that you can be discharged for, i.e. a heterosexual woman making out with another woman. This is why the military explicitly defines what is homosexual activity. With this distinction, it is possible to say that you're not being discharged for your sexual orientation, but sexual acts, but the way the policy defines sexual acts, it includes all homosexuals. So, at the end of the day, they are still not authorized. This is why I've been trying to get Kachi to argue the policy as opposed to other people's interpretations.


So, in other words, it doesn't matter, but you're going to argue it anyway for the hell of it.

Gotcha.


No, exactly what I said. In normal conversation, it doesn't matter. In a debate about the authorization of homosexuality, yes it does matter.

As I keep mentioning, in everyday talk, your word usage doesn't matter. You can say "unconscious" instead of "sleep", no one cares, but you can't make that change in a court testimony or in a debate about the physical state of a person.

Do you see the difference?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#888 Jan 20 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No, exactly what I said. In normal conversation, it doesn't matter. In a debate about the authorization of homosexuality, yes it does matter.

As I keep mentioning, in everyday talk, your word usage doesn't matter. You can say "unconscious" instead of "sleep", no one cares, but you can't make that change in a court testimony or in a debate about the physical state of a person.

Do you see the difference?


No, I don't. Because we're not in court. This isn't a formal debate. It's a fucking internet forum. This is the very epitome of "every day speech."
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#889 Jan 20 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, exactly what I said. In normal conversation, it doesn't matter. In a debate about the authorization of homosexuality, yes it does matter.

As I keep mentioning, in everyday talk, your word usage doesn't matter. You can say "unconscious" instead of "sleep", no one cares, but you can't make that change in a court testimony or in a debate about the physical state of a person.

Do you see the difference?


No, I don't. Because we're not in court. This isn't a formal debate. It's a fucking internet forum. This is the very epitome of "every day speech."


Well that's a personal problem.

This is a debate on the accuracy of a ruling. It doesn't matter if it's formal or not. The simple fact that we're not talking in a general sense, but in specific details, separates this from "every day speech". "Every day speech" is spoken in a general sense, "it may not be accurate, but you know what I'm talking about". If you fail to see the difference in arguing accuracy vs talking in a general sense, then once again, that's a personal problem.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#890 Jan 20 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Does the word really matter...? Enabled, allowed, same difference, really. Let's face it, you're both right. Under DADT, the military was allowing homosexuals to enter the military, but they will still kick them out if they find out they are homosexual. So they were allowing people to break their rules. Does saying they were enabling people to break their rules make that much of a difference?


It's a question of the military's intent. Both the creators of the legislation and the military under DADT have made it PERFECTLY clear that homosexual orientation is not on its own grounds for dismissal from the military. Alma is arguing that this is not the case, and so gays in the military are breaking the rules by simple virtue of being in the military. In reality, gays are authorized to be in the military, but cannot indicate in any way that they will engage in homosexual behavior.

Quote:
1. My bad... Why are people so sensitive about their fictional names?


I'm not sensitive-- I just think it shows how poor your reading ability is.

Quote:
2. I showed you in the policy where a person can get discharged for appearing to have the intent of doing something homosexual. That means, the person didn't actually do anything nor admit to anything. This means that their sexuality is a secret.


...

Is this honestly your point? How does one "appear to have an intent" to do something homosexual? This is a standard clause that simply states that conspiring to break a rule is an offense in addition to actually breaking a rule. Really, I've tried to just ignore this point, because it in no way makes your case that the military does not allow gays to enter the military.

Gays are allowed in the military under DADT. This has been the statement that you have failed to refute. Further, this statement has been made by the legislators of the bill, and the military itself, and yet you can't just admit that you were wrong.

Quote:
a. Explain to me how the President said that the war in Iraq is over, yet we're still there.


I have no idea where you're going with this or trying to go with it-- I haven't read it, I'm not going to, I'm sure that it's going to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I think you have enough stupid arguments without exploring a whole new avenue of idiocy.

Quote:
b. You say you can't find your quote, why don't you check your browser history on the day of the post and just find it?


Because I regularly clear my browser history, dumbass. Why are you so determined to see that one link when I've given you others that are better? Answer: it's easier to call me a liar than admit that you're wrong.
____________________________
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.
#891 Jan 20 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
FUCK.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#892 Jan 20 2011 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Kachi wrote:
It's a question of the military's intent. Both the creators of the legislation and the military under DADT have made it PERFECTLY clear that homosexual orientation is not on its own grounds for dismissal from the military. Alma is arguing that this is not the case, and so gays in the military are breaking the rules by simple virtue of being in the military. In reality, gays are authorized to be in the military, but cannot indicate in any way that they will engage in homosexual behavior.


If homosexuals are authorized in the military, then why are they discharged for being homosexual? Admitting that you're gay is not homosexual.

You can't be this dense....

The explanation is in it's name.. Don't Ask Don't Tell.... How can you not understand that? It was a compromise.. The military didn't change their rules on homosexuality, but as a compromise, they weren't going to no longer ask you your sexual orientation and if you want to stay in, don't tell anyone... WHY??? Because homosexuality is not authorized..

WTF do you think they're changing the sodomy laws? You think it's a coincidence? So, homosexuality is authorized, but not sodomy?!?!! Really dude? get real..

Kachi wrote:
I'm not sensitive-- I just think it shows how poor your reading ability is.


Says the guy who doesn't read my posts. I mistakenly misspelled a fictional name that you created... whoop-de-doo. no big deal

Kachi wrote:
Is this honestly your point? How does one "appear to have an intent" to do something homosexual? This is a standard clause that simply states that conspiring to break a rule is an offense in addition to actually breaking a rule. Really, I've tried to just ignore this point, because it in no way makes your case that the military does not allow gays to enter the military.


Your claim is that as long as you keep your sexuality a secret, then you're allowed to join the military. According to the policy, what you keep ignoring, it clearly stated that it has nothing to do with your ability to keep your sexuality a secret. You can get discharged if it appears that you might do something gay, which means your sexuality is secret.

Kachi wrote:
Gays are allowed in the military under DADT. This has been the statement that you have failed to refute. Further, this statement has been made by the legislators of the bill, and the military itself, and yet you can't just admit that you were wrong.


Because you're referencing slide shows and I'm referencing the actual policy. You keep using the legislators and the military as a reference, but when I give you an example of the Commander and Chief misleading the country on the war in Iraq, you ignore it. You're such a tool. This is politics, people word things to mislead people to shut them up. Just like we're still in Iraq, homosexuality was and still is not authorized in the military.

Kachi wrote:
have no idea where you're going with this or trying to go with it-- I haven't read it, I'm not going to, I'm sure that it's going to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I think you have enough stupid arguments without exploring a whole new avenue of idiocy.


President Obama wrote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"


There, did you read that? He announced to everyone that the combat mission has ended. To, clueless sheep as yourself, you take that as "The war in Iraq has ended", but it hasn't. This is just political talk to comfort society. This is relevant, because you're falling for the same political talk with DADT, because the Homosexual Policy clearly states that homosexuality is not authorized in the military. It states what homosexuality is, then says you can get discharged for being charged for any of that. As I told Belkira, it is possible to say "We're not discriminating against your sexual orientation" and not lie, but that would be misleading because all that means is that a heterosexual doing homosexual acts can ALSO be discharged. In any case, homosexuals are being discharged.

Kachi wrote:
Because I regularly clear my browser history, dumbass. Why are you so determined to see that one link when I've given you others that are better? Answer: it's easier to call me a liar than admit that you're wrong.


It's actually easier to prove you wrong than a liar, because I've already proven you wrong. Proving you a liar is just a bonus. It takes away your credibility. Are you telling me that you don't remember what words you googled?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#893 Jan 20 2011 at 6:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
To, clueless sheep as yourself, you take that as "The war in Iraq has ended", but it hasn't.

Whatup, shadowrelm?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#894 Jan 20 2011 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
If homosexuals are authorized in the military, then why are they discharged for being homosexual? Admitting that you're gay is not homosexual.


They're not discharged for being homosexual. They're only discharged if their homosexuality is discovered, ostensibly because it damages cohesion or whatever the opposition's basis for discharging them is. They're allowed to be gay-- they're not allowed to be seen as gay.

Quote:
Says the guy who doesn't read my posts.


Well I skim them, because they're not worth reading in entirety. Don't get me wrong, I used to read them, but have since concluded that it's a waste of my time. Besides, there's a key difference between my desire to read and your ability to read.

Really, the only reason we're still having a discussion is because I'm not done laughing at you yet.

Quote:
Are you telling me that you don't remember what words you googled?


You're asking me if I remember a search string from a week ago? No, what's worse, you're rhetorically accusing me of lying about not remembering a search string from a week ago. If it's so easy to figure out which of a hundred or so strings I could have used, then I'm sure you could do it just as easily. So I'll ask again, why are you ignoring the other sources I gave you and focusing on this one? Because you'd like to attack my credibility? Laughable considering you have the least of it of anyone on this entire site.

So far you've really yet to do anything other than repeat the same fallacies, childish argumentative tactics, and proclamation of victory. You are indeed a prime specimen of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
____________________________
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.
#895 Jan 20 2011 at 6:53 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Kachi wrote:
Dunning-Kruger Effect


Thank you for mentioning that. I'd never heard of it. Quite an apt description of Alma!
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#896 Jan 20 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Dunning-Kruger Effect

Thank you for mentioning that. I'd never heard of it. Quite an apt description of Alma!

Dammit. I don't expect anyone to read through this entire thread, but can't a sister get a little cred?
#897 Jan 20 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I thought someone had already mentioned it here, but it's been tossed out in a couple of threads recently and I don't make it a point to keep track.
____________________________
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.
#898 Jan 20 2011 at 8:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,812 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
If homosexuals are authorized in the military, then why are they discharged for being homosexual? Admitting that you're gay is not homosexual.


They're not discharged for being homosexual. They're only discharged if their homosexuality is discovered, ostensibly because it damages cohesion or whatever the opposition's basis for discharging them is. They're allowed to be gay-- they're not allowed to be seen as gay.

Quote:
Says the guy who doesn't read my posts.


Well I skim them, because they're not worth reading in entirety. Don't get me wrong, I used to read them, but have since concluded that it's a waste of my time. Besides, there's a key difference between my desire to read and your ability to read.

Really, the only reason we're still having a discussion is because I'm not done laughing at you yet.

Quote:
Are you telling me that you don't remember what words you googled?


You're asking me if I remember a search string from a week ago? No, what's worse, you're rhetorically accusing me of lying about not remembering a search string from a week ago. If it's so easy to figure out which of a hundred or so strings I could have used, then I'm sure you could do it just as easily. So I'll ask again, why are you ignoring the other sources I gave you and focusing on this one? Because you'd like to attack my credibility? Laughable considering you have the least of it of anyone on this entire site.

So far you've really yet to do anything other than repeat the same fallacies, childish argumentative tactics, and proclamation of victory. You are indeed a prime specimen of the Dunning-Kruger effect.


President Obama wrote:
"Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended,"


Before moving on, all of your confusion on DADT may clear up by addressing this quote and my question. If President Obama made that statement, then why are we still in Iraq?

I'm waiting....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#899 Jan 20 2011 at 8:53 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
I doubt Obama would use an orange font that no one can read. Dumbass.
#900 Jan 20 2011 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,035 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I doubt Obama would use an orange font that no one can read. Dumbass.


Orange stands out well against Blue. What's so hard about reading it?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#901 Jan 20 2011 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm waiting....

I can't imagine that anyone cares or will be intimidated by this.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CDT