Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#427 Dec 31 2010 at 10:54 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,852 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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.


Not my aunt. She joined just to be a piece of eye candy for the men to drool over and bang. She's currently trying to get sent overseas, after her newest kid just turned one year old (the father is her married officer). Two kids, two different dads, no marriage. She wants to go overseas so she doesn't have to be around her kids anymore and can be around, instead, 1000s of men.

(Just thought I'd tell the forums that my aunt is a *****).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#428 Dec 31 2010 at 11:03 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
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.


Not my aunt. She joined just to be a piece of eye candy for the men to drool over and bang. She's currently trying to get sent overseas, after her newest kid just turned one year old (the father is her married officer). Two kids, two different dads, no marriage. She wants to go overseas so she doesn't have to be around her kids anymore and can be around, instead, 1000s of men.

(Just thought I'd tell the forums that my aunt is a *****).


Correction: I did over generalize... Women shouldn't inherently be treated as eye candy..
#429 Jan 01 2011 at 12:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
and *** men shouldn't be inherently considered as *** crazed maniacs. Look your comparisons are stupid. The only thing that matters that you still have not answered in a way that makes you sound like a Bigot, a Homophobe, or whatever cute little label you want to put on being a general douche is:

Gays currently serve in the military, there is currently no issue with them being in the military. The only reason you could have an issue is with them being allowed to come out and say they are ***. So Are you against open gays in the military, or not. That is the only question that matters because it is the only thing that has changed.

Either you are cool with them being there. Or you aren't its a simple Yes, or No.


If you are against them being open, you are a bigot, if you are not, then why is there 9 pages of drivel about it.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 1:15am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#430 Jan 01 2011 at 2:38 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
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.


I don't think we should be too keen to take progress for granted, here.

Quote:
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.


In the shower?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#431 Jan 01 2011 at 3:04 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
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.


No, as I have already pointed out, we are also generally brought up taught that our same *** immediate family can see us nude, and then that the same *** can change in the same room. The latter of these is generally an awkward and uncomfortable moment that we learn to deal with, some of us better than others. So there is a difference. We are taught much earlier and much more strictly to keep our private parts private from the opposite ***.

Quote:
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.


As I've already pointed out at least twice, in the case of women, their fear comes primarily from the distinct physical advantage that men have over them. This is a fact, supported by many studies. I have never seen a study demonstrating that men have any substantial fear of being overpowered and sexually assaulted by other men (outside of prison, which in many cases are not even about sexuality).

Quote:

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.


Your statement was too general to assume that you were talking about the U.S. military, but please name a position that women are disqualified from where they are able to adequately perform the essential tasks.

Quote:
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?


I'm not?

Quote:
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.


That sort of completely misses the point. Particularly in the military, just as a matter of sheer human physiology, it's extremely rare for a woman to have a physical advantage on a male (being an average of 30 lbs. lighter and having far less upper body strength) and for there to actually be a risk for sexual assault in that case. If you figure sexual assault as an equation that factors both exposure between assailant and victim, and advantage of assailant and victim, the numbers would clearly show a tremendous increase in men and women grouped together versus men grouped together, even ***, and women grouped together, even ***. We pretty much already have those figures, considering that as others have pointed out, *** people are and have been there. The incidence: extremely low. The incidence in the former situation? You tell me.

Think I'm done with this, unless I get the sense that dignifying you with a response will actually get somewhere.
____________________________
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.
#432 Jan 01 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#433 Jan 01 2011 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


No you are bigot. Anyone who can not accept someone for what they are is a bigot. If you can not accept peoples right to live their lives openly in any place in society, including the military, you are a bigot. You can try and put the spin on it whichever way you want, comfort, privacy etc, when in comes down to it in the end you do not want to accept that gays are indeed in the military.

Your comparisons are stupid, your reasoning is retarded, and you are a homophobe.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#434 Jan 01 2011 at 10:42 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


No you are bigot. Anyone who can not accept someone for what they are is a bigot. If you can not accept peoples right to live their lives openly in any place in society, including the military, you are a bigot. You can try and put the spin on it whichever way you want, comfort, privacy etc, when in comes down to it in the end you do not want to accept that gays are indeed in the military.

Your comparisons are stupid, your reasoning is retarded, and you are a homophobe.


No, you're an idiot. You asked a question. I answered it. I do not have a problem with homosexuals in the military. Yet, you're still calling me a homophobe. Give it up, you're an idiot. You have no basis for anything, you're just a little kid stumping their feet whining and calling everyone a poo-poo face because they don't agree with you. If you think this society is built on everyone freely expressing themselves openly in public places, then you're sadly mistaken and confused.

According to your misguided view, everyone is a x~phobe for not feeling comfortable around person y doing z in their presence. That is entirely stupid. Grow up man and get in the real world where people have different views and opinions.

You're nothing but a commonsense-a-phobe because apparently you hate to use it.

Edit:

you "forgot" to answer my question:

"In any case, I never said that they were *** crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a "special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it? "

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 6:46pm by Almalieque
#436 Jan 01 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


And your main argument for this is psychological discomfort? How is that any different than bigotry? Are your trying to convince us of this, or yourself?
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#437 Jan 01 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Alma wrote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


And your main argument for this is psychological discomfort? How is that any different than bigotry? Are your trying to convince us of this, or yourself?


It's only bigotry if it is consistent. If you have a problem with homosexuals in general, than yes, it may very well be bigotry. If your only concern is in the shower, then it's no different than what women feel with being in the showers with men. Unless, that is, you call that bigotry also. Which in that case, you're claiming just about everyone is a bigot. At that point, there is no value in that "insult".
#438 Jan 01 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
You've spent 9 fucking pages on that point?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#439 Jan 01 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Alma wrote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


And your main argument for this is psychological discomfort? How is that any different than bigotry? Are your trying to convince us of this, or yourself?


It's only bigotry if it is consistent. If you have a problem with homosexuals in general, than yes, it may very well be bigotry. If your only concern is in the shower, then it's no different than what women feel with being in the showers with men. Unless, that is, you call that bigotry also. Which in that case, you're claiming just about everyone is a bigot. At that point, there is no value in that "insult".
Aren't you supposed to leave all those feelings behind when you join the military? You know, become one force? You're mighty inconsistent, Alma. That must be how we know you're not a bigot.
#440 Jan 01 2011 at 1:51 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You've spent 9 fucking pages on that point?


No. I spent 1 post on that point, the 9 pages were spent on countering made up arguments.

LWV wrote:
Aren't you supposed to leave all those feelings behind when you join the military? You know, become one force? You're mighty inconsistent, Alma. That must be how we know you're not a bigot.


What are you making up now? I already made a post in regards to this nonsense. If that were the case, men and women wouldn't be segregated. We wouldn't have climate surveys. The DoD wouldn't have made a survey about DADT. So, please stop making up stuff to argue, this is why we are at 9 pages. Accept it and let's move on.
#441 Jan 01 2011 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
It's only bigotry if it is consistent.


False. This one of the stupidest things I've ever read and I spend a lot of time in OOT.

Almalieque wrote:
If you have a problem with homosexuals in general, than yes, it may very well be bigotry. If your only concern is in the shower, then it's no different than what women feel with being in the showers with men. Unless, that is, you call that bigotry also. Which in that case, you're claiming just about everyone is a bigot. At that point, there is no value in that "insult".


The argument is with homosexuals in general. It's about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. It's not about letting homosexuals shower with heterosexuals; they're already showering together right now as they have been for as long we've had showers in the military.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#442 Jan 01 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Quote:
You my friend, are an idiot. I'm not against open homosexuals in the military (after revisions of the rules) I'm against open homosexuals in open showers or in close living quarters with people who feel the same discomfort as women do with men. I don't care about in the work place because their sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to perform their job. I've said this from the beginning. Why you are pretending that I haven't is evident that you haven't been paying attention. That's why there are 9 pages in this thread.


This is the carear you have chosen, you know there is privacy and comfort issues from the start, you are told during recruitment to expect close living quarters etc. It is not some new thing. When it boils down to it, the simple fact is, you have an issue with homosexuals. Period, there is not ifs ands or buts, not weird spins. You have an issue with homosexuals. Period. End of story.

You are a bigot. If you do not feel comfortable you leave. It is not another persons responsibility to provide you with the feeling of comfort. It is your responsibility. You don't want to shower/live with *** men, the don't quit and go find a new job.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#443 Jan 01 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Punk Floyd wrote:
False. This one of the stupidest things I've ever read and I spend a lot of time in OOT.

False: You're in denial.

big·ot
   /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled[big-uht] Show IPA
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


You can't be a bigot towards homosexuality if your problem isn't with working, talking or interacting with homosexuals.

Punk FLoyd wrote:
The argument is with homosexuals in general. It's about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. It's not about letting homosexuals shower with heterosexuals; they're already showering together right now as they have been for as long we've had showers in the military.


This is why this thread is 9 pages. MY ARGUMENT, that I'm referencing to has nothing to do with homosexuals being able to serve in the military, but the ability for a man to say that he isn't comfortable showering with homosexual men and not be labeled something that he isn't, in or out of the military. Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.
#444 Jan 01 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.

You've read the thread title, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#445 Jan 01 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
You can't be a bigot towards homosexuality if your problem isn't with working, talking or interacting with homosexuals.


You can be a bigot if you are utterly intolerant of sharing a communal shower with them.

Almalieque wrote:
Punk FLoyd wrote:
The argument is with homosexuals in general. It's about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. It's not about letting homosexuals shower with heterosexuals; they're already showering together right now as they have been for as long we've had showers in the military.


This is why this thread is 9 pages. MY ARGUMENT, that I'm referencing to has nothing to do with homosexuals being able to serve in the military, but the ability for a man to say that he isn't comfortable showering with homosexual men and not be labeled something that he isn't, in or out of the military. Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.


What Joph said. And you were the one that brought up showering.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#446 Jan 01 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.


So the ones where they lack the physical ability to keep up with the expectations necessary to perform the essential tasks? Like I said? Way to go.

In any case, you're clearly being intentionally obtuse on the other points, so I guess I'll just let you keep being a tard. If I were up for a game of cat and mouse, gbaji is still much better at this than you.

Edit: Actually, just to round out the clearly retarded:

Quote:
That's family, not strangers.


Until middle school, where kids learn to change in front of eachother, which is based heavily on this ingrained familial comfort, and the message that, "It's ok for boys to see boys, and girls to see girls."

Quote:
The bottom line is that this "fear" that women have is self made not based on any evidence to prove one way or the other and we accept it.


Right, it has nothing to do with the fact that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted, even with segregated facilities.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 2:20pm by Kachi
____________________________
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.
#447 Jan 01 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.

You've read the thread title, right?


Yes, I have, but you do realize how online forums work, right? I responded to the OP ignorance of calling people bigots and homophobes.

Punk Floyd wrote:
You can be a bigot if you are utterly intolerant of sharing a communal shower with them.


Yea, that makes no sense. That means, if you don't like something, you're a bigot. Well, guess what? No one likes everything. That would make everyone a bigot. The term is in reference to general ideas. All those people who complain about TWA security are nothing but BIGOTS!!! Complaining about nude scans and pat-downs.... They're homophobes!

In any case, as I said before, I have no complaints with full open showers to include everyone, men and women of any sexuality. So, you have nothing left to call me a bigot and I'm sure more men would approve of that idea over women, because you know, women are just bigots, not wanting to shower with men and all.

Punk Floyd wrote:
What Joph said. And you were the one that brought up showering.


Exactly, my argument is on showering, not homosexuals being able to serve in the military. I'm sorry if you fail to see the difference.
#448 Jan 01 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.

You've read the thread title, right?


Yes, I have, but you do realize how online forums work, right? I responded to the OP ignorance of calling people bigots and homophobes.

Punk Floyd wrote:
You can be a bigot if you are utterly intolerant of sharing a communal shower with them.


Yea, that makes no sense. That means, if you don't like something, you're a bigot. Well, guess what? No one likes everything. That would make everyone a bigot. The term is in reference to general ideas. All those people who complain about TWA security are nothing but BIGOTS!!! Complaining about nude scans and pat-downs.... They're homophobes!

In any case, as I said before, I have no complaints with full open showers to include everyone, men and women of any sexuality. So, you have nothing left to call me a bigot and I'm sure more men would approve of that idea over women, because you know, women are just bigots, not wanting to shower with men and all.

Punk Floyd wrote:
What Joph said. And you were the one that brought up showering.


Exactly, my argument is on showering, not homosexuals being able to serve in the military. I'm sorry if you fail to see the difference.
Grasping. At. Straws.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

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

My Anime List
#449 Jan 01 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.


So the ones where they lack the physical ability to keep up with the expectations necessary to perform the essential tasks? Like I said? Way to go.

In any case, you're clearly being intentionally obtuse on the other points, so I guess I'll just let you keep being a tard. If I were up for a game of cat and mouse, gbaji is still much better at this than you.


How can you tell if someone isn't physically able to perform a job without giving them a chance? You do realize that not every male is physically able to perform a task either, you know what, they still get a chance to prove otherwise. Women are not.

Obtuse? Fact, women don't want to share showers with men because they don't feel comfortable sharing with men. There's nothing obtuse about that.
#450 Jan 01 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.


So the ones where they lack the physical ability to keep up with the expectations necessary to perform the essential tasks? Like I said? Way to go.

In any case, you're clearly being intentionally obtuse on the other points, so I guess I'll just let you keep being a tard. If I were up for a game of cat and mouse, gbaji is still much better at this than you.


How can you tell if someone isn't physically able to perform a job without giving them a chance? You do realize that not every male is physically able to perform a task either, you know what, they still get a chance to prove otherwise. Women are not.

Obtuse? Fact, women don't want to share showers with men because they don't feel comfortable sharing with men. There's nothing obtuse about that.
So the average guy would like a closeted *** showering with them, than knowing that the guy is ***? If I were afraid of gays, I'd rather know who to avoid.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

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

My Anime List
#451 Jan 01 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.


So the ones where they lack the physical ability to keep up with the expectations necessary to perform the essential tasks? Like I said? Way to go.

In any case, you're clearly being intentionally obtuse on the other points, so I guess I'll just let you keep being a tard. If I were up for a game of cat and mouse, gbaji is still much better at this than you.


How can you tell if someone isn't physically able to perform a job without giving them a chance? You do realize that not every male is physically able to perform a task either, you know what, they still get a chance to prove otherwise. Women are not.

Obtuse? Fact, women don't want to share showers with men because they don't feel comfortable sharing with men. There's nothing obtuse about that.
So the average guy would like a closeted *** showering with them, than knowing that the guy is ***? If I were afraid of gays, I'd rather know who to avoid.


Well, I guess if you were afraid of homosexuals then you might have a point. I'm sure the men who are afraid of homosexuals do not want to even be near them let alone shower with them.

I'm not talking about people who are afraid of homosexuals, which have been my point in past 9 pages. There are people who may have comfort issues with sharing showers who are not bigots. Is this really that hard to comprehend?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 70 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (70)