Senate Repeals DADTFollow

Excluded middle!

There is a middle between a narcissist and a poltroon?

(He says) He's an officer in the Army. Being both is a job requirement.

I actually did. I thought people realized that spending Christmas with my family was more important than arguing with you guys. Obviously you all think otherwise. I don't see what's so hard to believe? It was the day before my trip and I picked a number to stop posting at, because if I didn't, I would just keep posting and I wasn't going to spend Christmas posting on this site.

These accusations of me "running away" is beyond absurd as a) I'm still here and b) I've never ran away before.



Well, obviously people care when I come and go or they would just accept what I've said as the truth and stop talking about it..



You're exactly right. It's about time you realized that and thank you for admitting that you were wrong.

My focus was that those men are no more "bigots" than the women. You made that other connection on your own. I can understand the first or second time, but there's no excuse after I corrected posters multiple times over what my argument has always been in this thread.


If you remember the quotes I shared with Jophiel, I had pointed out that the military side all said that they needed more than a year, while the politicians said that they can do it in no time. There was no argument on rather DADT should or shouldn't be implemented because the ruling has already been passed. I would rather have DADT repealed and have complete open showers then keep it as it is now.



I don't know want happened in your career to give you such a negative view of officers, but I hope you come across someone to change your mind.

I don't make myself "important" to anybody. I was a LT for 3 years. There isn't much respect in that position. Even the officers who were prior service said that rank was the worst rank to have in terms of respect.

Officers don't really start turning into douche bags until they reach 04. Some do prematurely, but that's a major turning point.

I'm going to assume that you're not a senior NCO, because they tend to act just as fake and political as field grade officers do at times.



Wow, did you really just say that? lol

Maybe because the quote you replied to was in reference to me not "running away". I was merely keeping to the subject, but I know it's tradition to argue about other points and then accuse me of getting off topic.

Maybe YOU should reread the paragraph you quoted me from to see what the topic was about... oh, wait, better yet, let me quote it for you and save some time.


"Buy what? That I didn't want to spend my Christmas break arguing with you, but rather be with my family? I'm sorry, I don't know what to tell you. You find a time when I ever "ran away" from an argument, then you *might* have a point. Since you can't, it's obvious that I picked a point to stop to enjoy time with my family and just pick up later. There's a reason why I'm part of 20,30,40,50+ page threads and it's not because of I "ran". "

That whole paragraph was in reference to the following:

"Ya don't you jut pick an arbitrary number so when you are told you are wrong enough times you can just claim it was +1ing and it doesn't count.

edit~

oh sh*t 1429 im done posting I hit my goal for the day. "

and

"I still can't believe he thought we'd buy that."


So you not realizing that is the real answer why these threads are so long, you just like to point fingers at me. This has clearly been about me "running away". So you either tried to change the subject, didn't realize what the subject was or a combination of the two. In any case, you were wrong.




Thanks for keeping count. Alma:1 Johpiel: 0



Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 4:06pm by Almalieque

Yea, I missed this in replying to another post..

You asked a question. I answered it. Under your conditions, I'm not a homophobe/bigot for not having a problem with homosexuals in the military, yet you continue to call me a homophobe/bigot.

It is evident now that you have no argument other than name calling. Your usage of the word contradicts the definition of the word. The more and more you try to call me a bigot, when I've stated numerous times over that I have no problem working alongside homosexuals, the more stupid you look.

Even if I were, your argument of "knowing this from the start" is stupid because when EVERYONE joined, homosexuality was not allowed and for many DADT was in effect. So, how can anyone know from the start something that hasn't been implemented yet?

You keep "forgetting" to answer my question:

How so? In society, women shower separately from men, due to comfort levels. And straight and gay men shower together regardless of comfort level. If you want the military to adjust that, first get society to, as they're the ones dictating the standards. As should be so, since the military serves society. So how does this lend any support to the opponents?

And this has nothing to do with comfort anyway. DADT was there to protect the bigots. Now, if you feel that people who only have a problem with showering gays aren't bigots, fine. But they're irrelevant, as the majority of supporters of keeping DADT, are bigots and they're the ones driving the boat. And you know that, so your little argument is purely semantics and completely pointless.



Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 12:07pm by Uglysasquatch

This is because society wants to believe that the military and society are one. While there is obviously a connection, that overall belief is false. As a service person, you wave many of your "rights" to become a member in the military. There are many things, that you can't say or do in the military that civilians can. So there is no such thing as this society/military unity. You're just using that as a scapegoat.

Besides, I already stated that this was beyond the military, but a social thing. So either way, my point is valid. My overall argument is that you or anyone else can't call a man a bigot for having the same feelings as a woman.



I'm talking from my experience in the military. So, I'm sorry if your experience with the military doesn't support my experience, but that doesn't make my point any more pointless than it does yours. Let's be real, you probably don't have any. You probably never even had a conversation with military personnel who are against the repeal. I'm sure you're just making stuff up based on bigots you met in your life or seen in the media. Unlike you though, I'm not going to prejudge off of ignorance. And you call me a bigot! lol




You keep forgetting to answer my question..

"In any case, I never said that they were sex 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?"

To answer your question, because unlike you, I don't run away from questions (how ironic, because that's what you accused me of). Read below



You see Ugly, this is why these threads are so long. How is it that RDD doesn't already know this? Jophiel even agreed that there was nothing confusing about that statement....

I also said it didn't reconcile with your previous remarks and stances. Just because it's "not confusing" doesn't mean that it's accurate or plausible.

In a broad sense, someone can probably **** up an example of some imaginary person who isn't bigoted against homosexuals but who is against them openly serving. In a realistic sense and with the evidence we have from previous posts, that person probably isn't you and probably isn't most people against service by open homosexuals.

Except my experience involves a military that openly allows homosexuals, so it actually holds context.

I think it's clear to anyone who's read his posts that he wasn't included in my group of people who are atleast relatively intelligent.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 5:20pm by Uglysasquatch

There is a problem here.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 4:59pm by Allegory

Meh, read the previous threads you've posted in regarding homosexuals. I'm not about to undergo the Sisyphean task of telling someone "You're acting like a bigot." "Am NOT!"

If you're that secure that you're not, then don't worry about it.


I'm largely basing it, for purposes of this post, off previous threads on the topic and the responses given by those opposed. Again, there's nothing in it for me to go around in circles trying "prove" it to you; I'm pretty secure in how I'm reading it.

I responded largely to clear up the idea that I was agreeing with you for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread. I agree that your statement wasn't especially confusing. I disagree that it's particularly meaningful just as "Not every cat is unable to fly" is meaningless. If I want to make the point, I need to find a flying cat, not look at every cat you present and say "Yeah, but there's still flying cats out there." If you want us to believe that there's people out there who feel the way you claim, it's on you to either prove them to the satisfaction of the reader or else decide that it's not that important to you and let the reader go on believing that you're wrong.

One of those rights being chosing whom you serve with.

I'm quite sure that right now, right this minute, there are men in the military who are uncomfortable showering with black men. Or Jews. Or Dixie rednecks.

Y'know what they do? They man the @#%^ up.

Seriously, you have the entitlement attitude of a 14 year old girl at the mall.


Edited, Jan 2nd 2011 4:18pm by Bijou

Yeah, I've stated that previously. Thanks for catching up.


Yours hasn't been the only military experience despite your dismissal of anyone else's military experience as not really counting. So if this was how you were making yourself feel better, it might need some more work.


If you thought this was true, this wouldn't be a ten page thread.