·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Senate Repeals DADT
Senate Repeals DADTFollow
#527Almalieque,
Posted: Jan 03 2011 at 6:17 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I didn't know that made us pansies.. Looks like you're just name calling to me. In any case, given our power, I'll gladly be called a pansy, knowing that I can kick the @sses of the "non-pansies".
So you can't answer why American straight troops can't shower with gay troops, but other countries can? It's because you don't want to admit that the majority of those that refuse to do so, are bigots.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Uglysasquatch wrote:
So you can't answer why American straight troops can't shower with gay troops, but other countries can? It's because you don't want to admit that the majority of those that refuse to do so, are bigots.
My bad, I thought that was a rhetorical question. The US can do it if it wanted to, but they chose not to, the same way they chose not to have men and women shower together. You do realize that our showers are separated by sex and they don't have to be right? Furthermore, integrating the showers does not have any effect on our ability to perform our jobs? I will also go out on a limb and say that most other countries do the same. Oh, whaddya know, we're all bigots. How meaningful.....
Almalieque wrote:
I was trying to reference it in a social matter beyond DADT and the military. Besides, you say that as if that's a low probability of occurring.
I say it as though it's meaningless. When dealing with imaginary people, you have them act however best suits your argument. It proves nothing.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Almalieque wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
So you can't answer why American straight troops can't shower with gay troops, but other countries can? It's because you don't want to admit that the majority of those that refuse to do so, are bigots.
My bad, I thought that was a rhetorical question. The US can do it if it wanted to, but they chose not to, the same way they chose not to have men and women shower together. You do realize that our showers are separated by sex and they don't have to be right? Furthermore, integrating the showers does not have any effect on our ability to perform our jobs? I will also go out on a limb and say that most other countries do the same. Oh, whaddya know, we're all bigots. How meaningful.....
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I was trying to reference it in a social matter beyond DADT and the military. Besides, you say that as if that's a low probability of occurring.
I say it as though it's meaningless. When dealing with imaginary people, you have them act however best suits your argument. It proves nothing.
Oh, so you believe homosexual men aren't attracted to certain men... interesting... I didn't know I had to specifically point out a person to prove that homosexual men are attracted to certain men.....I was sure that was in the definition of being homosexual and heterosexual...however you deal with your denial is you. So, if I don't list a specific heterosexual person who would check out a female that he finds attractive, you wont believe that either.... yea, you're really helping your argument..
Ugly wrote:
Nice try at dodging the question. Why does the US choose not to? And you know it's not comfort, or they would do a lot more to make sure their soldiers were always comfortable. Like maybe some stalls with shower curtains...
Dude, calm down. I don't dodge questions. I've already said that the US probably CHOSE not to out of intolerance, but I'm not talking about why they CHOSE not to in the past. I'm talking about the reality that it's possible for a person not to feel comfortable in the showers with a homosexual and not be a homophobe or bigot.
Besides, the curtain argument is dumb as there is a limit to comfort, mainly when money is involved. Creating stalls with shower curtains cost money, saying no to homosexuality,
Almalieque wrote:
Besides, the curtain argument is dumb as there is a limit to comfort, mainly when money is involved. Creating stalls with shower curtains cost money, saying no to homosexuality, priceless free.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Almalieque wrote:
Oh, so you believe homosexual men aren't attracted to certain men...
Nice strawman?
I said that, in my limited research, they weren't checking out dudes in the showers. You're trying to create a hypothetical situation on your own terms that you can point at and say "Are too! Are too! Look!" as if it proves something and then throwing a fit when people don't play along.
Oh, hi Gbaji!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Cheaper than dealing with this in court constantly. Besides, when has the US military ever worried about wasting money?
Throwing trained soldiers out of the military is way cheaper than a trip to Bed Bath & Beyond for shower curtains.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Almalieque wrote:
You're the heterophobe bigot who can't accept that a man can have a legitimate discomfort against the situation just like women do with men. The fact that you accept it for women without calling them names is evident that you believe the scenario exist. Instead, you, along with others, create these excuses and reasons on how it's sooo different, because you refuse to accept the fact that a man can have the same feeling as a woman, which makes you a bigot.
You have yet to explain this "discomfort" that a man has when in a communal shower with a homosexual man. The "discomfort" between sexes has been thoroughly examined (differing anatomy, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.) but you have yet to explain this elusive "discomfort" that men have when showering with, not other men, but other homosexual men. Please explain this discomfort.
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Besides, the curtain argument is dumb as there is a limit to comfort, mainly when money is involved. Creating stalls with shower curtains cost money, saying no to homosexuality, priceless free.
I'm sure during the time of that decision, they didn't think that it would resolve to this. As for wasting money, the military is funny about that. They'll blow it on somethings (that we find is stupid) and not spend it on things that we find more valuable. The military always takes the cheap way out if it concerns you doing something, mainly because you're not paying for anything.
Jophiel wrote:
Nice strawman?
I said that, in my limited research, they weren't checking out dudes in the showers. You're trying to create a hypothetical situation on your own terms that you can point at and say "Are too! Are too! Look!" as if it proves something and then throwing a fit when people don't play along.
Oh, hi Gbaji!
Dude? WTFRU talking about? I'm not creating a hypothetical situation. Unless you believe there aren't same sex showers that include homosexuals, then it isn't hypothetical. You're just denying the truth.
I'm sure in your limited research, those guys meant that they don't look forward to shower with men to check men out. That doesn't mean that they don't have attraction to certain men. Besides, even if they were checking out guys, why would they say "yes"?
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You're the heterophobe bigot who can't accept that a man can have a legitimate discomfort against the situation just like women do with men. The fact that you accept it for women without calling them names is evident that you believe the scenario exist. Instead, you, along with others, create these excuses and reasons on how it's sooo different, because you refuse to accept the fact that a man can have the same feeling as a woman, which makes you a bigot.
You have yet to explain this "discomfort" that a man has when in a communal shower with a homosexual man. The "discomfort" between sexes has been thoroughly examined (differing anatomy, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.) but you have yet to explain this elusive "discomfort" that men have when showering with, not other men, but other homosexual men. Please explain this discomfort.
differing anatomy interests, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.
There isn't one answer, people have various reasons that are the same reasons as with women and men.
Almalieque wrote:
differing anatomy interests, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.
There isn't one answer, people have various reasons that are the same reasons as with women and men.
There isn't one answer, people have various reasons that are the same reasons as with women and men.
So, in other words, you're just going to pretend that the reasons we've given are exactly the same.
Yeah, you're hopeless.
Almalieque wrote:
Dude? WTFRU talking about? I'm not creating a hypothetical situation.
lol
Quote:
I'm sure in your limited research, those guys meant that they don't look forward to shower with men to check men out.
Inventing new surveys to match the ones in your imagination rather than the ones that existed?
Oh, hi Gbaji! No, the question posed was whether or not they check out guys in the shower, not if they shower in order to check out guys.
Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 9:19am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I hope you guys have your laundry at the ready, 'cause Alamlieque is taking you to the cleaners.
In his newly returned car, presumably.
In his newly returned car, presumably.
At least Virus keeps his idiocy succinct. This guy is like some horror-show love child of Virus and Gbaji.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
differing anatomy interests, modesty, religious morals, social morals, cultural morals, etc.
There isn't one answer, people have various reasons that are the same reasons as with women and men.
There isn't one answer, people have various reasons that are the same reasons as with women and men.
So, in other words, you're just going to pretend that the reasons we've given are exactly the same.
Yeah, you're hopeless.
I'm hopeless? You're the bigot not accepting that some people are just different. Just accept the fact that there men who have similar feelings to women when it comes to these measures.
I'm not naive. As I said, I know some people are just bigots and there exists some differences in the scenarios, i.e. if a woman gets raped by a man, she can get pregnant while a man can't. At the same time, I'm realistic. You can't have a sexual interest in something and not be attracted to it. That doesn't make any sense.
I just wish you would put away your bigotry and just accept that people are different or in this case, the same...
Jo wrote:
Inventing new surveys to match the ones in your imagination rather than the ones that existed?
Oh, hi Gbaji! No, the question posed was whether or not they check out guys in the shower, not if they shower in order to check out guys.
Oh, hi Gbaji! No, the question posed was whether or not they check out guys in the shower, not if they shower in order to check out guys.
Did you ask them if they EVER checked out a guy in the shower? or would you sneak a peak of someone that found attractive? If not, was it because of the fear of being turned on? I interpreted your question the way I stated it because it's human nature to be attracted to something that you're attracted to and the last time I checked, they are human.
Besdes, you said the consensus was "No, not really. I'm really just there to shower and move on.". That doesn't mean "no", it means "not really". My interpretation of that response is that they do run to showers to look at men, they just shower and move on. Not that they aren't ever attracted to other men. You even said that you think it becomes so habitual that it loses it's **** fantasy. How can you lose something that you never had?
I actually agree with Alma about privacy considerations here. Frankly, I'm surprised that y'all are picking that point to argue.
I don't see anything unreasonable about providing curtains/partitions or whatever's necessary to provide comfort. It'd be silly to argue that expense should prevent such undertakings.
I don't see anything unreasonable about providing curtains/partitions or whatever's necessary to provide comfort. It'd be silly to argue that expense should prevent such undertakings.
Eske Esquire wrote:
I actually agree with Alma about privacy considerations here. Frankly, I'm surprised that y'all are picking that point to argue.
Eske Esquire wrote:
I don't see anything unreasonable about providing curtains/partitions or whatever's necessary to provide comfort. It'd be silly to argue that expense should prevent such undertakings.
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Almalieque wrote:
At the same time, I'm realistic. You can't have a sexual interest in something and not be attracted to it.
I have a sexual interest in men. There are a lot of men I'm not in the least attracted to. You seem to have this black/white view of life that just isn't right.
I would also love for you to point out to me where I ever said that every man who is uncomfortable showering with another man is a bigot. If you want to throw those insults around, perhaps you should have something substantial to back them up.
Eske Esquire wrote:
I actually agree with Alma about privacy considerations here. Frankly, I'm surprised that y'all are picking that point to argue.
I don't think anyone is denying that there's men out there terrified by the thought of another guy taking a gander at their doodle. Folks just don't think it should be a factor regarding DADT. Alma keeps insisting it's not about that but he's having a one-man discussion or something because that's the context everyone else is talking about.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Ugly wrote:
It's a useless point. Currently, straights are showering with homosexuals, except they have no idea who's gay and who's not. Meaning that if they value their privacy from homosexuals, they get none now. Repealing DADT actually creates a situation where they could more likely avoid showering with homosexuals.
We went over this already. There's a huge difference between being able to join as opposed to being allowed to join. The only difference between DADT and the time before DADT is the military asking our sexual orientation. Authorizing homosexuality in the military creates an entire new environment. Why you refuse to accept that is just silly.
Ugly wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.
No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.
Edited, Jan 3rd 2011 6:33pm by Almalieque
Almalieque wrote:
Jo wrote:
No one's argued against that. Itwould actually be a relatively cheap solution were the issue what Alma claims it to be.
No, so you may not have argued against it, you (all) just called everyone a bigot/homophobe for suggesting it.
I'd like to see an instance of each one of us saying that, please.
Also, that was Ugly, not Jophiel that you were responding to.
Quote:
Authorizing homosexuality in the military creates an entire new environment
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
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Belkira wrote:
I have a sexual interest in men. There are a lot of men I'm not in the least attracted to. You seem to have this black/white view of life that just isn't right.
I didn't say that you were attracted to a certain percentage of men. What I'm saying is that you have an attraction to a "type" of male and it would be silly for anyone to think it would be wrong for you to sneak a peak at something you like.
Belkira wrote:
I would also love for you to point out to me where I ever said that every man who is uncomfortable showering with another man is a bigot. If you want to throw those insults around, perhaps you should have something substantial to back them up.
So, you see how it feels. Anyway, if I mistakenly involved you in the infamous "y'all", then I apologize, but my entire argument was that it was possible and all you have done this entire time was argue against it, claiming that the two scenarios are not the same.
Recent Visitors: 293
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (293)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Senate Repeals DADT
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC