Uglysasquatch wrote:
Wow, first time I've ever seen that chain before. Everywhere I've ever worked and in any managerial documents I've ever seen, supervisor is the bottom of the barrel in the management category. Pretty sure my version of supervisor is what he was referring to, but if not...
What you said.
Edited, Jan 14th 2011 9:42pm by Uglysasquatch
If he worked at McDonalds, as he claimed, then he knows the chain. In any case, he stated that he managed 2 McDonalds at the age of 18. I will admit, it is possible that he meant two assistant managers and not two store managers (which I think is impossible) or a supervisor (which is unrealistic).
Terms may vary, but the positions are the same. You have shift manager, store manager, store(s) manager, region managers, etc. Regardless of the name of the position, no one would put an 18 year old (unless he's super uber) in a management position over multiple stores.
Anyway, rereading his post, the guy's an idiot either way for removing any management experience from his resume.
Kaichi wrote:
@Alma, I've already addressed the question at least twice-- you just disagree with the answer; however, have yet to present a point of disagreement that makes me think you're not just stubborn and full of sh*t. If you ask, "Why is blood red?" and I answer, "Hemoglobin," and you say, "No, blood is actually blue," then wtf am I supposed to say? You've responded to the correct answer with nonsense. In this case, you have yet to acknowledge a difference between a female's fear of being nude around males, and a male's discomfort of being nude around males. Until you do, I have no reason to believe that discussing it further won't result in more nonsense.
No, you have not answered MY question. You created a separate question for you to answer by interjecting sexual assault when that was never part of the question. You are implying that women only feel anxiety about nudity in front of males due to sexual assault and that is not only false, but silly.
All of my "friends" are females, they don't express fear of sexual assault with me, i.e. alone together in their/my house with little clothing on, that doesn't mean they feel comfortable changing clothes in front of me. Crap, females that I've seen naked before, would still dress in private. Many of the females that I've seen naked before don't want to be seen using the restroom. So, if you're implying that this is all about fear of being sexually assaulted, then you're wrong. People fear assault more with strangers, but much of this is simply about privacy.
I'm giving you a scenario where the woman does not express fear of sexual assault, just not wanting to be seen naked by certain men in public places. If you think that is impossible or unrealistic, then argue that point, else just answer the question.
Kaichi wrote:
No, I've said both things. You can be kicked out for telling someone (DURR DURR DON'T TELL), or engaging in behavior. You took one example I gave in the many attempts to explain it to your stupid *** where I DIDN'T mention that you can't say it, either, and somehow thought that suddenly my point had changed from "you have to keep it a secret (even though I said it numerous times)," to, "It has to be homosexual conduct, like having sex with a dude." And obvious comprehension failures like this are the reason why I can't take you seriously.
You're confusing things around, but let's try this.
My quote also says if it appears that you have the propensity or intent to... That means you haven't done or said anything that admits that you're gay or have done any homosexual activities. This means that it APPEARS that you are an homosexual. If it were truly "as long as YOU keep it secret", then you shouldn't be kicked out because it APPEARS that you MIGHT do something gay. That's literally saying "We think that you might be gay, so you're being discharged".
If the DoD is not sure about your sexuality, then your true sexuality is indeed a secret. You still being kicked out is evident that it has nothing to do with the ability to hold a secret.
Kaichi wrote:
This isn't even a debate anymore. The military says that gays cannot be discharged for their sexuality. They can be discharged for admitting to being homosexuals, being found out as homosexuals, and/or engaging in homosexual behavior. However, there is no rule stating that gays cannot serve-- in fact they explicitly say that gays CAN serve.
Read above. Admitting that you're gay is not homosexual conduct but is considered as such by the DoD. The only reason why DADT was being repealed in the first place is because homosexuality is not authorized in the military. If it were authorized, then you wouldn't be discharged for it, plain and simple. The only thing DADT did was to enable homosexuals to join and serve without having to lie or be a target for unfairly investigations.
That was a compromise. DoD isn't going to unfairly target homosexuality anymore. DoD doesn't allow homosexuality any more than it does fraternization and adultery "as long as you keep it a secret".
Kaichi wrote:
Here's what wikipedia has to say:
That's a nice try, but I want the reference of the source that we've been arguing for in the past days. Why would pull something from the Homosexual Policy then back it up with a wiki article? Besides the fact that this article doesn't contradict anything that I've said, I'm not going on a tangent to argue another article, especially since you claimed that you pulled the previous statement from the Policy. Let's argue policy to policy.
Kaichi wrote:
Gee, that took 10 whole seconds. Check wiki's sources if you doubt any of that.
Here's an article from the Dept. of Defense. Of course it confirms my point. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42812
And further, the part that I quoted before was from one of the briefing notes (mentioned in that article) that was directly used to teach military personnel about DADT.
What is just extra, extra pitiful, is that you could have easily figured this out on your own in 2 minutes if you weren't so desperately determined to avoid admitting the inevitable: You're wrong. Try to deal with it in some more graceful way than this sad floundering. Everyone here will respect you so much more for it.
Read above. Since when do people reference things without sources? How are you going to try to put this on me for not sourcing YOUR references that you presented? Right now, you're just throwing out random sources, that's not what I asked for. You quoted a specific line at least twice as evidence of what the DoD Homosexual Policy states, so please give me a source to that statement, so we can start from there.
