Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#77 Dec 20 2010 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".


So... your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?

Alrighty then... Smiley: rolleyes


This has been nothing but a game the entire time with Sir X.

I want him to accept the similarity. He's trying to lure me into saying something to be the basis of his argument. He doesn't want to admit the similarity first, because that would take away from his argument. You have to keep up Belkira!


So... privacy isn't an issue, and you're fine with the repeal?
#78 Dec 20 2010 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#79 Dec 20 2010 at 11:12 AM Rating: Default
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes while learning nothing from them.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes without really knowing what they were.

Skin color and *** are genetic. Homosexuality has not been proven to be.
____________________________
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]
#80 Dec 20 2010 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Allegory wrote:
I'm not sure why Varus is making the blatantly false statement that they are.

Liar.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#81 Dec 20 2010 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.
____________________________
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]
#82 Dec 20 2010 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
MoebiusLord wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
1. Only idiots think sexuality is equivalent to your skin color and ***.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes while learning nothing from them.

It's a sad thing that we can fix our past mistakes without really knowing what they were.

Skin color and *** are genetic. Homosexuality has not been proven to be.


It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#83 Dec 20 2010 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Moe, there's tons of scientific evidence suggesting that sexuality is the result of a series of biological processes. It's also scientific fact that there are biological ways in which *** men differ from straight men (tests on females are way less common). I edited an above comment to include many of these.

Unless you are going to hold that you are able to choose your sexuality and, as a result, the body physically changes to suit it, then there really is no reason to believe it is a choice. Have they been able to say "A person becomes *** under these conditions?" No.

But that's like arguing that we shouldn't believe in gravity because all we have is evidence of its existence. Some scientists hold we don't understand it perfectly, but they all agree that it is an actual force within the universe.

Honestly, with there being literally no evidence for sexuality as a choice and a ton for it being biological, it seems fairly clear that one party is clearly favored.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#84 Dec 20 2010 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Locke wrote:
Understandable, one might overhear you calling her a ***** and get ****** or something.


oooorrrrr something more realistic like get offended by a joke, sexual reference, a compliment or a date request... since the word "***" is somehow sexual harassment. I know I didn't want get in this discussion, but it's better than replying to people like Idiggory making up crap to argue that he hasn't any clue what he's talking about. Besides all I did was correct a false claim made and then I get thrown on the "hots seat" as defending x,y and Z.


Hi, referring to one's (presumed) sexual orientation is a sexual reference. People take offense to such things. It happens, it's not uncommon. Instead of segregating yourself, you might want to just think before you speak?


Quote:
The problem with sexual harassment isn't the *** part, it's the harassment part. People ASSUME that every sexual reference, rather if it's a natural biological reference or not, is harassment even though no one was actually harassed.

Sexual harassment for one person isn't the same for someone else.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Just because you don't think it's harassing doesn't mean others agree. And know what? That's how the law works. Your view honestly seems like more of an issue of not thinking out what you say; or perhaps lack of knowledge on social norms and/or the English language.

Did you watch Bambi as a kid? Remember the phrase "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all"? If you think they might take offense, don't say anything.

It seems your own view might be the one needing adjusting though, as "People ASSUME" is pretty darn vague and seems to imply a systemic problem. Personally I've gotten to know people a bit before popping potentially upsetting comments. Maybe 5% of people you talk with will be jerks who would complain about anything; 10% will take being called a ***** (for example) as legitimate harassment; and 85% just don't like you, Alma, in particular.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#85 Dec 20 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".


So... your opinion is that it shouldn't be repealed because of a privacy issue, but you don't really understand and can't explain why privacy would be an issue?

Alrighty then... Smiley: rolleyes


This has been nothing but a game the entire time with Sir X.

I want him to accept the similarity. He's trying to lure me into saying something to be the basis of his argument. He doesn't want to admit the similarity first, because that would take away from his argument. You have to keep up Belkira!


So... privacy isn't an issue, and you're fine with the repeal?


Once again, I merely corrected the false assumption that everyone who is against the repeal is because of prejudice. I only used the privacy issue because that's what the generals and big politicians are stating in their defense. The entire point is that while some people are just bigots, that isn't true for everyone. The privacy issue is a legitimate point. You all just refuse to accept that because that's how society is making homosexual gains, by calling everyon bigots and homophobes if they disagree.

RDD wrote:
It also hasn't been proven as a choice either.


Neither is being born blind and they still can't join, so what's your point?
#86 Dec 20 2010 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
The comparison to women is the best explanation because it's the same thing. Let's start here then. Explain to me how they are different.
Smiley: lol Ok, men and women are men and women, men and men aren't. Clearly they are different.

Almalieque wrote:
You're overlooking the fine detail. You can be 100% sure that a person is a homosexual, but you can't ask for another roommate because your roommate is ***, because there is no proof. It's really that simple. If the dude is banging his bf in your room, then now you have proof and a potential reason for a new roommate.
You don't seem to be understanding what I was saying but whatever. You're getting caught up in the legality of DADT which wasn't my point at all.

belkira wrote:
So... privacy isn't an issue, and you're fine with the repeal?
Given how he can't explain or quantify the privacy issue, I don't think he really understands it beyond "it's an argument he's heard from some top people" We'll see, I'm playing his 20 questions game he loves so much, so maybe he'll let me in on the secret. I think he agrees with the privacy argument, but it's hard to tell, maybe he doesn't and he's just arguing it for no reason.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 11:38am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#87 Dec 20 2010 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.


I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.
#88 Dec 20 2010 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Once again, I merely corrected the false assumption that everyone who is against the repeal is because of prejudice. I only used the privacy issue because that's what the generals and big politicians are stating in their defense. The entire point is that while some people are just bigots, that isn't true for everyone. The privacy issue is a legitimate point. You all just refuse to accept that because that's how society is making homosexual gains, by calling everyon bigots and homophobes if they disagree.


It's not an issue, though. There are homosexuals in the military right this second. You probably showered with one when you last took a communal shower. All the yammering about privacy is just a way to stall and keep people from getting rid of an archaic and stupid rule.
#89 Dec 20 2010 at 11:40 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
#90 Dec 20 2010 at 11:41 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Locke wrote:
Hi, referring to one's (presumed) sexual orientation is a sexual reference. People take offense to such things. It happens, it's not uncommon. Instead of segregating yourself, you might want to just think before you speak?


Uh... no.

It's not that simple. Because you'll be talking to a female who make sexual comments and everyone laughs. Then you might respond one way, thinking she's cool with it because of the stuff she says and does, and then all of the sudden you offended her.

Well, that's like the girls who wear shirt skirts and tops and get offended when you look at their chest and legs. How about I just remove myself from them. Every other normal girl interacts the way I'm used to being around. There's no reason in taking chances at work.

Locke wrote:
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Just because you don't think it's harassing doesn't mean others agree. And know what? That's how the law works. Your view honestly seems like more of an issue of not thinking out what you say; or perhaps lack of knowledge on social norms and/or the English language.

Did you watch Bambi as a kid? Remember the phrase "If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all"? If you think they might take offense, don't say anything.

It seems your own view might be the one needing adjusting though, as "People ASSUME" is pretty darn vague and seems to imply a systemic problem. Personally I've gotten to know people a bit before popping potentially upsetting comments. Maybe 5% of people you talk with will be jerks who would complain about anything; 10% will take being called a ***** (for example) as legitimate harassment; and 85% just don't like you, Alma, in particular.


I'm not grasping your point. Maybe my reply above is relevant to this.
#91 Dec 20 2010 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Well, that's like the girls who wear shirt skirts and tops and get offended when you look at their chest and legs. How about I just remove myself from them. Every other normal girl interacts the way I'm used to being around. There's no reason in taking chances at work.


You've got issues, Alma.
#92 Dec 20 2010 at 11:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
It's not that simple. Because you'll be talking to a female who make sexual comments and everyone laughs. Then you might respond one way, thinking she's cool with it because of the stuff she says and does, and then all of the sudden you offended her.


Girl- Hahaha, he should keep it in his pants!
Alma- Yeah... Hey, can I motorboat you?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#93 Dec 20 2010 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
That privacy thing and the showers... it has nothing to do with being straight or ***. If I, as a straight female, am showering with other straight females, my privacy is being violated. Having a ******* or two in there isn't going to make my privacy any more violated.
#94 Dec 20 2010 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Locke wrote:
Hi, referring to one's (presumed) sexual orientation is a sexual reference. People take offense to such things. It happens, it's not uncommon. Instead of segregating yourself, you might want to just think before you speak?


Uh... no.

I'm not sure if you were responding to "People take offense to such things"; "It happens, it's not uncommon"; or "You might want to just think before you speak?"

Let's break them down!
1. Yes, they do. It's YOUR fault if you said it. So, don't say potentially harassing things.
2. Again, it's not uncommon. This isn't my argument to back up, as you've been saying "People ASSUME", thus implying more than one person.
3. If you don't believe you should think before you speak... well, I think we just clarified almost all of your posts here! Smiley: lol

Quote:
It's not that simple. Because you'll be talking to a female who make sexual comments and everyone laughs. Then you might respond one way, thinking she's cool with it because of the stuff she says and does, and then all of the sudden you offended her.

Then don't make a sexual comment or a comment that might be considered inappropriate? Goodness, it's not a hard concept. Self-moderation is a great thing, and if you cannot (or will not) use it, why would you complain when it bites you?
Quote:
Well, that's like the girls who wear shirt skirts and tops and get offended when you look at their chest and legs. How about I just remove myself from them. Every other normal girl interacts the way I'm used to being around. There's no reason in taking chances at work.

This is so startlingly close to the "She deserved it for wearing that" rape argument that I'm really getting creeped out by you. You hit the nail on the head though - don't take chances AT WORK. It's work, stop popping off-color jokes that could be offensive. Who cares if others are doing it? If you're offended, report them; if you're afraid you'd get in trouble for doing the same, uh, don't do it!

Alma wrote:
I'm not grasping your point. Maybe my reply above is relevant to this.

Point was right in my part you quoted: "If you think they might take offense, don't say anything."
Also,
LockeColeMA wrote:
85% just don't like you, Alma
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#95 Dec 20 2010 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
This is so startlingly close to the "She deserved it for wearing that" rape argument that I'm really getting creeped out by you. You hit the nail on the head though - don't take chances AT WORK. It's work, stop popping off-color jokes that could be offensive. Who cares if others are doing it? If you're offended, report them; if you're afraid you'd get in trouble for doing the same, uh, don't do it!


Right? He should TOTALLY say that to a female coworker--she would be so flattered!

[EDIT]

It's bullsh*t that I can't rate up Xsarus or Locke anymore. >:(

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:09pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#96 Dec 20 2010 at 12:13 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
idiggory wrote:
Moe, there's tons of scientific evidence suggesting that sexuality is the result of a series of biological processes. It's also scientific fact that there are biological ways in which *** men differ from straight men (tests on females are way less common). I edited an above comment to include many of these.

Bilogical processes can be impacted and effected by behavior and environment.
idiggory wrote:
But that's like arguing that we shouldn't believe in gravity because all we have is evidence of its existence. Some scientists hold we don't understand it perfectly, but they all agree that it is an actual force within the universe.

Yeah, they're really nothing alike, what so ever, but if you feel the need to take the conversation in a different direction, who am I to try and stop you.
idiggory wrote:
Honestly, with there being literally no evidence for sexuality as a choice and a ton for it being biological, it seems fairly clear that one party is clearly favored.

400 years ago it seemed pretty clear that Earth was the center of the universe, too. Then we gained a better understanding of things. Now we know that I am the center of the universe.
____________________________
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]
#97 Dec 20 2010 at 12:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
idiggory wrote:

[EDIT]

It's bullsh*t that I can't rate up Xsarus or Locke anymore. >:(

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:09pm by idiggory


It's cool, I can rate myself up.
Quote:
LockeColeMA
9,029 posts
Score: Excellent [5.00]
LockeColeMA: 5.00
LockeColeMA: 5.00
LockeColeMA: 6.00

____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#98 Dec 20 2010 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
The only meaningful point I have heard on the issue is the question of recruitment difficulties. I have seen no study on it, so I have no data, but it was an interesting question posed by my brother last night.

How does this impact the large percentage of the American military that enlists from "the Bible Belt" and will it matter if it does? Outside of that all of the other issues are pretty petty.


I reckon they'll either get over it, or get a dishonerable discharge by acting out in an idiotic manner. It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a ***** in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them.

I reckon you should read before you write. Recruitment difficulties don't really relate to people on active service.
____________________________
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]
#99 Dec 20 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Excellent
9,030 posts
Score: Default [2.11]
LockeColeMA: 5.00
LockeColeMA: 5.00
LockeColeMA: 6.00
Xsarus: 1.00
Xsarus: 1.00
Xsarus: 1.00
Xsarus: -2.00
Xsarus: 1.00
Xsarus: 1.00


Muhahahaha. Of course then I felt bad and rated him back up to excellent. Smiley: lol
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#100 Dec 20 2010 at 12:25 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
Except that it is awkward that these differences may be observed at the very onset of sexuality.

Is it possible that someone "chooses" their sexuality before sexuality actually influences biological developments? Yes.

But does that really give any more weight to the "it's a choice" argument against self-identification? I don't think so.

Even if it is a choice, it's one that we make at an extremely young age before we even begin to develop sexual tendencies. A child can't comprehend what being *** actually means, because they can't even understand what being straight is. Sure, they might know that *** guys like guys and straight guys like women, but they have no ability to relate to the feelings of it.

So now you are judging someone for a choice they made as a child, when they were literally incapable of understanding the ramifications of either. Furthermore, it is HIGHLY unlikely it is a choice in the conscious sense, as no *** or straight person I have ever met remembers the moment they "chose" their sexuality.

So now that choice leads to their biology to literally shift, so that their brain develops the one sexuality over the other.

Can you, Moe, imagine actually switching sexualities? Because I can't. I can imagine sleeping with women and such. But I can't imagine actually forcing myself to become sexually attracted to them.

So if the choice isn't something you can actually change, why bother discriminating against them?

Furthermore, your argument at the very least has to account that the choice is heavily influenced by situations outside the child's control, or else there would be no way to correlate the increase in homosexuality in subsequent male children or in twins.

So now we have a choice made subconsciously, due to heavy environmental influence, at an extremely young age, with no scientific data suggesting that you can actually change it after the fact.

Yeah, that seems like something blameworthy.

[EDIT]

And your analogy is retarded. This isn't a case of assumption, it is a case of extrapolating the best possible answer from the data provided. The data DOES NOT suggest that homosexuality is purely genetic. It does heavily suggest that homosexuality is due to many factors outside the subject's control.

There was no reason to assume the earth was flat. And no scientific authorities in the last 2k years actually believed that (it's an old wives tale). They were wrong about the structure of the cosmos of course, but that about sums it up.

Will science EVER fully explain anything? Probably not. That's no reason to assume that you should never lend credence to what your data suggests. It's a reason to investigate the other options. I've never heard of a study looking for evidence of choice and being successful. Please link one if you do.

Edited, Dec 20th 2010 1:30pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#101 Dec 20 2010 at 12:37 PM Rating: Decent
*
53 posts
@Homosexuality being a choice:

When did all the heterosexuals making the argument it isn't CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Did you actively CHOOSE to be attracted to the opposite gender, or did you just sort of naturally feel attracted to the opposite gender?
____________________________
Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)