Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#152 Dec 21 2010 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Locke wrote:
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?"


I was referring to "Instead of segregating yourself". That's the problem with society, instead of being proactive and not placing themselves in potential problematic situations, they are reactive.


This is kinda how a functional society works - instead of people purposely not putting themselves in situations where they will say something offensive, they just watch what they say. I mean, sure, you can surround yourself with only men who make crude jokes, perhaps some insular community of the seven dwarves from Snow White who kick out the Princess and make fun of her style of dress or call her a lesbo instead of taking her in. Or perhaps that's why you joined the military, to keep away from women and not have to worry about what you say? The funny coincidence with that is that some of those men will probably be gay. And the military is integrated with both sexes. Oops! Didn't think that one through, huh? Smiley: lol

Quote:
I had this very same argument with a female coworker not too long ago and she said the same thing as you "just think before you talk, don't segregate". Starting that day, I started pointing out all of the sexual references the females were saying in class. This creates a false environment that it's ok to say such things because not many people complain when women say sexual things.

Obviously the topic upsets you. I suggest the next time sex comes up, you go to a supervisor and report them if they're talking about you. If the topic isn't upsetting you, then stop complaining!
Quote:
Since sex is the topic of the conversation, the guy thinks it's ok to talk about sex and says the wrong thing. Instead of guessing what is PC and what isn't, just don't say anything at all, unless you really know your audience.

Except that's not your solution. Your solution, which you've repeated twice, seems to be just to stay away from women, not watch what you say. You've basically come out and said "Why do I need to watch what I say when others don't?" The answer is obvious - if they take it as harassment, YOU'RE at fault. If it's not harassment when they say it to you, there's no issue. If it IS, report them.

It's really not hard. It just seems incredibly you'd rather segregate yourself than watch what you say. Do you really lack the comprehension to know what's right and wrong to say in a situation?

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 8:27am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#153 Dec 21 2010 at 8:44 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Quote:
This is kinda how a functional society works - instead of people purposely not putting themselves in situations where they will say something offensive, they just watch what they say. I mean, sure, you can surround yourself with only men who make crude jokes, perhaps some insular community of the seven dwarves from Snow White who kick out the Princess and make fun of her style of dress or call her a lesbo instead of taking her in. Or perhaps that's why you joined the military, to keep away from women and not have to worry about what you say? The funny coincidence with that is that some of those men will probably be gay. And the military is integrated with both sexes. Oops! Didn't think that one through, huh? Smiley: lol



That's not how a functional society works, but quite the opposite. That's like dating within the office. We've had this conversation before. Sure, it can work out just fine, but what happens when it doesn't? Are you confident that it will stay professional? You analyze the situation. If you don't think the relationship can separate pleasure from work, then you avoid the situation all together. This is why as a leader, you shouldn't be dating your subordinates, because you run the risk of losing authority.

This is also why it's always a good idea to keep political and religious preferences out of the office. Can people be mature and accept that people have differences of beliefs, yes, but are you also running the risk of creating a "hostile" environment? Yes.

Same with sexual harassment. If you come across a group of females having a discussion about sex and you're not sure how they'll react to certain comments, instead of engaging the conversation, just avoid the conversation.


So, I'm not sure what fantasy world you live in, but that's how a functional society works.

Locke wrote:
Obviously the topic upsets you. I suggest the next time sex comes up, you go to a supervisor and report them if they're talking about you. If the topic isn't upsetting you, then stop complaining!


Way to miss the point. That doesn't even make sense. The point is that women are more freely to talk about sex creating this false environment that it's ok to talk about sex until you get hit for saying the wrong thing. It has nothing to do about discomfort. If the topic of sex bothered me, then I wouldn't be refraining from saying sexual things. You just made that up because you didn't have a comeback.

Locke wrote:
Except that's not your solution. Your solution, which you've repeated twice, seems to be just to stay away from women, not watch what you say. You've basically come out and said "Why do I need to watch what I say when others don't?" The answer is obvious - if they take it as harassment, YOU'RE at fault. If it's not harassment when they say it to you, there's no issue. If it IS, report them.

It's really not hard. It just seems incredibly you'd rather segregate yourself than watch what you say. Do you really lack the comprehension to know what's right and wrong to say in a situation?



Wait, didn't you just say in this very own post that women and men are integrated in the military? There are times where I can't avoid certain people, like when I'm in class sitting right next to them? So, if they are telling jokes, I might contribute or I might not. I evaluate the situation.

I'm telling you what I mean and you're arguing that isn't what I mean. However you interpreted what I said is on you, but I'm telling you what I mean.

There are times where people hang out together for leisure for whatever reason, this is where I mostly remove myself. Give you an example, I got a text once from a girl who has having a "drinking party" in her hotel room. This girl is about a 12 or 13 out of 10. Mostly of the people invited were men. Is that not a set up of something potentially problematic occurring? A bunch of drunk guys in an attractive drunk girl's hotel room? Did anything happen, probably not, but too many stories start off with that same situation. If the crowd was more integrated, it would be a different story.

Locke wrote:
It's really not hard. It just seems incredibly you'd rather segregate yourself than watch what you say. Do you really lack the comprehension to know what's right and wrong to say in a situation?


Quoted once again...

Because what's "Right" and "wrong" varies for each person? I remember sitting through a sexual harassment training class and the instructor claimed that a man sexually harassed a woman in the grocery store for checking her out when she didn't even notice nor was affected by it. He made the assumption that she would have been offended if she had noticed it.

That's the nonsense I'm talking about. You can call sexual harassment for seeing how two other people act. You can make a complaint that Joe calls his girlfriend Maria "babe" at work.

It's all about knowing your audience and if you think otherwise, you're setting yourself up for failure. You're going to think it's cool say something that someone else said earlier and you're going to get hit. Just because it was cool to say something one time, doesn't mean it's cool to say the same exact thing another time. So, instead of rolling the dice, just don't say anything in that reference at all.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#154 Dec 21 2010 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Nadenu wrote:
Exactly. My privacy is being violated no matter who I'm showing with. BUT, if I really wanted to join the army, navy, whatever, I would expect this. So it wouldn't matter if it were a man or woman, straight or gay.


I completely agree, but that's now how the system works. I'm all for complete open showers. But



So then what's the problem?
#155 Dec 21 2010 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Personally, I would rather be in combat than have someone's junk in my mouth and I'm sure many military people would agree.


Lucky for you, repealing DADT won't force you to put anyone's junk in your mouth. Yay! Smiley: rolleyes

Almalieque wrote:
So, you have no problem taking a communal shower with guys?


I have no idea what that has to do with anything.

Almalieque wrote:
In the cases where you KNOW the person might be interested in you?


A female, I wouldn't care.

Almalieque wrote:
You missing the whole concept of DADT. The whole point is that no one knows. DADT causes people to behave a certain way. Repealing that allows them to act differently.


No, it doesn't. But nice try.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#156varusword75, Posted: Dec 21 2010 at 9:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The only peoples whose opinion should matter on this are those currently serving.
#157 Dec 21 2010 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Alma, you're saying you remove yourself from people who might misinterpret what you say, and then saying "I just don't say anything around them." I'm guessing, given your example, you do both? Good! Your previous quotes gave the impression that you just stay away from women completely because you refuse to accept the notion that they might be offended by your comments.
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously the topic upsets you. I suggest the next time sex comes up, you go to a supervisor and report them if they're talking about you. If the topic isn't upsetting you, then stop complaining!


Way to miss the point. That doesn't even make sense. The point is that women are more freely to talk about sex creating this false environment that it's ok to talk about sex until you get hit for saying the wrong thing. It has nothing to do about discomfort. If the topic of sex bothered me, then I wouldn't be refraining from saying sexual things. You just made that up because you didn't have a comeback.

Actually, that's exactly the point. You're upset that other people take offense to things you say. Perhaps you do not understand harassment is based on the recipient's feelings, not yours. More likely you just don't care. I think your issue is just that you think others should feel the same way you do... but that's completely contrary to how the concept of harassment works. If women seem more free to talk about sex, it's because their audience is not as offended. You're saying that you're upset if women get offended. That's tough luck, man. The law says so, common sense says so, social decency says so. If you can't control what you say and it upsets the people you say it to, you're still at fault.

And there was nothing to make up. We're talking about harassment, and you're saying you're upset you can't speak freely even if it would be harassment. If you're not feeling harassed by what is said to you, there's no problem. As you said, "it's all about knowing your audience." WHAT you say it just as important as WHO you say it to.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#158 Dec 21 2010 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Wow, so you support any kind of discrimination between men and women solely based on the difference of sexes with no other reasons? So, you support men and women being segregated in the work office, they can't share the same office because clearly they are different. Men and women can't share the same parking lot, because clearly they are are different.

So, you support men and women being paid differently because clearly they are different and therefore should not be paid the same?

Wow, didn't you know support those things... surely there is more to simply being different that causes you support any form of segregation or discrimination.
Smiley: oyvey Obviously not, are you going to make a point or continue to just babble about nothing? If you have some kind of reason or explanation as to the privacy thing feel free to explain it. Otherwise you're just blowing a lot of hot air. You say you like to argue, but whenever I actually try and engage you, you refuse to actually say anything, and when I dismiss anything you've asked as irrelevant you jump up and down screaming and claiming it's your "victory" unless I answer said question. Sad. It's effective in annoying people, which tbh, I think is your only real goal.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
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.
It seems that your point is that a person's attitude towards an assumed homosexual isn't going to change overnight when that person comes out of the closet, because you already "knew" that the person was homosexual. Am I right? If so, I've addressed your concern.
Not really, but it's nice that you think you addressed it.

Almalieque wrote:
You know that this was all a game from the start. You never thought the two were the same, but you pretended that you did think they were the same just so I can make my argument the basis of your argument. When you realized that you couldn't get anything from me, then you admitted that you don't think the two were the same. If this weren't a game, you would have stated that from the beginning. So, if I have to look "silly" to get my point across, then so be it.
When did I pretend the two were the same? What I've done from the beginning is ask you to explain what you mean by privacy, but you are either unable or unwilling to do so. I asked you to explain what you meant by it and you said ask a women because it's the same. I asked you to justify that because I didn't see the connection and you refused. If I were playing your role right now I'd be jumping up and down screaming, calling you an idiot who was avoiding the question because you know I'm right. Smiley: lol

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 9:42am 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
#159 Dec 21 2010 at 9:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
varusword75 wrote:
The only peoples whose opinion should matter on this are those currently serving.


I suppose next we should start asking them which war they want to participate in, too?
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#160 Dec 21 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
Quote:
Personally, I would rather be in combat than have someone's junk in my mouth and I'm sure many military people would agree.


We're getting closer to the real issue now, ladies, gentlemen and queers.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#161 Dec 21 2010 at 9:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Do you really lack the comprehension to know what's right and wrong to say in a situation?


Independent analysis confirms it:
http://ffxiv.zam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1290987721186269195&page=5&howmany=50#msg12929449195730596
____________________________
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.
#162 Dec 21 2010 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
AAAAAAAAA, how can you stand that skin? I feel like my eyes have been assaulted.
____________________________
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
#163 Dec 21 2010 at 9:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Do you really lack the comprehension to know what's right and wrong to say in a situation?


Independent analysis confirms it:
http://ffxiv.zam.com/forum.html?forum=4&mid=1290987721186269195&page=5&howmany=50#msg12929449195730596


I didn't really think much about it, but yes, that's a pretty darn good example Smiley: laugh

"It's a joke because I say so!" But no one finds it funny.
"It's not harassment because it wouldn't offend me if you told ME I have a nice ass!" to a bunch of women.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#164 Dec 21 2010 at 9:52 AM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Wonder Gem rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
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?


My point was that its also hasn't been proven as a choice. In reponse to moe who said it hasn't been proven as a gentic thing. In response to me saying the military has done the same pacing back and forth in respect to race, sex, and now again with sexuality.

If you are such a homophobic person Alma, why don't you leave? If you are scared of being distracted why don't you leave. These people aren't scared to fight alongside you, be persecuted by you and bleed with you for your country. They don't care that you are straight and don't find them to be attractive, they don't care that you have a small penis, or a large penis. News flash, most Gays do not care for non-gays in a romantic or lustful way. Why should they have to leave, to please you, why don't you leave, to please yourself.


RDD, you're a tool.
So I guess you believe heterosexual men aren't attractive to hot lesbians, only heterosexual women.. This talk that homosexual men are LESS sexual than heterosexual men is nonsense. Men are men.

Afraid of what? You're just throwing around terms and false accusations to make you seem right. Learn something from politics, smearing your opponent doesn't always make you look good. Doing so makes you look stupid.



Pot kettle, kettle pot?

You sir are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I hope you quit your job, because frankly it is people like you that the military doesn't need. It is people like you who are more likely to freeze up and not perform ones duty, because you are simply to worried if the gay man behind you is checking out your ass or not.

News flash, Gay people don't tend to tell everyone about being gay, chances are you will not know any new gay people. You could be showering with 5 right now and not even know it, you could probably wont know it next week, next month or a year from now.

Furthermore, if you are so worried about your privacy, wouldn't it be good to know who is gay and who isn't that way you can try and keep yourself out of sight around them. Wouldn't that make you feel more comfortable instead of currently where you don't know who is gay. Hell your best army buddy might be gay, and you don't know.

You are a Homophobe, no if's and's or but's. You don't deserve to serve in the army if you think Gays should not be allowed to protect their country in a way that is not biased to their sexuality. You protect the freedom of all people, but are stomping out the freedoms of your friends and companions. You are a hypocriticl homophobe, and I am glad I do not know you personally.

But keep fighting the good fight man....and don't forget, don't drop the soap!

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#165varusword75, Posted: Dec 21 2010 at 10:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#166 Dec 21 2010 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Right, it's a social experiment. Is that what they're saying on the radio these days?

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 8:50am 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.
#167 Dec 21 2010 at 10:52 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,095 posts
varusword75 wrote:
The only peoples whose opinion should matter on this are those currently serving.
So you're admitting nothing you say means anything here?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#168 Dec 21 2010 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
The only peoples whose opinion should matter on this are those currently serving.
So you're admitting nothing you say means anything here?

Your logic will not serve you here, grasshopper. Here you must endure without this tool.
____________________________
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]
#169 Dec 21 2010 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
So you're admitting nothing you say means anything here?


Apparently he's admitting his support for the repeal in light of those recent surveys showing that the troops are overwhelmingly ok with it.
____________________________
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.
#170 Dec 21 2010 at 10:57 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:


Nadenu wrote:
Exactly. My privacy is being violated no matter who I'm showing with. BUT, if I really wanted to join the army, navy, whatever, I would expect this. So it wouldn't matter if it were a man or woman, straight or gay.


I completely agree, but that's now how the system works. I'm all for complete open showers. But



So then what's the problem?


That's not how it works. People are segregating based on double standards. That's my problem..

Belkira wrote:
Lucky for you, repealing DADT won't force you to put anyone's junk in your mouth. Yay


You conveniently left out the part of comparing you to the bigots who believe sexuality plays a part in the ability to work. You claimed that if a person had a problem with one, then they'll have a bigger problem with another. The two aren't related.

Belkira wrote:
I have no idea what that has to do with anything.


Stop chopping up my statements, you'll know. The VERY NEXT sentence explains..

Belkira wrote:
A female, I wouldn't care.


What's the difference? I wouldn't care if I showered with a female that might be interested in me either. So, you are implying that you would have a problem showering with a male that might be interested in you and that's ok, but not ok for me to say the same exact thing? Why is that? What's the motive of the separation?

Belkira wrote:
No, it doesn't. But nice try.


That's funny, so you're claiming that repealing DADT wont change anything, then why is it such a big deal? That makes no sense. Once DADT is repealed, same sex couples can openly show affection towards each other, something that they weren't doing before. This is allowing them to behave differently. If you don't see a difference between hiding your sexuality and being open with it, then you're a lost cause.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#171 Dec 21 2010 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You conveniently left out the part of comparing you to the bigots who believe sexuality plays a part in the ability to work. You claimed that if a person had a problem with one, then they'll have a bigger problem with another. The two aren't related.


I "conveniently" left that out because you missed the point. Again. Not surprising. I'm really tired of holding your hand through things and running off down whichever strange garden path your mind takes you down.

Almalieque wrote:
What's the difference? I wouldn't care if I showered with a female that might be interested in me either. So, you are implying that you would have a problem showering with a male that might be interested in you and that's ok, but not ok for me to say the same exact thing? Why is that? What's the motive of the separation?


What I'm saying is, I don't give a sh*t if other women see me. I do give a sh*t if men see me. All my life, it's been drilled into my head that you don't get naked in front of members of the opposite sex. It's embarrassing to be naked in front of a member of the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with attraction, and everything to do with a woman being built the same way I am. Get it?

Almalieque wrote:
That's funny, so you're claiming that repealing DADT wont change anything, then why is it such a big deal?


No, I didn't claim that. I said that it won't give people license to act differently.

Almalieque wrote:
That makes no sense. Once DADT is repealed, same sex couples can openly show affection towards each other, something that they weren't doing before. This is allowing them to behave differently. If you don't see a difference between hiding your sexuality and being open with it, then you're a lost cause.


Ah, I see. Yes, homosexual couples can now act normal instead of skulking around in the shadows. In that way, they can act differently. But... really, I have absolutely no idea how that matters one whit.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 11:13am by Belkira
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#172varusword75, Posted: Dec 21 2010 at 12:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) gaxe,
#173varusword75, Posted: Dec 21 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Tulip,
#174 Dec 21 2010 at 12:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
varusword75 wrote:
And the type of hetero-sexual masculine men that comprise the majority of our armed forces probably don't want to be forced to shower with fairies. Pretending this doesn't matter to 18-21 yr old new recruits doesn't make it go away.

Blatant speculation now, eh?

I'd reckon most people don't want to shower with strangers at all. Homosexuals or not, junk will be dangling.

This is also speculation.
#175 Dec 21 2010 at 1:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Locke wrote:
Actually, that's exactly the point. You're upset that other people take offense to things you say. Perhaps you do not understand harassment is based on the recipient's feelings, not yours. More likely you just don't care. I think your issue is just that you think others should feel the same way you do... but that's completely contrary to how the concept of harassment works. If women seem more free to talk about sex, it's because their audience is not as offended. You're saying that you're upset if women get offended. That's tough luck, man. The law says so, common sense says so, social decency says so. If you can't control what you say and it upsets the people you say it to, you're still at fault.

And there was nothing to make up. We're talking about harassment, and you're saying you're upset you can't speak freely even if it would be harassment. If you're not feeling harassed by what is said to you, there's no problem. As you said, "it's all about knowing your audience." WHAT you say it just as important as WHO you say it to.


Wrong..

I'm not upset and I've told you that already. So, if you continue to believe so, then that is yet another personal problem. This isn't "tough luck", "common sense", "law" or "social decency".

As a supervisor, if I hear or see people doing something that MAY be taken as offensive, then I have the authority (as any good supervisor would do) is to hault that activity from ocurring, regardless if no one was offended. That's being proactive, setting a positive atmosphere so people can feel more comfortable.

What people like you are supporting is people doing and saying innapropiate things as long as no one is offended. You're being reactive. You'll allow your male workers to hang up nude women pictures on the wall because no one has claimed that they are offended. You would rather wait until someone says that they're offended. That's the wrong answer.

Knowing your audience is important, but that's most efficient outside of the workplace. In the workplace, while that still can be applied, it shouldn't happen at all, but it does and that's reality. So, it's better to be proactive than reactive.

Sir X wrote:
Obviously not, are you going to make a point or continue to just babble about nothing? If you have some kind of reason or explanation as to the privacy thing feel free to explain it. Otherwise you're just blowing a lot of hot air. You say you like to argue, but whenever I actually try and engage you, you refuse to actually say anything, and when I dismiss anything you've asked as irrelevant you jump up and down screaming and claiming it's your "victory" unless I answer said question. Sad. It's effective in annoying people, which tbh, I think is your only real goal.


That is the point, you're just ignoring it. The whole point of equality is treating everyone the same unless there is a justification to treat them differently. The simple fact that men and women are different isn't a justification to treat them differently. That is all you have provided. You didn't give any justification to why they should be treated differently. So, if you want to have a real conversation, then explain the justification on why women and men shouldn't share showers.

Sir X wrote:
When did I pretend the two were the same? What I've done from the beginning is ask you to explain what you mean by privacy, but you are either unable or unwilling to do so. I asked you to explain what you meant by it and you said ask a women because it's the same. I asked you to justify that because I didn't see the connection and you refused. If I were playing your role right now I'd be jumping up and down screaming, calling you an idiot who was avoiding the question because you know I'm right.


I said from the beginning that the two were the same. If you weren't playing games, you would have done what everyone else has done, say that there weren't the same from the start. You kept asking me to further explain, when I gave you the best explanation there is, saying it's the same as men and women. You didn't like that answer, because you wanted me to say something else.

Idigg wrote:
We're getting closer to the real issue now, ladies, gentlemen and queers.


The belief that a person's sexual perference has nothing to do with the ability to fight in war? Isn't that what you're fighting for? What is your point? I'm a Soldier, I go to war, that's my job. Why would I change my sexual preference than do the job I chose to do?

RDD wrote:

Pot kettle, kettle pot?

You sir are making a mountain out of a mole hill. I hope you quit your job, because frankly it is people like you that the military doesn't need. It is people like you who are more likely to freeze up and not perform ones duty, because you are simply to worried if the gay man behind you is checking out your ass or not.

News flash, Gay people don't tend to tell everyone about being gay, chances are you will not know any new gay people. You could be showering with 5 right now and not even know it, you could probably wont know it next week, next month or a year from now.

Furthermore, if you are so worried about your privacy, wouldn't it be good to know who is gay and who isn't that way you can try and keep yourself out of sight around them. Wouldn't that make you feel more comfortable instead of currently where you don't know who is gay. Hell your best army buddy might be gay, and you don't know.

You are a Homophobe, no if's and's or but's. You don't deserve to serve in the army if you think Gays should not be allowed to protect their country in a way that is not biased to their sexuality. You protect the freedom of all people, but are stomping out the freedoms of your friends and companions. You are a hypocriticl homophobe, and I am glad I do not know you personally.

But keep fighting the good fight man....and don't forget, don't drop the soap!


RDD,

The reason why you don't agree with me is because you're a racist. You don't believe that certain ethnic minorities have the ability to have their own opinions or any intelligence. You think these same ethnic minorites are inferior to you. You dont deserve to be part of our society, it's people like you who set minorities back. You argue against bigotry for homosexuals, but are a complete racist. You're a hypocritical racist. These minorities work with you.. Keep up your good work for homosexuals.... and don't forget, President Obama is black!
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#176 Dec 21 2010 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Pretending this doesn't matter to 18-21 yr old new recruits doesn't make it go away.


Yeah, you're right-- they're 18-21. Younger people are increasingly more tolerant and accepting of homosexuality than generations before them, and will grow only more accepting. And this move will only accelerate that process.

Quote:
The reason why you don't agree with me is because you're a racist. You don't believe that certain ethnic minorities have the ability to have their own opinions or any intelligence. You think these same ethnic minorites are inferior to you. You dont deserve to be part of our society, it's people like you who set minorities back. You argue against bigotry for homosexuals, but are a complete racist. You're a hypocritical racist. These minorities work with you.. Keep up your good work for homosexuals.... and don't forget, President Obama is black!


This stupidity made me /jawdrop

You sir, are a @#%^ing lunatic.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 11:20am 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.
#177 Dec 21 2010 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
The only peoples whose opinion should matter on this are those currently serving.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11883364
It's even in video format so you don't have to read too much!
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#178 Dec 21 2010 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
That is the point, you're just ignoring it. The whole point of equality is treating everyone the same unless there is a justification to treat them differently. The simple fact that men and women are different isn't a justification to treat them differently. That is all you have provided. You didn't give any justification to why they should be treated differently. So, if you want to have a real conversation, then explain the justification on why women and men shouldn't share showers.
I'm not trying to justify why they currently don't share showers. I don't really care. You're the one making a comparison, defend your comparison.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
When did I pretend the two were the same? What I've done from the beginning is ask you to explain what you mean by privacy, but you are either unable or unwilling to do so. I asked you to explain what you meant by it and you said ask a women because it's the same. I asked you to justify that because I didn't see the connection and you refused. If I were playing your role right now I'd be jumping up and down screaming, calling you an idiot who was avoiding the question because you know I'm right.
I said from the beginning that the two were the same. If you weren't playing games, you would have done what everyone else has done, say that there weren't the same from the start. You kept asking me to further explain, when I gave you the best explanation there is, saying it's the same as men and women. You didn't like that answer, because you wanted me to say something else.
I have said they weren't the same from the start, I also gave you the chance to justify your assertion that they were the same, but so far, for whatever reason, you've refused. If you're going to start saying arguments about privacy are legitimate, then you'd better be able to explain what that argument actually is. I'm not playing games except that I'm trying to answer your questions to try and engage you in some kind of discussion because I know that otherwise you'll just jump up and down screaming that I'm avoiding something because I apparently know you're right. Seems that either approach is equally ineffective at actually getting you to say anything meaningful.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 1:33pm 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
#179 Dec 21 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Belkira wrote:
I "conveniently" left that out because you missed the point. Again. Not surprising. I'm really tired of holding your hand through things and running off down whichever strange garden path your mind takes you down.


You're just making up excuses. If I'm running to strange paths, please explain what you meant by "It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a penis in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them."

Seems to me that you were making a connection between sexual preference to the abilitlly to do one's job. You say no, so please explain....

Belkira wrote:
What I'm saying is, I don't give a sh*t if other women see me. I do give a sh*t if men see me. All my life, it's been drilled into my head that you don't get naked in front of members of the opposite sex. It's embarrassing to be naked in front of a member of the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with attraction, and everything to do with a woman being built the same way I am. Get it?


So you believe that embarassment is a valid excuse to segregate showers?

Belkira wrote:
Ah, I see. Yes, homosexual couples can now act normal instead of skulking around in the shadows. In that way, they can act differently. But... really, I have absolutely no idea how that matters one whit.



Because you argued that we already work with homosexuals, so repealing DADT wont make a difference, i.e showering together. I countered to say, yes, we do already work with homosexuals, but it wont be the same because now they have the opportunity to behave differently with each other in areas such as in the barracks and in the shower.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#180 Dec 21 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,095 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Sad that you think what you say here does mean something.
Well, obviously playing basketball with the pt remedial fobbit Marines makes you a soldier.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#181 Dec 21 2010 at 1:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Sir X wrote:
I'm not trying to justify why they currently don't share showers. I don't really care. You're the one making a comparison, defend your comparison.


I am. I stated the obvious that they are the same, you countered to say that they are not. So, I'm asking how are they different, because I see no difference. It's obvious that you can't show how they are different, because they are indeed the same.

Sir X wrote:
have said they weren't the same from the start


Quote me where and I'll apologize if you can.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#182 Dec 21 2010 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
Almalique, you're fucking retarded.

And you still never even attempted to respond to my question from a few pages ago. I'll articulate it simply:

If straight men shouldn't have to shower with gay men, because gay men are attracted to men, then why should gay men have to shower with gay men? And why shouldn't lesbians have to shower with gay men?

And what do you do with bisexuals?

I've ASSUMED you are correct in your privacy argument (even though I don't think you are). These are questions that you need to respond to if you even want to prove that the privacy argument is coherent in any form (since you've been so kind as to not even articulate it for us).

[EDIT]
Quote:
I am. I stated the obvious that they are the same, you countered to say that they are not. So, I'm asking how are they different, because I see no difference. It's obvious that you can't show how they are different, because they are indeed the same.


1. Stating the obvious is not a valid logical argument. You'll learn that the first day in ANY logic course.
2. Stating the obvious is only stating the obvious when it's obvious. You have an entire thread full of people disagreeing with you--that's pretty good evidence that it is NOT obvious.

Quote:
Because you argued that we already work with homosexuals, so repealing DADT wont make a difference, i.e showering together. I countered to say, yes, we do already work with homosexuals, but it wont be the same because now they have the opportunity to behave differently with each other in areas such as in the barracks and in the shower.


And the ONLY reason you assume that is because you are prejudiced and believe that gay men are unlike regular men in a significant way with reference to the way they act.

News flash--relatively few gay men have taken dance classes.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 2:45pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#183 Dec 21 2010 at 2:03 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Idig wrote:
Almalique, you're @#%^ing retarded.

And you still never even attempted to respond to my question from a few pages ago. I'll articulate it simply:

If straight men shouldn't have to shower with gay men, because gay men are attracted to men, then why should gay men have to shower with gay men? And why shouldn't lesbians have to shower with gay men?

And what do you do with bisexuals?

I've ASSUMED you are correct in your privacy argument (even though I don't think you are). These are questions that you need to respond to if you even want to prove that the privacy argument is coherent in any form (since you've been so kind as to not even articulate it for us).


I told you that I stopped reading your posts because you didn't know what you were talking about and really because they are way too long with no breaks.

To answer you legitimate question, you are correct. That's why I support, single showers/rooms or put everyone together. I don't support giving certain people "privileges" because they don't feel comfortable, but telling everyone else to suck it up.

Idig wrote:
1. Stating the obvious is not a valid logical argument. You'll learn that the first day in ANY logic course.
2. Stating the obvious is only stating the obvious when it's obvious. You have an entire thread full of people disagreeing with you--that's pretty good evidence that it is NOT obvious.


Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. This is why I was ignoring you, you're clueless. I think you're too emotionally attached to the subject to think clearly. Else, you would have known that the point wasn't that it was "obvious", but Sir X doesn't want to state any difference, because he can't. If I state the "similarities" first, he'll just use my argument as the basis as his argument while dropping the issue all together.

Idigg wrote:
And the ONLY reason you assume that is because you are prejudiced and believe that gay men are unlike regular men in a significant way with reference to the way they act.

News flash--relatively few gay men have taken dance classes.


You're an idiot. Even though I stated the exact opposite, stating that homosexual men are different than heterosexual men is counterproductive. Claiming that they are nothing but horndogs that only want sex like many heterosexual guys are labeled as is a much more supportive argument.

Thanks for seeing the truth.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#184 Dec 21 2010 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
Quote:
Wrong..

I'm not upset and I've told you that already. So, if you continue to believe so, then that is yet another personal problem. This isn't "tough luck", "common sense", "law" or "social decency".

My mistake, I didn't realize you're completely fine with the situation. I guess I can't understand why you continue to complain about it, since it doesn't upset you Smiley: lol

Quote:
As a supervisor, if I hear or see people doing something that MAY be taken as offensive, then I have the authority (as any good supervisor would do) is to hault that activity from ocurring, regardless if no one was offended. That's being proactive, setting a positive atmosphere so people can feel more comfortable.

Good! That should happen. And that's completely different from separating yourself from women because you're afraid to say something harassing, especially if you're doing it as a supervisor. Edit: I'm also not sure why you went from "I got a text" to "I'm a supervisor!" But then I read your next sentence where you tried to change the topic from how you can't use sexually harassing speech and it's not fair to how to run a harassment free office with basic freaking rules everyone already knows and it made a lot more sense.

Quote:
What people like you are supporting is people doing and saying innapropiate things as long as no one is offended. You're being reactive. You'll allow your male workers to hang up nude women pictures on the wall because no one has claimed that they are offended. You would rather wait until someone says that they're offended. That's the wrong answer.

Knowing your audience is important, but that's most efficient outside of the workplace. In the workplace, while that still can be applied, it shouldn't happen at all, but it does and that's reality. So, it's better to be proactive than reactive.

People "like me," huh? Ran out of fuel for your fire and decided to just start making things up? I'm amazed that the entire time we've been talking about saying things that could be misinterpreted by others, and your response is "Hey, that means you're fine with nude pics!" Somehow, blatant harassment is blatant Smiley: lol If you can't find good example and need to change the topic to try and respond, try thinking before you speak (type?).

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 3:13pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#185 Dec 21 2010 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I told you that I stopped reading your posts because you didn't know what you were talking about and really because they are way too long with no breaks.


Nice. Hypocrisy and contradiction all at once.

I'm really glad you're here.
____________________________
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.
#186 Dec 21 2010 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
RDD,

The reason why you don't agree with me is because you're a racist. You don't believe that certain ethnic minorities have the ability to have their own opinions or any intelligence. You think these same ethnic minorites are inferior to you. You dont deserve to be part of our society, it's people like you who set minorities back. You argue against bigotry for homosexuals, but are a complete racist. You're a hypocritical racist. These minorities work with you.. Keep up your good work for homosexuals.... and don't forget, President Obama is black!


Where in anything that I have said can be even remotely linked to racism. Let alone me being racist. You sir are a mentally hilarious individual. Want to know what else is @#%^ing awesome, im not part of your society, and quite frankly I am glad I am not. See I am Candaian, I was raised in a society that accepts everyone race,religion,sex,sexual orientation. We don't just say we accept them, we do accept them.

I am glad I am not part of your awesome accepting American society, the same society that sterotypes that Blacks are more likely to commit crime because of there skin color, that Hispanics are more likely to be illegal immigrants, that Asians are more likely to be involved in sex trading. The same society that segregates their voting and polls into race/religion and sexual orientation. In Canada we are people, and if 57% of the people voted for X then thats the only number that maters. Frankly the society you ramble on about is corrupt.

I personally don't give a sh*t what other people are/do. I have black friends, Arab friends, Indian Friends, White Friends, Guy friends, Girl Friends, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheiest friends, My GF is an Asian whose family practices Buddhism. I have straight friends, Gay friends Lesbian friends, and even a bisexual friend who finds everyone sexually attractive. Ive worked with these people, lived with them, dated them, went to school with them.

Ive had the privilege of learning about their families historical Cultures, Ive had the privilege of attending 3 separate forms of Religious Congregation, Ive had the Privilege of having a universal flavor of people I can call friends. If I am Racist, I would hate to see your definition of a non-racist. I am prejudice to no one. As long as those people respect my beliefs, and my sexual preferences and don't try to force their lifestyles on me we coexist very happily.

But for the fun of seeing your next reply, please show me some quotes of me being racist, so I can better understand why you are complete @#%^ing moran.

(for the record Beebop Obama is the President of the USA, I had no say in his election, he is black and white, he hs heritage roots in 2 different religions, if anything you are more race oriented than me, I see Beebop as a man, not a color, but please humor me.)

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 3:27pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#187varusword75, Posted: Dec 21 2010 at 2:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgaxe,
#188 Dec 21 2010 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,920 posts
varusword75 wrote:

Quote:
See I am Candaian, I was raised in a society that accepts everyone


Yes we know Canadians, i'm not surprised you can't spell the name of your own country by the way (govn schools and all), embrace mass murdering baby killers who spread std's while persecuting christians.


Isn't this how you think about America, despite the fact you yourself received said government schooling?
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#189 Dec 21 2010 at 2:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
ElneClare wrote:
Gbaji, I give you a hint.

You might like to double check the dates of when the two polls were taken.


Huh? Unless I'm misreading something, one was taken from dec 9th to dec 12th in 2010, and the other was taken from nov 8th to nov 15th in 2010. That's within a month of each other, just as I stated. One is an ABC News/Washington Post Poll of "adults", the other a McClatchy-Marist Poll of "registered voters". Both were national polls. All of this information is in the link, so I'm not sure why I have to write it for you.

I'm still curious why some think my observations are wrong? It seems quite valid to observe that the poll results shift dramatically based purely on how you word the issue. And if you look at all of the polls, you'll notice the trend I pointed to. When the position is presented positively "should gays be allowed to serve openly", we get the highest responses. When it's presented neutrally "gays "allowed" to serve openly, or gays "allowed" to serve under DADT", it's less overwhelming. And when it's presented in a negative "should DADT be repealed", the results come out nearly even.


What's wrong with that observation?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#190 Dec 21 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,095 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Knowing that mid-western and southern kids from predominately christian families and from the bible belt and other rural religious communities who comprise the majority of our servicment don't want to shower with f*gs is kind of a no-brainer, lucky for you.
And knowing you, you're all about the no brainers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#191 Dec 21 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
varusword75 wrote:
lolgaxe,

Quote:
Well, obviously playing basketball with the pt remedial fobbit Marines makes you a soldier.


Knowing that mid-western and southern kids from predominately christian families and from the bible belt and other rural religious communities who comprise the majority of our servicment don't want to shower with f*gs is kind of a no-brainer, lucky for you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11883364
Sounds like the majority of servicemen don't give a flying fuck.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#192 Dec 21 2010 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Gem,

Quote:
See I am Candaian, I was raised in a society that accepts everyone


Yes we know Canadians, i'm not surprised you can't spell the name of your own country by the way (govn schools and all), embrace mass murdering baby killers who spread std's while persecuting christians.


Ya well anyone that has posted here or read my posts knows I am an atrocious speller and even worse at typing. As for that last bit, by baby killing I assume you mean the option to abort or not. I don't understand the last two since Canada has lower STD rates per capita than the USA, and finally, the majority of Canadians are Christian, are you saying we persecute ourselves?

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#193 Dec 21 2010 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You're just making up excuses. If I'm running to strange paths, please explain what you meant by "It's the military. If serving next to a guy who likes to put a penis in his mouth is a problem, I'd hate to see what they do when scary people shoot guns at them."

Seems to me that you were making a connection between sexual preference to the abilitlly to do one's job. You say no, so please explain....


I'm saying that if it makes someone nervous to realize what someone else does in bed, then they're probably not going to react well when someone points a gun at them. Get it? It's not that hard, and I'm pretty sure you're the only one not getting it here.

Almalieque wrote:
So you believe that embarassment is a valid excuse to segregate showers?


No. I'm saying that women all have the same parts, and men all have the same parts so it makes sense to keep the showers seperate. For me, personally, it's not embarrassing for a woman to see me naked, but would be for a man.

Almalieque wrote:
Because you argued that we already work with homosexuals, so repealing DADT wont make a difference, i.e showering together. I countered to say, yes, we do already work with homosexuals, but it wont be the same because now they have the opportunity to behave differently with each other in areas such as in the barracks and in the shower.


Smiley: facepalm

Once again, you have some issues with sex you need to work out with a therapist.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#194 Dec 21 2010 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
I'm not trying to justify why they currently don't share showers. I don't really care. You're the one making a comparison, defend your comparison.
I am. I stated the obvious that they are the same, you countered to say that they are not. So, I'm asking how are they different, because I see no difference. It's obvious that you can't show how they are different, because they are indeed the same.
Men and women are the same now? that's interesting. I'm not sure exactly in what level of detail you want me to explain to you how men and women are different. Let me know what parts you're confused about.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
have said they weren't the same from the start
Quote me where and I'll apologize if you can.
Smiley: oyvey why not.

Xsarus wrote:
You bring up the privacy issue, but why would there be a privacy issue with gay men that wouldn't be there with straight men? What is the issue of privacy?
first post asking you to clarify the privacy issue. In response you said it was the same as with women so I asked you to explain how.
Xsarus wrote:
What is the privacy issue that exists for a gay man that doesn't exist for a straight man? If you want to say it's the same as with a woman, explain the connection please.
second post asking you to justify your comparison. Obviously I don't agree, but in the third post
Xsarus wrote:
I don't see the connection making the same as with women, please explain how this is.
I explicitly state that I don't see how they are the same.

The rest of the conversation is basically me asking you to explain your argument, and you refusing. what fun.

On a side note, that third post has terrible grammar, ouch.

Almalieque wrote:
Because you argued that we already work with homosexuals, so repealing DADT wont make a difference, i.e showering together. I countered to say, yes, we do already work with homosexuals, but it wont be the same because now they have the opportunity to behave differently with each other in areas such as in the barracks and in the shower.
Why would they be able to act any differently? Are you picturing them just starting to make out all over the place? Smiley: dubious Why do you think that would be acceptable?

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 2:50pm 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
#195 Dec 21 2010 at 2:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory wrote:
A. You are comparing polls from two different sources. How about you compare a poll from the SAME poll, especially when it covers the same period.


Wait! So now we're arguing that poll results will vary based on who takes the poll? So Moe was right!?

Lol...


Quote:
The second poll you referenced gives no other data for comparison over time. Furthermore, it adds an additional factor into the mix. Note that the question was *NOT* "should DADT be repealed?" It was "should the CURRENT DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS" repeal DADT.


That's a pretty minor factor though. And it's unlikely to explain the difference given that we have other polls in that list which show the same trend I spoke of earlier. The very next one in fact asks if they should serve openly, serve under the existing DADT law, or oppose serving at all and it was 50% to 38% between the first two choices.

If it were just about whether the lame duck congress should do it, that result shouldn't be as close. I suspect most of you don't understand how profoundly our responses are affected by the word choice of the questions we're asked. People who write polls do though.

Quote:
If you were someone that supported the repeal, but worried about being rushed (which is what the majority of republican senators claimed as their position), you'd vote against it.


Which doesn't explain the poll I just mentioned.

Quote:
Furthermore, that poll was taken before the pentagon released its report saying the repeal would have no significant affect on combat effectiveness, which would have disbanded a lot of concern for people worried about "rushing" a repeal. Notice how the repeal actually passed this time around due to that report...


Ok. Then why do the numbers in the ABC poll only drop 2% lower when we look at the results from feb 2010 instead of dec? If that had such a profound effect, shouldn't the dec numbers be even higher?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Dec 21 2010 at 2:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Locke wrote:
Good! That should happen. And that's completely different from separating yourself from women because you're afraid to say something harassing, especially if you're doing it as a supervisor.


This isn't about saying something embarrassing. This is about creating a fictional environment where it seems ok to behave a certain way, then using double standards as the solution.

You're continuing to make stuff up. If I weren't waiting on my car to be serviced, I wouldn't waste my time with you as you're jumping all over the place. As soon as it looks like we're agreeing, you make up some crap about fear or anger, even though I've stated numerous times that isn't the case. I've realized that's all you got, so you wont drop it.

Locke wrote:
Edit: I'm also not sure why you went from "I got a text" to "I'm a supervisor!" But then I read your next sentence where you tried to change the topic from how you can't use sexually harassing speech and it's not fair to how to run a harassment free office with basic freaking rules everyone already knows and it made a lot more sense.


Or maybe I'm giving you examples... Can supervisors not receive texts?

Locke wrote:
People "like me," huh? Ran out of fuel for your fire and decided to just start making things up? I'm amazed that the entire time we've been talking about saying things that could be misinterpreted by others, and your response is "Hey, that means you're fine with nude pics!" Somehow, blatant harassment is blatant Smiley: lol If you can't find good example and need to change the topic to try and respond, try thinking before you speak (type?).


So, now you're avoiding the topics by accusing me of changing the subject. I've never attempted to change the subject, you're just ignoring examples that you can't respond to. Sexual harassment extends beyond than touching or talking, it also includes pictures. I had a Sergeant receive a complaint because his wallpaper was a picture of his wife and her female friends. They all were fully clothed with jeans and shirts.

How are nude pictures blatant harassment if no one is harassed? That's my point, you can't make assumptions that people in your office are offended by nude pictures being posted on the wall. The point I'm trying to get you to see is that allowing nude pictures in the office and saying it's ok because no one is harassed is the same thing as allowing women to talk dirty because people aren't offended by what they are saying.

In both scenarios, indecent behavior is being conducted. I'm claiming to be proactive and nip all of it in the bud BEFORE someone is offended. Your claim that this is all "common sense", "social decency", etc. supports the belief that it's ok to say/do whatever you want as long as no one is offended.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#197 Dec 21 2010 at 2:55 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
Quote:
To answer you legitimate question, you are correct. That's why I support, single showers/rooms or put everyone together. I don't support giving certain people "privileges" because they don't feel comfortable, but telling everyone else to suck it up.


Well, the first option is clearly never going to happen. I pay 24k a year to go to school, and I don't get a private bathroom. The military clearly isn't going to pay for it.

So the only other option, in your mind, is for everyone to shower together. But what does that help? At all? You were arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed because it would violate soldier privacy. How is ensuring that everyone is as maximally uncomfortable as possible a solution?

Furthermore, you are laboring under the assumption that the only reason people are uncomfortable changing with the opposite sex is because of sexual attraction. That's absolutely untrue. I'd be just as uncomfortable changing in front of a lesbian as a straight woman. And that's because I was raised with modesty.

Quote:
I told you that I stopped reading your posts because you didn't know what you were talking about and really because they are way too long with no breaks.


I'm sorry I hurt your brain.

Quote:
Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. This is why I was ignoring you, you're clueless. I think you're too emotionally attached to the subject to think clearly. Else, you would have known that the point wasn't that it was "obvious", but Sir X doesn't want to state any difference, because he can't. If I state the "similarities" first, he'll just use my argument as the basis as his argument while dropping the issue all together.


Please re-read what you have written in this thread. "It's obvious" is literally the only defense you have ever given. And we have ALL stated differences, to which you replied that this was "obviously" untrue. Maybe you can try making a rational argument for once?

Quote:

You're an idiot. Even though I stated the exact opposite, stating that homosexual men are different than heterosexual men is counterproductive. Claiming that they are nothing but horndogs that only want sex like many heterosexual guys are labeled as is a much more supportive argument.


I'm sorry, I must have confused your point. I know it's easy to do when I quote what you said, specifically, when you apparently ACTUALLY said the opposite. I guess my eyes just totally fabricated a sentence where you claim that gay men will act completely differently from straight men when doing so isn't punishable.

Alm, you're fucking retarded. You haven't once, in four pages, made an argument that amounts to more than "because I said so." And whenever someones makes so decisive an objection that you can't dismiss it, you turn around and attack the poster, rather than the argument. Maybe you weren't aware, but that's a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem objection.

Here's something that should be fun! Here's a list of the 20 most common logical fallacies. Let's see how many you have used. We mentioned one already.

Well you've made an argument from authority, referencing "top officials" that agree with you. Because, you know, if THEY said it, it must be true! (I'd also note that you've never linked any PROOF that your line of thought even has significant following).

Oh, next on that list--Argument from final Consequence. This is basically where you take an end result and argue the cause, without having a logical proof to support it. You know, like referencing how males and females don't want to shower together and extrapolating that it is caused by their mutual sexual attraction.

HA, the next--Argument from personal Incredulity. That boils down to "I don't get what you are saying, so you must be wrong." You've done this every single time you've responded to xsarus and locke, among others.

Next, confusing association with causation. You may actually be free from this one--I can't remember a specific instance where you did it. Good job!

Non-sequitars are clear--you haven't made a single valid argument that I've seen (and I'm not even talking about a SOUND one).

Reductio ad absurbum-- this is when you take two claims and try to stretch them as thinly as possible so that they are only true in the most obviously false definitions.

Ha, ad hoc arguments, you've offered little else.

But my FAVORITE On the list is this one:
Quote:
Unstated Major Premise
This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated. For example, arguing that we should label food products with their cholesterol content because Americans have high cholesterol assumes that: 1) cholesterol in food causes high serum cholesterol; 2) labeling will reduce consumption of cholesterol; and 3) that having a high serum cholesterol is unhealthy. This fallacy is also sometimes called begging the question.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#198 Dec 21 2010 at 3:09 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,498 posts
Quote:
That's a pretty minor factor though. And it's unlikely to explain the difference given that we have other polls in that list which show the same trend I spoke of earlier. The very next one in fact asks if they should serve openly, serve under the existing DADT law, or oppose serving at all and it was 50% to 38% between the first two choices.

If it were just about whether the lame duck congress should do it, that result shouldn't be as close. I suspect most of you don't understand how profoundly our responses are affected by the word choice of the questions we're asked. People who write polls do though.


A. What justification do you have for arguing that adding a 2-month time limit on the repeal is a minor additional clause to the open ended question of "Should DADT be repealed?"

B. Wait, so you argued that the word choice wouldn't make a profound difference and then you turn around and IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH said it would make a profound one?

Quote:
Ok. Then why do the numbers in the ABC poll only drop 2% lower when we look at the results from feb 2010 instead of dec? If that had such a profound effect, shouldn't the dec numbers be even higher?


Not if most people in favor of DADT's repeal wanted it to happen, but only in a capacity where they were sure it wouldn't harm the military. There were many people, for instance, who wanted it gone but didn't want it to have to happen while we were at war.

A question that asks "Do you think DADT should be repealed?" includes ALL those people. Who were a very large portion of the population.

A question that asks "Should DADT be repealed before the end of the year?" alienates everyone but those people who want it repealed and don't care about how ready the military would be for the policy change.

This applies to your reference to the next poll as well. In November, 50% of people were willing to repeal DADT when asked a general question rather than a temporally loaded one. 38% wanted DADT to stay in place regardless.

What we see by looking at the later polls is that, after the pentagon's report, favor in repealing DADT jumps quite a bit.

My problem with the marist poll is that they only put it out once. If they had asked the same question a second time two weeks ago, we might have gotten some very interesting data. The problem is that they only did one survey and did it on a temporally loaded question that no other poll shared. Which makes the data they provide ALONE useless. So you must examine other polls to make up for its lack of info over time.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#199 Dec 21 2010 at 3:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
RDD wrote:
Where in anything that I have said can be even remotely linked to racism


Come on man, give me a break here.. loosen up a little... I wasn't serious. I was merely doing what you did to me by replacing "homophobe" with "racist". No substance, just name calling because someone doesn't agree with you.

Belkira wrote:
I'm saying that if it makes someone nervous to realize what someone else does in bed, then they're probably not going to react well when someone points a gun at them. Get it? It's not that hard, and I'm pretty sure you're the only one not getting it here.


I get it, you're trying to make a connection on someone's opinion on sexuality to their ability to perform their job. This is exactly what the bigots against homosexuals in the military are doing.

Congratulations! You are what you hate.


Belkira wrote:

No. I'm saying that women all have the same parts, and men all have the same parts so it makes sense to keep the showers seperate. For me, personally, it's not embarrassing for a woman to see me naked, but would be for a man.


So your argument is that IT'S OBVIOUS!?

Sir X wrote:
Men and women are the same now? that's interesting. I'm not sure exactly in what level of detail you want me to explain to you how men and women are different. Let me know what parts you're confused about.


The term "they" was in reference to the two scenarios, not men and women... You know, what I've been arguing from the beginning.

Sir X wrote:
I explicitly state that I don't see how they are the same.

The rest of the conversation is basically me asking you to explain your argument, and you refusing. what fun.

On a side note, that third post has terrible grammar, ouch.


In the first posts you quoted, you didn't say that they were different, you asked how they were different. It wasn't till the third quote where you explicitly said that you don't see the difference. I did not interpret the first two as such, if that's what you were doing, then I apologize, I was wrong. That's not how interpreted your posts.

Sir X wrote:
Why would they be able to act any differently? Are you picturing them just starting to make out all over the place? Smiley: dubious Why do you think that would be acceptable?


Because that's what other couples do?


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#200 Dec 21 2010 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I get it, you're trying to make a connection on someone's opinion on sexuality to their ability to perform their job. This is exactly what the bigots against homosexuals in the military are doing.

Congratulations! You are what you hate.


Did you eat paint chips as a child...?

Almalieque wrote:
So your argument is that IT'S OBVIOUS!?


See above...

Apparently once you get to the point where you realize your argument is complete crap, you start losing your mind. Interesting to note.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#201 Dec 21 2010 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LAST
____________________________
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]
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 66 All times are in CDT