Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#202 Dec 21 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
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.
/sigh. the scenarios are different because one scenario only involves men or women, and the other scenario involves men and women. Since they are different it follows that the scenarios are different. Maybe there are meaningful similarities, but you haven't bothered to explain what they are aside from saying they are there.

Almalieque wrote:
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.
Smiley: dubious Seriously? you interpreted me asking you to justify the connection you were drawing as me saying I agree with you but please explain more? Really? wow. Also in the first quote you hadn't brought up the comparison yet anyway.

Almalieque wrote:
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?
Interesting. You must live in some weird orgy world I'm not familiar with. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 3:24pm 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
#203 Dec 21 2010 at 3:38 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,805 posts
Idigg wrote:
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.


There's a reason why I never thought about the privacy issue, it's because I always have my own bathroom. I'm sorry you spend that much for education, but school is for education and not living. The living conditions only come into place when you're in the field or not authorized to have your own room, usually due to rank.

Idigg wrote:
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?


How is that maximal? I feel much more comfortable showering with women than men. I would argue that most men would rather shower with women inclusively than men exclusively. With women being the minority in the military, that's no where near the maximal discomfort.

The benefit is less money spent on building additional rooms/showers/etc to accommodate a small percentage of the population.

Id wrote:
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.


I'm actually pointing out that there are various reasons why people feel uncomfortable changing infront of anyone.

I'm the opposite of you. I feel uncomfortable changing in front of males, heterosexual or homosexual, but when I say that, I get called a homophobe, but you call yourself "modest". What's the difference? You feel uncomfortable in front a group of people, I'm uncomfortable in front of a group of people. I can easily call you names for being equally as insecure.

Id wrote:
I'm sorry I hurt your brain.

You didn't hurt it because I didn't bother to read it.. the only reason why i'm replying now is that I'm stuck at a car dealership.

ID wrote:
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).


This is your problem. My entry on this thread wasn't to argue anything other than there are reasons other than bigotry for not wanting repeal DADT. You, being overly emotionally driven, threw all of these stats and papers and other unrelated material.

I referenced "Top Officials" because they are people you can google who used arguments other than bigotry. Which was my entire point, that they exist.

You're looking for an argument that I've never participated in and wonder why I haven't given any arguments for or against DADT. Well maybe if you learn how to read, you'll notice that wasn't ever my point. I already had at least two arguments on this topic already not too long ago. You're the only person who wasn't here before.


So which one of those fallacies involve "Arguing against a non-existent argument?".. that's you..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#204 Dec 21 2010 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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.

My, then it's a good thing I didn't say embarrassing, isn't it? We're talking about harassment. Nice job trying to change the subject again, though Smiley: nod

Quote:
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.

And again, I wonder why you keep going on about it if you think it's not upsetting you?

Quote:
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?

It's entirely different if the woman involved is a subordinate, not your co-worker. Might have wanted to mention that, then Smiley: oyvey

Quote:
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.

You did change the subject, and even quoted exactly how I said you were doing it Smiley: laugh
I'm still not sure why you're making a jump from you not being able to comment on a woman's appearance to the opposite belief by necessity allowing nude pictures in an office. Perhaps I'm missing the part where you seriously think that nude pictures are not offensive to most people? Or perhaps that your office allows them? Because pretty much everywhere I've ever been they're not allowed. Except, I suppose, sex shops.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#205 Dec 21 2010 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Are we going to get one of these 5+ page threads when the Senate passes the START treaty tomorrow?

What if Russia agrees to limit the number of homosexuals working in nuclear silos?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#206 Dec 21 2010 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,625 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Are we going to get one of these 5+ page threads when the Senate passes the START treaty tomorrow?

What if Russia agrees to limit the number of homosexuals working in nuclear silos?


5? Lightweight.
____________________________
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.
#207 Dec 21 2010 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,805 posts
Belkira wrote:
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.

Complete crap?

I've been simply asking you to justify why you think men and women should shower exclusively. You said: "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 response is "It makes sense".. I just want to make sure exactly what your point is before I attack it. But, if you finally realized that you have no real reason for the separation.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#208 Dec 21 2010 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Cultural norms mostly I'd guess.
____________________________
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
#209 Dec 21 2010 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What if Russia agrees to limit the number of homosexuals working in nuclear silos?
I bet they all decon together, gay or not.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#210 Dec 21 2010 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I haven't been following this thread much at all but why on earth are "showers" relevant? Homosexuals and straights in the military have been showering together under DADT for 16 years. And longer than that with deeper closeted gays from before the DADT era. Somehow our military has managed to grind on.

Have showers changed in the last week in ways I don't know about?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#211 Dec 21 2010 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,343 posts
I frankly have lost all grasp of the argument you are making Alm. Completely. You've contradicted yourself so many times that it makes absolutely no sense. You began this thread by asserting that people are uncomfortable changing with others when there is a perceived sexual preference. And this is the basis for why you opposed the repeal, saying that forcing straight men to shower with openly gay men would be uncomfortable and so they shouldn't be forced to. And that this was the exact reason why a men and women would be uncomfortable showering with the opposite sex.

There's THREE PAGES of people opposing you on this, and you don't budge at all in them.

Then, out of no where, you claim you were never arguing this? That's crap. EVERY post you have made includes it.

What's more, you say it is completely untrue in your own case, when you've been claiming it to be "obviously" true up until now.

Alm, it's so not worth talking to you. Until you figure out what you even think, I'm not bothering.

[EDIT]

Quote:
I haven't been following this thread much at all but why on earth are "showers" relevant? Homosexuals and straights in the military have been showering together under DADT for 16 years. And longer than that with deeper closeted gays from before the DADT era. Somehow our military has managed to grind on.

Have showers changed in the last week in ways I don't know about?


We've been asking Alm this for 5 pages. The closest we've gotten is him claiming that closeted gay guys, after DADT's repeal, will turn into super gays or something, and their flamboyance will make all the burly straight guys uncomfortable.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 5:04pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#212 Dec 21 2010 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
idiggory wrote:
Alm, it's so not worth talking to you. Until you figure out what you even think, I'm not bothering.

Welcome to the party.
____________________________
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]
#213 Dec 21 2010 at 4:11 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,805 posts
Sir X wrote:
/sigh. the scenarios are different because one scenario only involves men or women, and the other scenario involves men and women. Since they are different it follows that the scenarios are different. Maybe there are meaningful similarities, but you haven't bothered to explain what they are aside from saying they are there.


Ok, now we're back where we were before you got us off track. You asked me to explain the privacy issue, I responded that it's the same reason why women and men don't shower. You claimed that they are different, I said how so? You said because men are men and women are women. I responded that equality is treating everyone the same unless there's a justification for any discrimination. So I asked you for the justification. You can't simply discriminate because of sex.

Sir X wrote:
Seriously? you interpreted me asking you to justify the connection you were drawing as me saying I agree with you but please explain more? Really? wow. Also in the first quote you hadn't brought up the comparison yet anyway.


That's because I thought you were playing games, but if you weren't, then I was wrong.

Sir X wrote:
Interesting. You must live in some weird orgy world I'm not familiar with. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.


Since when did showing affection and/or making out turn into "orgies"?

Locke wrote:
My, then it's a good thing I didn't say embarrassing, isn't it? We're talking about harassment. Nice job trying to change the subject again, though Smiley: nod


That was an error on my part. I misread "harassing" as "embarrassing" for some reason. In any case, that wasn't changing the subject because I was arguing that it was NOT about embarrassment.

Locke wrote:
And again, I wonder why you keep going on about it if you think it's not upsetting you?

Because that's the basis of your argument?

Locke wrote:
It's entirely different if the woman involved is a subordinate, not your co-worker. Might have wanted to mention that, then


She wasn't a subordinate. You're merging two different stories told at two different times as one scenario. That's why you're confused.

Locke wrote:
You did change the subject, and even quoted exactly how I said you were doing it Smiley: laugh
I'm still not sure why you're making a jump from you not being able to comment on a woman's appearance to the opposite belief by necessity allowing nude pictures in an office. Perhaps I'm missing the part where you seriously think that nude pictures are not offensive to most people? Or perhaps that your office allows them? Because pretty much everywhere I've ever been they're not allowed. Except, I suppose, sex shops.


Because most people would not allow nude pictures in the office, not because it doesn't offend anyone but because it MIGHT offend someone and it's not professional. On the other hand, you somehow believe it's "common sense" and "social decency" to "watch your words" when other people are talking inappropriate.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#214 Dec 21 2010 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Ok, now we're back where we were before you got us off track. You asked me to explain the privacy issue, I responded that it's the same reason why women and men don't shower.
So what is that reason, and how does it apply to a man showering with a man, or women showering with women? Seeing as these two groups already shower together, there is no change if DADT is there or not.

Smiley: lol oh alma, ignore the orgy word, I should have realized you'd latch onto that and miss the point. I'll just edit that out of my quote so you can read it again.
Sir X wrote:
Interesting. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.


Edited, Dec 21st 2010 4:36pm 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
#215 Dec 21 2010 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
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.


But you are a homophobe. Currently you have no issue with gays in the military, as long as you do not know who is gay and who isn't. With DADT gone you are opposed because gays will become known, and you afraid your personal privacy will be jeopardized.


homophobia (ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

—n
intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

You are afraid gays will make your time unpleasant. There for you fit the bill. Someone who is homohophobic or suffers from homophobia is a a homophobe.

I am not a racist, you are a homophobe. I don't call you a homophobe to make fun of you, I call you a homophobe because you are one.

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

#216 Dec 21 2010 at 5:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,805 posts
ok, So I just got my car back and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today, so I'm done playing with you all while I enjoy my break...

Sir X wrote:
So what is that reason, and how does it apply to a man showering with a man, or women showering with women? Seeing as these two groups already shower together, there is no change if DADT is there or not.


The same way men and women already shower together as well, so what's the difference? I asked for your justification on the segregation. I would like to see it.

Sir X wrote:
Interesting. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.


Who said "all of the time". People show affection during the work day in public. Yes, it happens. You're trying to make this seem worse that what it actually is. My point is that there would be changes and nothing else. If there wouldn't be any changes, then it wouldn't matter if DADT was repealed or not.

RDD wrote:
But you are a homophobe. Currently you have no issue with gays in the military, as long as you do not know who is gay and who isn't. With DADT gone you are opposed because gays will become known, and you afraid your personal privacy will be jeopardized.


homophobia (ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

—n
intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

You are afraid gays will make your time unpleasant. There for you fit the bill. Someone who is homohophobic or suffers from homophobia is a a homophobe.

I am not a racist, you are a homophobe. I don't call you a homophobe to make fun of you, I call you a homophobe because you are one.



You're just as much a racist. I have no fear or hatred. You just can't comprehend the idea of someone not supporting the repeal of DADT without having one or the other, so you say that "I'm afraid" to make an argument.

To prove that, I'm telling you now, that I'm not afraid or have any hatred and instead of accepting that truth, you're going to question it.... because you don't believe me, because you're a racist.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#217 Dec 21 2010 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
You know what would fix this?

Yup! Disband the military! Sorted!

The whole world would breath a huge sigh of relief (Well, the whole world except the fast food industry, because they would no doubt end up employing Almalique again) , and think of the $ that you would all save.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#218 Dec 21 2010 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
So what is that reason, and how does it apply to a man showering with a man, or women showering with women? Seeing as these two groups already shower together, there is no change if DADT is there or not.
The same way men and women already shower together as well, so what's the difference? I asked for your justification on the segregation. I would like to see it.
Men and women already shower together? I was under the impression that they didn't. I don't have a justification for men and women showering separately, assuming they do, because I don't care. If you want to know why the military separates them, I'd assume it's mostly cultural norms in the US. Just to check, Men and women currently shower separately in the military right?

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Interesting. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.
Who said "all of the time". People show affection during the work day in public. Yes, it happens. You're trying to make this seem worse that what it actually is. My point is that there would be changes and nothing else. If there wouldn't be any changes, then it wouldn't matter if DADT was repealed or not.
Sure, showing affection would now be allowed in the same measure that straight couples can show affection. You brought it up with people acting differently in showers and such though, which I thought was strange.
____________________________
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
#219 Dec 21 2010 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You're just as much a racist. I have no fear or hatred. You just can't comprehend the idea of someone not supporting the repeal of DADT without having one or the other, so you say that "I'm afraid" to make an argument.

To prove that, I'm telling you now, that I'm not afraid or have any hatred and instead of accepting that truth, you're going to question it.... because you don't believe me, because you're a racist.


Then what is you problem with repealing DADT if you are not afraid. There are gays currently in the military, you have no issue with that. Your issue is with the Gays who can now make themselves publicly known. You are worried these known gays will cause privacy issues.

They are already there, many likely longer than you.

The only thing DADT does is allow them to be open with it

Based on those two things you are without a doubt a homophobe. Yo do not have an issue with gays being in the army as long as you do not know who is gay.

Hell after all these years of brainwashing maybe you are gay.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#220 Dec 21 2010 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,230 posts
I have learned from this that in Alma's world, people don't shower in the shower, they have sex. Straight, gay, it doesn't matter. And he's not getting any action from either side and it's pissing him off.
#221 Dec 21 2010 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
****
4,143 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I have learned from this that in Alma's world, people don't shower in the shower, they have sex. Straight, gay, it doesn't matter. And he's not getting any action from either side and it's pissing him off.


I think Almalique (AlMalique...AlMaliki?????? You sure you're not one of those ghey muzzie Camel/ship of the desert/ arab seamean types, Alma???? Smiley: eek) gets plenty of sex in the shower.

But only when he's all on his own.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#222 Dec 21 2010 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,343 posts
That, or giving his dog a bath.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#223 Dec 21 2010 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
Quote:
and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today, so I'm done playing with you all while I enjoy my break...
Does anyone find this as sad as I do?
#224 Dec 21 2010 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Does anyone find this as sad as I do?


Personally I found it downright hilarious, among other things. Like suddenly pretending to be the mastermind of this cat and mouse game (which is really more like six dogs cornering a squirrel) to reach a nice round number would convince anyone that he is even remotely in his right mind.
____________________________
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.
#225 Dec 21 2010 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Alma, someday I'll teach you how to +1
____________________________
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.
#226 Dec 21 2010 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,343 posts
It's kinda like this.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#227 Dec 21 2010 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,613 posts
Kachi wrote:
Alma, someday I'll teach you how to +1
Or he could learn from a pro.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#228 Dec 21 2010 at 9:12 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
idiggory wrote:
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?"



Because other polls which included changed "for/against" formulations but that didn't mention a lame duck session also shifted the results.

In addition to the one I quoted, there were at least two others that mentioned repealing the law, without any assumption of any specific session, which were also dramatically different than the polling results when just asked if they should be allowed to serve openly.

Quote:
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?


I've argued all along that word choice changes the results of polls. And I'll even grant you that the word choice regarding the "current Democratic Congress" affects the result as well. Now, will you admit that the word choice about repealing a law verses "allowing them to serve openly" also affects the polling results?

That was my entire point. I was not excluding other factors. It is quite amusing that so many people leaped to the "lame duck session" bit as though that countered what I was saying. I don't care about that. Even when it's not mentioned, the polls consistently show up at mid 50s to mid 30s repeal/dont-repeal, while it's 70 to 20 when it's "allow to serve openly/don't allow to serve openly".


I was observing that difference. Nothing more. Sheesh!

Quote:
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.


Yes, great. But I don't really consider that a word choice so much as a factor of the poll question itself. I'm talking about things that are purely about how one words the question, and how they affect the results. I guess my mistake was using an example where there was a modification to the question. I honestly didn't even see it or think it mattered for the point I was making. I could just as easily chosen any of a number of other examples. That was just the first on in the list.

Quote:
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.


Yes, at the same time period when 72% of the people thought that gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military.

Do you see the discrepancy I'm talking about? It's still there, isn't it? And it can't be explained away by people not wanting to pass it during a lame duck session, or by the end of the year.


That's what I was talking about.

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


Irrelevant to the point I was making. And frankly, there's no evidence of this. All of the polls asking if DADT should be repealed occurred in November. We don't have any from December, but as I already pointed out the "allow to serve openly" question from December only went up 2% between Feb and Dec. I'll point out that most of the "repeal/don't repeal" polls went up by similar amounts between similar periods of time (Feb 1020 and Nov 2010), so it's a stretch to argue that the pentagon report had anything at all to do with this.

What we can say is that based on whether we're talking about a positive or a negative, the poll numbers change. Heck. Even when we change the wording to "voting for a law which would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military" we get 67% voting for. Once again, we see a statistically relevant difference based solely on how the poll is worded. Voting for a law which allows gays to serve openly in the military is identical to "repealing DADT" in a realistic sense, right? Yet when we word it as voting "for" something, we get better results than when we're "repealing" something.

It's an innate aspect of psychology. We tend to look more favorably on things written in positive ways. We're more likely to be for something that is worded as allowing, giving, enabling, or passing/creating, than we are to be for something that is worded as stopping, ending, repealing, prohibiting, etc...


That's seriously the *only* point I was making. It's kinda funny that so many people are so insistent on denying that this occurs. It's right there in front of you.

Quote:
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.


Great. Look at the other ones then. You're smart enough to follow the point I'm making. So instead of nit picking the example I picked, why don't you examine the list of polls and see if the trend I pointed out is there? You know, see if I'm right instead of looking only at things that counter what I said.

I'd make another psychological observation about the responses I've been getting, but this is enough for one day I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Dec 21 2010 at 9:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
why don't you examine the list of polls and see if the trend I pointed out is there?

One poll isn't a "trend". There could be a thousand reasons for its results which is why folks look at aggregated data, not the one poll that suits them most and claim that it's the most telling.

Given that your usual method of coping with polls you don't like is to invent imaginary ones in your head and tell us all how people would react them them, I can't imagine that you'll comprehend the above statement and will instead bore us with paragraphs of dribble.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 9:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#230 Dec 21 2010 at 9:41 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
13,908 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
why don't you examine the list of polls and see if the trend I pointed out is there?

One poll isn't a "trend". There could be a thousand reasons for its results which is why folks look at aggregated data, not the one poll that suits them most and claim that it's the most telling.

Given that your usual method of coping with polls you don't like is to invent imaginary ones in your head and tell us all how people would react them them, I can't imagine that you'll comprehend the above statement and will instead bore us with paragraphs of dribble.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 9:24pm by Jophiel


The grounds for this prediction seem unnecessarily specific.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#231 Dec 21 2010 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I was going to make another psychological observation about the reason Gbaji brought it up in the first place but I figured why waste people's time with what they already know?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#232 Dec 21 2010 at 11:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot
.

The stuff of Alma's nightmares.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#233 Dec 22 2010 at 1:31 AM Rating: Good
I, on Page 1 wrote:
Lindsey Graham's a dude. Granted, he has a girl's name, a southern accent, lacks testicles, & fits the whole "christian conservative whom bangs male hookers but isn't really gay" profile so i can see how that would confuse you.


Now the infamous Michael Rogers (He's the dude who outed Larry Craig & McCain's chief of staff, as well as some others)seems to be beginning the process of outing Miss Graham!

Too funny, especially after he just voted against DADT repeal, is a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, a former member of the Air Force, & currently a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserve!!!


Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 2:31am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#234 Dec 22 2010 at 3:31 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,343 posts
Gbaji, if such a basic concept like changing the entire question of a poll isn't easy enough for you to understand, it just isn't worth it. I've already explained why you are wrong--I'm not going to do it again just because you can't grasp basic polling technique.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#235 Dec 22 2010 at 6:17 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
NO YOU SHUT UP!!!!

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]
#236 Dec 22 2010 at 8:33 AM Rating: Excellent
*
53 posts
Almalieque wrote:
ok, So I just got my car back and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today


Wow, that's gay, you're making me uncomfortable now. Would you mind keeping your homosexual thoughts to yourself so I don't have to be forced to hear them?

It's just a privacy issue, don't get all offended.
____________________________
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.
#237 Dec 22 2010 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
******
30,625 posts
Almalieque wrote:
ok, So I just got my car back and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today



Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Oh, that's funny. "I really can't keep this up, I know I'm wrong, so I'll make up some arbitrary goal and say that's what I was trying to do."

Ah, Alma.
____________________________
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.
#238 Dec 22 2010 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LeWoVoc wrote:
Quote:
and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today, so I'm done playing with you all while I enjoy my break...
Does anyone find this as sad as I do?

I find it sad that someone would have posting goals. And that they would choose "3,900" as their goal.

It would actually be less pathetic to learn that they just lied about having a "posting goal" of 3,900 to get out of a losing argument than for this to actually be the case.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#239varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Doesn't repealing DADT mean the rules go back to what they were prior to it?
#240 Dec 22 2010 at 9:34 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,343 posts
Not everyone can have your post count Joph. :P

[EDIT]

@varus, lol.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 10:34am by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#241 Dec 22 2010 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Doesn't repealing DADT mean the rules go back to what they were prior to it?

No, but take comfort in knowing as little about the law as Gbaji does.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#242 Dec 22 2010 at 9:43 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,540 posts
I suppose it is easy to conflate media slogans with the actual legal wording of a the bill. I too found myself highly confused when Republicans offered to take a Black and Decker heavy duty to an infant, and then upon realizing their horrible act, do it again.
#243varusword75, Posted: Dec 22 2010 at 10:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#244 Dec 22 2010 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
It was rhetorical.

You don't know what that actually means, do you?

Quote:
So what's next is a recruiter is going to deny entrance to some queer because he's going to be able to legally ask them what their sexual orientation is and then cite the UCMJ as the reason for the queer being denied.

You're obviously unaware that his ability to legally ask them derives from the 1993/94 policy. With the repeal, the code will have to be revised.
Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 wrote:
(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).

Subsection (f) being the striking of Section 654, the military policy on homosexuality.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#245 Dec 22 2010 at 11:02 AM Rating: Decent
*
53 posts
varusword75 wrote:


In many of its aspects, the UCMJ is significantly more restrictive than civilian law. For example, the UCMJ restricts the First Amendment right of free speech and more closely regulates the sexual behavior of military members, specifically forbidding homosexuality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and adultery.

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/dah_08/dah_08_04316.html


So what's next is a recruiter is going to deny entrance to some queer because he's going to be able to legally ask them what their sexual orientation is and then cite the UCMJ as the reason for the queer being denied.



Do recruiters ask "So, are you currently cheating on your wife?", since adultery and homosexuality are equally forbidden?

Just curious.


Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 12:03pm by SuperAtheist
____________________________
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.
#246 Dec 22 2010 at 11:04 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,343 posts
varus wrote:
liberals


Ahem.

Man I wish I had Premium right now...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#247 Dec 22 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
10,851 posts
idiggory wrote:
varus wrote:
liberals
Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#248 Dec 22 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Jophed,

Quote:
With the repeal, the code will have to be revised



Now we get to it. As it stands recruiters can ask recruits sexual orientation and use it as a disqualifier. Glad we both agree on the interpretation of the law.


#249 Dec 22 2010 at 11:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Jophed,

Quote:
With the repeal, the code will have to be revised



Now we get to it. As it stands recruiters can ask recruits sexual orientation and use it as a disqualifier. Glad we both agree on the interpretation of the law.


As it stood.
#250 Dec 22 2010 at 11:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Varus is slightly right in a meaningless way and mostly wrong in the usual way.

DADT is still the law of the land even with Obama's signature. The repeal act calls for the Dept of Defense to draw up new rules and guidelines first then, once that's done (technically 60 days after that's done and approved by the President, Sec. of Defense and JCoS Chairman), Sec 654 is officially struck from the law. So while there'll never be a period where a recruiter can fall back on old rules to ask if you're a homosexual, you can't go in today wearing your favorite rainbow hotpants and expect to sign up without incident either.

The GOP tried last night to submit an amendment to an appropriations bill which would require the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff to unanimously approve of the Dept of Defense changes in a last ditch effort to block its provisions (expecting the Marine Commandant to deny its implementation) but the media caught wind of it and it was quickly dropped.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#251 Dec 22 2010 at 12:00 PM Rating: Default
***
2,971 posts
Jophed,


I'm right. That's all you had to say.

Simple fact is until it's re-written the law is as it was prior to DADT. So if officers in the military wanted to be hard ass*s they could ask every single person under their command about their sexual orientation and dismiss anyone who says they are queer.

That this is just a minor technicality makes no difference.



Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CDT
Almalieque, Kaolian, Kavekk, lolgaxe, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (42)