Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#152 Dec 21 2010 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 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 ***** 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 ***. 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 *** 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 *** is the topic of the conversation, the guy thinks it's ok to talk about *** 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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 ***** 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 ***. 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 *** 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 *** 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 *** creating this false environment that it's ok to talk about *** until you get hit for saying the wrong thing. It has nothing to do about discomfort. If the topic of *** 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.
#154 Dec 21 2010 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 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 ***.


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
******
30,646 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.
#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
*****
12,049 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 *** 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 *** creating this false environment that it's ok to talk about *** until you get hit for saying the wrong thing. It has nothing to do about discomfort. If the topic of *** 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 ***, 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
******
30,646 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?
#160 Dec 21 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 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 ******.
____________________________
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
*****
12,049 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 ***!" 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
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. 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
******
49,737 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
*****
10,246 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 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 ***.


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 *** 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.


#171 Dec 21 2010 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 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 ***. It's embarrassing to be naked in front of a member of the opposite ***. 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 *** 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
#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Message has high abuse count and will not be displayed.
#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 ******* 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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 86 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (86)