Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#302 Dec 22 2010 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
Provide constitutional backing please.
Precedent

Heh.

Come on, I've "LAST"ed this thread twice already. If I can't get a laugh that way then I figure the local libertarian ought to the be able to get a chuckle with judicial review.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 9:23pm by MoebiusLord
____________________________
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]
#303 Dec 22 2010 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,518 posts
Well, there was at least one.

And others were held elsewhere. Nice try though. And they forced him to renounce his citizenship before they'd release him.

A. Last I checked, citizenship could only be stripped via a trial concerning treason. He never had a trial.

B. The US gov't ruled IN HIS FAVOR once it came out that he was a US citizen, which led to his release back to Saudi Arabia provided he admonish his US citizenship.

That's right, even though they were sure he was working with terrorists, he went free because his rights were violated.

The Bush administration tried to justify themselves by saying that their war-making powers overrode his constitutional liberties. Yes, you did read that right. That was their defense. Is it ANY surprise they lost? No. Because the protection of these rights against the federal gov't is set down in the constitution as being unalienable. They do NOT have the right to do as they please.

Furthermore, even if the rest of the prisoners of Guantanamo aren't US citizens, we are still in violation of the Geneva convention, which we agreed to, signed and expect every other nation to follow when dealing with Americans.

And you aren't getting out of this one by arguing that they weren't torturing these people. Even if you want to claim that "torture" is a strong word (which I don't agree with, but whatever--it doesn't hurt my argument), it is DEFINITELY cruel and unusual punishment and violates the Geneva convention. Water boarding? Blasting music for days on end at decibels that damaged their ears, and then shutting it off to induce silence? Their intentions were to extract information using force. The Geneva Convention protects against that.

You know how the Bush Administration got around that? By saying that all the people they are holding aren't prisoners of war. That's clearly bullsh*t (and every other nation on the planet made it clear that they thought so--including our allies). A PoW is technically defined as someone held during or after an armed conflict--an official declaration of war has nothing to do with it. The GC makes clear that it applies to all times of war AND ARMED CONFLICT.

The fact is that the Bush administration treated international treaties (ones put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the world against the horrors of WWI and II) and its own constitution as rules to be bended or broken, not as something that should be protected for every citizen. And the senate did not agree.

Why? Because the entire basis of the constitution is that the gov't MUST protect these rights.

[EDIT]
Quote:
Quote:
All we have to do is declare someone a POW and all their rights disappear! We can hold them without trial, and without redress, and for as long as we want. OMG! The humanity...


You're ignoring a whole section of the law here.


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said terrorist for a reason. We refuse to acknowledge that they are PoWs, even though they clearly are, and so feel like we are justified in treating them like they have no rights.

Furthermore, the very first line of the constitution is that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness. No where does it say all Americans. The Bill of Rights and additional amendments may refer only to American citizens, but the constitution clearly also says that we can't treat foreigners like they don't have such rights. Which is exactly what the Geneva Convention says.

The reason we aren't considering them PoWs is because, by law, we would then have to give them trials. And because most of the evidence against them was either acquired illegally, or we don't have enough to actually prove they were involved, we'd be forced to release them.

That's right. We don't even know if some of the prisoners actually did anything wrong. Some of them are only SUSPECTED of it, and the gov't thinks it's okay to lock them in a torture camp for the rest of their lives. That's ethical.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 10:52pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#304 Dec 22 2010 at 11:50 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,872 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Probably because the strategic arms already regulate the use of the tactical arms implicitly in the same way they both regulate the combined arms.

Actually, New START doesn't address tactical weapons but the START treaty and its descendants never have. We haven't had a new tactical arms agreement with Russia/Soviet Union since 1987.

Edited, Dec 22nd 2010 9:23pm by Jophiel


I meant that the fact that we have strategic atomics prevents the use of tactical atomics via deterrence. In the same way that strategic and tactical nukes deter the use of air, sea and ground conventional forces.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#305 Dec 23 2010 at 2:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory wrote:
Well, there was at least one.

And others were held elsewhere. Nice try though. And they forced him to renounce his citizenship before they'd release him.


They didn't know he was a US citizen. I'm not sure what you think that proves. You string a bunch of nice conspiracy theories together, but none of it has to do with the topic at hand.

Quote:
Furthermore, even if the rest of the prisoners of Guantanamo aren't US citizens, we are still in violation of the Geneva convention, which we agreed to, signed and expect every other nation to follow when dealing with Americans.


No we're not. Can you show me what part of the Geneva Convention we violated? It's easy to insist that this is true, but you are making an argument from ignorance and counting on the fact that most people are equally ignorant of what the Geneva Conventions actually say.

Quote:
Their intentions were to extract information using forceinterrogation. The Geneva Convention protects against that.


No. It doesn't. Have you ever in your life actually read the Geneva Conventions?

Quote:
You know how the Bush Administration got around that? By saying that all the people they are holding aren't prisoners of war.


They aren't. They do not meet the criteria set in the 3rd Geneva Convention which are required to qualify for POW status. I'll ask again: Have you actually read the Geneva Conventions?

Quote:
That's clearly bullsh*t (and every other nation on the planet made it clear that they thought so--including our allies). A PoW is technically defined as someone held during or after an armed conflict--an official declaration of war has nothing to do with it. The GC makes clear that it applies to all times of war AND ARMED CONFLICT.


That is not what defines a POW. You haven't read the relevant Convention.

There's a very long list of things qualifying one for POW status, the most relevant is the following:

Quote:
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


This is the section under which civilians may choose to join a conflict and still qualify as POWs. Note, that at least 2 of the required conditions have clearly not been met (b and d), and several others likely weren't either.

They were not classified as POWs because they don't meet the criteria to be POWs. This is not a violation of the Geneva Conventions. It's in exact accordance with it. It's largely only ignorant people who don't know what the conventions actually say who continually insist otherwise.


Quote:
The fact is that the Bush administration treated international treaties (ones put in place for the sole purpose of protecting the world against the horrors of WWI and II) and its own constitution as rules to be bended or broken, not as something that should be protected for every citizen. And the senate did not agree.


That is not a fact and it's not true, no matter how many times you keep repeating it. We did not violate the Geneva Conventions, and the only constitutional violation at Gitmo was that the US had not passed a law specifically defining the military commissions process underwhich detainees were being held. Congress clarified that law in 2006, making the detainments completely legal and in accordance with the US constitution (per the Supreme Court even!).


You are just plain wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
All we have to do is declare someone a POW and all their rights disappear! We can hold them without trial, and without redress, and for as long as we want. OMG! The humanity...


Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said terrorist for a reason.


No. You miss the point. People who are declared to be POWs can be held indefinitely and without trial. Yet you are arguing that terrorists should be given *better* treatment in this regard and be granted trials or be let free. Do you see how that makes no sense?

Quote:
We refuse to acknowledge that they are PoWs, even though they clearly are, and so feel like we are justified in treating them like they have no rights.


But if they were POWs they would not be able to demand speedy trials either. I was specifically responding to your statement that denying these people trials was a violation of their rights. It very clearly isn't. You just have such a poor understanding of these things that it appears that way to you. Ignorance doesn't make you right.

Quote:
The reason we aren't considering them PoWs is because, by law, we would then have to give them trials.


No. We wouldn't. That was the whole point of what I said before. POWs do not get trials. You really do have no clue what you are talking about, do you?

Quote:
That's right. We don't even know if some of the prisoners actually did anything wrong. Some of them are only SUSPECTED of it...


It's not about committing a crime though. It's about committing an act of war. We have exactly as much evidence that these guys were engaged in illegal military actions against our country as we have for "legal" military action in the case of POWs. But you don't understand what I'm talking about, do you?

Edited, Dec 23rd 2010 12:58pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#306 Dec 23 2010 at 7:22 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
Avatar
*****
19,518 posts
gbaji, saying it isn't true doesn't change the fact of the matter. We REFUSE to call them PoWs, because then we'd need to give them rights. The Geneva Convention is very clear.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#307Almalieque, Posted: Dec 27 2010 at 10:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ooooooorrrrrrrrr, I decided to spend time during Christmas with my family instead of arguing with you guys as I said. I'm sorry, as much as I love to post here, this forum isn't the center of my universe.
#308 Dec 27 2010 at 10:49 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I not only tell you that I don't have any hatred or fear, I tell you that you're going to respond questioning it and you do just that.

Not that I'm asserting you must be, but do you honestly think the majority of bigots consider themselves to be bigots and that their opinions are based on fear or hatred?
#309 Dec 27 2010 at 11:48 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
this is about "cultural norms" and nothing more.


It's normal for homosexuals to shower with straights in the gym & in your military already & will remain so post DADT. Smiley: schooled
____________________________
"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


#310 Dec 28 2010 at 12:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Seriously people.. 3900 is a nice round number to stop at and it was coincidental that I hit that number right as my car was done.

Right.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#311 Dec 28 2010 at 5:56 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Allegory wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I not only tell you that I don't have any hatred or fear, I tell you that you're going to respond questioning it and you do just that.

Not that I'm asserting you must be, but do you honestly think the majority of bigots consider themselves to be bigots and that their opinions are based on fear or hatred?


You're right, but those people also are not able to provide legitimate reasoning without fear or hatred. Besides, posters on this forum have said in the past that the ONLY reason why a person wouldn't support the repeal of DADT or other homosexual related activities is through hatred and fear.

Omega Vegta wrote:
It's normal for homosexuals to shower with straights in the gym & in your military already & will remain so post DADT. Smiley: schooled


No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated. I was referencing to the psychological norm. Just as it is a norm for women not to want to shower or share close rooms with random men, it's a norm that men not to want to shower or share close rooms with homosexual men. That was the whole purpose of DADT. To allow homosexuals to serve under the assumption that they are straight. Add that with the segregation of men and women, you are appealing to both norms. The problem is, it's a double standard where one practice is accepted and the other isn't.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#312 Dec 28 2010 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated.

But it is normal for straight and homosexual men to shower together. They do so in the military, in health clubs, in high schools and colleges, in athletic clubs and sports teams... I can't think of a single place that segregates showers based on sexuality. It's normal. It's the cultural norm. It's not the norm for men and women to shower together (not that it doesn't happen, but it's not the norm). Understand (of course not)? Separation by gender is the norm. Separation by sexuality is not. You can think that this is totally unfair or whatever but then it's on you to convince everyone that it shouldn't be the norm. The fact that it is the norm is pretty solid.

Keep whining about double standards for all the good it will do you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#313 Dec 28 2010 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Alma's secretly hoping to be the last guy in with a homo so he can drop the soap.
____________________________
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]
#314 Dec 28 2010 at 10:10 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated.

But it is normal for straight and homosexual men to shower together. They do so in the military, in health clubs, in high schools and colleges, in athletic clubs and sports teams... I can't think of a single place that segregates showers based on sexuality. It's normal. It's the cultural norm. It's not the norm for men and women to shower together (not that it doesn't happen, but it's not the norm). Understand (of course not)? Separation by gender is the norm. Separation by sexuality is not. You can think that this is totally unfair or whatever but then it's on you to convince everyone that it shouldn't be the norm. The fact that it is the norm is pretty solid.

Keep whining about double standards for all the good it will do you.


Uh no.

Once again, I'm talking about the norm of preference vs the norm of practice. My entire point is that the norm of preference for one scenario is upheld through the norm of practice but not for the other norm of preference. What you have done is taken the norm of practice and claim that it is. Of course it is, but not by choice. Which is the whole point of me stating the double standard. In one scenario, women say that they prefer not to shower with men and it's accepted. in the other scenario, men say that they prefer not to shower with homosexual men and it's isn't accepted.


You fail to grasp the concept of DADT. The philosophy is that everyone is heterosexual, if you're not heterosexual, keep it to yourself. So, while heterosexual and homosexual men do shower together, it's under the assumption that they are all heterosexual. So when John is showering next Tom, John thinks that Tom is a heterosexual. He doesn't know that Tom isn't, so he isn't bothered. If John knew that Tom was a homosexual, he might have different feelings toward that situation. Likewise in other public situations. I would wager that most men assume that everyone is heterosexual because no one has hinted otherwise.... you know what that sounds like........ you guessed it... DADT.


I don't know what planet you live in if you think men would rather shower exclusively with men (mixed with open homosexuals) than inclusively with women. I assure you that the percentage of men who feel the same way about showering with heterosexuals as they do homosexuals are low.



I remember once I was changing in high school gym class and this girl walked right in and asked this guy something and left. It didn't even dawn on me that she wasn't supposed to be there till after I had left, because no one made a scene. If a guy had walked into the girls locker room, I assure you there would have been some complaints. That story alone doesn't prove anything, but it's an example of my point of the different comfort levels between men and women.

Rather you want to accept it or not, men and women shower together, sleep together and do other things together all around the world. They don't do so in public because they feel uncomfortable being exposed in front of strangers or other people. That's the only reason why women and men are segregated.

It hasn't been till the past few years where people have been open about their sexuality. The assumption is usually and has always been that everyone is heterosexual unless hinted otherwise. This is why there isn't segregation on sexuality, but sex.

***** This is completely in agreement with my claim that marriage is between a man and a woman based on normality. People weren't open about their sexuality (probably against the law) and so the assumption was that everyone was heterosexual. "Why would a man marry another man? That's nonsense!". It probably had a lot less to do with segregation of sexuality and more so on sex, just as you just pointed out.

I do thank you for agreeing with me though... ******

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#315 Dec 28 2010 at 10:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Uh no.

Uh, yes.

Quote:
Once again, I'm talking about the norm of preference vs the norm of practice.

Good for you but ultimately pointless. Practice is what matters, not what makes your little heart glow with pleasure.

Quote:
So, while heterosexual and homosexual men do shower together, it's under the assumption that they are all heterosexual.

No, it's under a self-imposed blissful ignorance. Under DADT, it's known that you will be showering with homosexuals because homosexuals are allowed to join the military. If the only way you can handle that is to chant "hemustbestraight... hemustbestraight..." over and over, that's your own lookout.

Again, you need to make the argument about why the norm should be changed since that norm is the current practice. You keep failing to do so.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#316 Dec 28 2010 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,516 posts
Alma, there may still be men that are gay but choose to not tell. They'll see your bared wiener in the shower. Creepy eh?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#317 Dec 28 2010 at 11:31 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
So when John is showering next Tom, John thinks that Tom is a heterosexual. He doesn't know that Tom isn't, so he isn't bothered. If John knew that Tom was a homosexual, he might have different feelings toward that situation.


So basically what you are saying is that John is cool when he doesn't know, but if he did know he would be afraid that Tom is now checking him out when showering. Which is exactly what I said earlier. You could be showering with 10 homo's right now, and no even know it. But you are comfortable around them, even though they could be checking you out right now and over the last X times you shower with each other. You are afraid to shower with people who may be sizing you up, assuming that because they are gay they want you.

Anyhow, the above is mostly redundant because most gays will not tell you they are gay anyway. The majority of them don't want to deal with the situation of being eye-balled and talked about negatively behind their backs. Furthermore, I am quite sure none of them are going to check you out or try and pick you up. They are more likely to ignore your heterosexual ass in favor of finding another gay man/woman, someone that they can likely get together with and play tummy sticks, or lay some carpet.

You are not special, you are just a random dude, if "Tom" hasn't been checking you out for the last X years, Tom isn't going to start checking you out now, just because he is allowed to say if he is gay or not. Nothing is going to change, gays are in the military now, they will be in the future, they have seen you naked, you have seen them naked, and will continue to do so for most of your time left.

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

#318 Dec 28 2010 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's okay provided Alma isn't saddled with the crippling knowledge that they might be gay.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#319 Dec 28 2010 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
His best bet is to just not leave his room, anyone could be gay, he may as well just lock himself up alone, because at least he knows for sure i he is gay or not. Cut off all ties with the world because a dude might check out your package.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#320Almalieque, Posted: Dec 28 2010 at 12:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men. Hypocrites, such as yourself, only accept it for one scenario but not for the other, claiming people are "homophobes". At the same time, you don't call women "heterophobes"... so why is that? What's the difference? No one has yet stated the difference.
#321 Dec 28 2010 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Almalieque wrote:


If I dressed up as a woman and entered the woman's locker room, the women in there wouldn't care. Why? because they would think I was a woman.


You must be some kind of girlie-man if you think you could pull that off.
#322 Dec 28 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men.
So what are those reasons, and why are they the same as the ones between men and women?
____________________________
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
#323 Dec 28 2010 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I don't think you understand the argument here or just slow on the uptake.

I don't think you understand it. I get what you want to be the argument but it's irrelevant.

Quote:
Like I mentioned in the last DADT thread, sodomy and homosexuality is punishable under UCMJ

Currently. Given that the UCMJ will be changed with the repeal of DADT, that's pretty irrelevant as well, at least until the new rules are released by the Dept. of Defense.

You're still failing to make an argument.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#324 Dec 28 2010 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,516 posts
Almalieque wrote:

My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men. Hypocrites, such as yourself, only accept it for one scenario but not for the other, claiming people are "homophobes". At the same time, you don't call women "heterophobes"... so why is that? What's the difference? No one has yet stated the difference.
The difference being that men are men and women are not men. Women have vagina's men have penises. All men be they gay or straight have penises. Do you understand the difference?

Quote:

Just like in all of my other debates, I'm arguing the concept. You and other's claims that this is all about hatred/fear are wrong and I'm just simply pointing that out. What you and the other posters have done, as usual, is attach made up ideas, feelings and attitudes to a topic I wasn't even referencing to in the first place.
I'd say it's more about fear/ignorance but either way you have failed to make any sort of argument - right or wrong, that there is a reason to maintain a DADT policy that doesn't involve 'feelings'.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#325 Dec 28 2010 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
No, that would be like forcing men and women to shower together and saying it's "normal" for men and women to shower together, as my example stated. I was referencing to the psychological norm. Just as it is a norm for women not to want to shower or share close rooms with random men, it's a norm that men not to want to shower or share close rooms with homosexual men. That was the whole purpose of DADT. To allow homosexuals to serve under the assumption that they are straight. Add that with the segregation of men and women, you are appealing to both norms. The problem is, it's a double standard where one practice is accepted and the other isn't.

My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals


You can certainly prefer not to shower with the out poofs post DADT, but there are no legitimate reasons why you shouldn't or can't do so. I'd prefer to shower with the nubile co-eds that frequent my gym as opposed to Robert, the fat(& hairy) homo whom seems to frequent the gym around the same time that I do. But since I'm a man, I use the men's locker room as is the "psychological norm" (whatever the fuck that means). If Robert & I soldiered together, we'd still shower together!

What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little. Sure, you can ask your commanding officer to shower separately from the poofs that come out in your unit & he might (and that's a very slight might )even let you do it.

But what will be your answer when the straight dudes whom are comfortable with their sexuality ask you why you're acting like such a little fagot about it?

____________________________
"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


#326 Dec 28 2010 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those damn homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 1:43pm 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.
#327 Dec 28 2010 at 2:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
My whole point to you all is that people can have legitimate reasons for not wanting to shower or room with homosexuals and not be a homophobe and those reasons are the same exact reasons why women prefer not to do the very same activities with men.
So what are those reasons, and why are they the same as the ones between men and women?


Comfort. It's the same for men and women, because it's the same. I'm not sure how you can break it down any further. I gave you a chance to explain otherwise and you have failed to give any other reason. Segregation preferences are because of comfort levels.

Jo wrote:

I don't think you understand it. I get what you want to be the argument but it's irrelevant.


Back to the "irrelevant" responses. You guys have to come up with a better response when you know you're wrong.

My entire argument is that it's possible for people not to want to share rooms or showers with homosexuals and not be bigots. My proof is that women have the same reasons against doing those same activities with men and they aren't frown upon. For whatever reason, men are called names for expressing the same exact feelings towards homosexual men. This double standard proves that it is possible to not want to share rooms or showers with homosexuals and not be bigots, which is what women do all of the time, which is my point. Therefore, that is 115% relevant.

I would like for you to show otherwise or even better yet just admit that it's a double standard.

I'm not naive, I realize that there might be scenarios where double standards maybe "better", but you wont even admit that it exists in this situation or that it is relevant.

Jo wrote:
Currently. Given that the UCMJ will be changed with the repeal of DADT, that's pretty irrelevant as well, at least until the new rules are released by the Dept. of Defense.


Oh, so now you agree with my previous argument about "image" and that the rules would have to change first and not just allow homosexuals in... Wow, you guys are really agreeing with me now.. 2011 is going to be a good year. That's two 40+ threads that has ended in agreement.

Jo wrote:

You're still failing to make an argument.


I'm not failing at all. You're just ignoring all the points and labeling them as "irrelevant" when you can't counter them.

You stated that men have been sharing with homosexuals all the time before so it wouldn't be any different.

I countered to say that they have been sharing rooms and showers, but under the assumption that they were heterosexual and that was the whole point of DADT.

You countered with the nonsense that DADT was stating "You WILL be showering with homosexuals"..

I countered that nonsense to point out that wasn't the point of DADT, else sodomy and homosexuality wouldn't be punishable under UCMJ. Instead of you admitting that you were wrong on the concept of DADT, you decided to say that the rules will change anyway, which was never the point of the discussion.

Nice try. It really isn't that hard to say "My bad, I was wrong". You actually become more credible that way.

Elinda wrote:
The difference being that men are men and women are not men. Women have vagina's men have penises. All men be they gay or straight have penises. Do you understand the difference?


As I told Sir X earlier. The point in equality is to treat everyone the same unless there is some form of justification. Your only reason is that men are men and women are women. What is the justification of the discrimination? If we start treating people different because they have vaginas and plump, tender, nice and round breasts, where does it stop? There has to be some justification beyond that.

Side story.. I was talking with a co-worker and she was saying that she hopes that she doesn't get put in admin because she doesn't have a penis. Typically, women do that position more than men. According to your logic, you approve of such nonsense. "Administration.. That's a WOMAN's Job! We can't have men and women sharing jobs or offices!" Taking a step back aren't we?

Elinda wrote:
I'd say it's more about fear/ignorance but either way you have failed to make any sort of argument - right or wrong, that there is a reason to maintain a DADT policy that doesn't involve 'feelings'.


You're right, I didn't make an argument to maintain DADT because that was never my goal. You're just attaching your own feelings to my argument. Once again, my point is that it is possible for people not to want to room and shower with homosexuals and not be a bigot.


Omega Vegeta wrote:

You can certainly prefer not to shower with the out poofs post DADT, but there are no legitimate reasons why you shouldn't or can't do so. I'd prefer to shower with the nubile co-eds that frequent my gym as opposed to Robert, the fat(& hairy) homo whom seems to frequent the gym around the same time that I do. But since I'm a man, I use the men's locker room as is the "psychological norm" (whatever the @#%^ that means). If Robert & I soldiered together, we'd still shower together!

What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little. Sure, you can ask your commanding officer to shower separately from the poofs that come out in your unit & he might (and that's a very slight might )even let you do it.

But what will be your answer when the straight dudes whom are comfortable with their sexuality ask you why you're acting like such a little fagot about it?


My entire point is for these posters just accept the fact that there is nothing wrong with a man not wanting to shower or room with a homosexual. That's all.. Nothing more and nothing less. People are just making a big deal out of nothing.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#328 Dec 28 2010 at 2:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those damn homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 1:43pm by Belkira


I don't shower with homosexuals....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#329 Dec 28 2010 at 2:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those damn homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."


I don't shower with homosexuals....


If you're showering with the rest of the army, you sure are.
____________________________
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.
#330 Dec 28 2010 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
He's like a less coherent version of gbaji.
____________________________
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]
#331 Dec 28 2010 at 3:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those damn homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."


I don't shower with homosexuals....


If you're showering with the rest of the army, you sure are.


So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#332 Dec 28 2010 at 3:10 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,781 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept it, this wouldn't be so bad.


That's what he said.
____________________________
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"

#333 Dec 28 2010 at 3:20 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.


Accept what? There's nothing to accept. There is no privacy issue.
____________________________
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.
#334 Dec 28 2010 at 3:21 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,516 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
You're being intentionally obtuse, but I can accept that you don't currently shower with gay men.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#335 Dec 28 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
You're being intentionally obtuse, but I can accept that you don't currently shower with gay men.

Everyone lives in a barracks at some point. If he's in the service he's had a butt-f'ucker staring at his gaping rusty sheriff's badge.
____________________________
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]
#336 Dec 28 2010 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
What you want to happen under the post DADT world is going to matter very little.


Honestly, I don't think Alma really has a problem with the fact that when he showers, there are men who enjoy the company of other men in there with him, all naked and soapy. I think it's just his last ditch effort to stick it to those damn homos who have the audacity to consider their lifestyle "acceptable."


I don't shower with homosexuals....


If you're showering with the rest of the army, you sure are.


So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
Oh, Alma. Are you going to hold your breath until we believe you? Or are you just going to spam until you hit the all-important 3950?
#337 Dec 28 2010 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,516 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
You're being intentionally obtuse, but I can accept that you don't currently shower with gay men.

Everyone lives in a barracks at some point. If he's in the service he's had a butt-f'ucker staring at his gaping rusty sheriff's badge.
Maybe Alma is handicapped and gets one of them special shower stalls.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#338 Dec 28 2010 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.
You're being intentionally obtuse, but I can accept that you don't currently shower with gay men.

Everyone lives in a barracks at some point. If he's in the service he's had a butt-f'ucker staring at his gaping rusty sheriff's badge.
Maybe Alma is handicapped and gets one of them special shower stalls.


So when he bangs his head against the wall it won't scare the others quite so badly?
____________________________
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.
#339 Dec 28 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Back to the "irrelevant" responses. You guys have to come up with a better response when you know you're wrong.

Hahaha... that must be it.

Quote:
Therefore, that is 115% relevant.

To the repeal of DADT? Nope, not even a little.

Quote:
I would like for you to show otherwise or even better yet just admit that it's a double standard.

Nothing in it for me. The Commander-in-Chief decided it doesn't wash. The Dept. of Defense decided it doesn't wash. A majority of service members decided it doesn't wash. A super-majority of Congress decided it doesn't wash.

Any convincing needs to come from you, not me.

Quote:
Oh, so now you agree with my previous argument about "image" and that the rules would have to change first and not just allow homosexuals in...

I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. The DADT repeal legislation has always said that the repeal would follow a review and revision of the military rules given that the current rules were based on the DADT legislation in the 93-94 appropriations bill; that's just a simple issue of procedure. I haven't posted much in this thread... perhaps you were arguing with someone else? I have said that people like Gbaji and Varrus were wrong when they insisted that there was some other legislation that we were thrust back into with the passage of the DADT repeal act. Maybe you were misunderstanding that. Anyway, beats me.

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 3:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#340Almalieque, Posted: Dec 28 2010 at 3:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a pretty bold assumption to say that in the few times that I did ever had to share a shower, it was with a homosexual. Once again, you're just as ignorant as the bigots you're against.
#341 Dec 28 2010 at 3:46 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, like I said, I am not showering with homosexuals.. If you guys took a second and just accept what I said as opposed to always arguing against it, this wouldn't be so bad.


Accept what? There's nothing to accept. There is no privacy issue.


Accept the fact that you don't have a legitimate explanation for the segregation of men and women that isn't any different than heterosexual men and homosexual men.


Of course we do. You just won't accept it. You can't seem to understand that the showering situation has to do with anatomy and not sexual attraction.

That's not our problem.
____________________________
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.
#342 Dec 28 2010 at 4:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
given that the DoD said that they weren't going to implement anything "in the middle of a war", I don't see a change happening anytime soon

Stuff I've heard from the administration and Dept of Defense all points to a 2011 implementation.

I guess 2011 will be a great year!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#343 Dec 28 2010 at 4:31 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You're right, but those people also are not able to provide legitimate reasoning without fear or hatred.

No, they are, at least in their mind.

You don't seem to know much about how the majority of bigots tend to think and act. They don't gallivant around in white robes, yelling nigger, and throwing bricks through windows.

If you happen to be bored, I suggest you take some time to browse around the stormfront message boards (a self proclaimed white nationalist and racial realist community). These are what the vast majority of bigots are like. They are generally decent people who aren't typically violent towards nonwhites. They largely advocate political and personal change. They are interested in having discussion and debates about race, and have facts and data they believe supports their opinions and arguments. Honestly, they're fairly reasonable people; they just happen to be wrong about a few things and unwilling to change their opinion on those topics. They're very much aware many other people think they're bigots, and they think those people are wrong.

Modern bigots are very much in denial, because being a bigot is seen nearly universally as a negative quality. Bigots don't think they're bigots. They think they are those who have examined the facts more closely than others and come up with a better, more correct answer. They take a statistic that could very reasonable be taken to support their stance, and choose to use it. A disproportionate number of crimes are committed by blacks, and without considering many other factors could be reasonably used to justify separating blacks and whites.

Modern bigotry is mostly about cognitive biases.

edit: I really can't say nigger here? Was this because of Varus?

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 4:35pm by Allegory
#344 Dec 28 2010 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Allegory wrote:
edit: I really can't say nigger here? Was this because of Varus?


I think it's always been that way because a lot of people find it incredibly offensive, and the site doesn't tolerate racism.
____________________________
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.
#345 Dec 28 2010 at 4:46 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
I believe the asylum has a separate set of word filters that allow for more crude speech. I assumed we could write almost anything in here.

I also have the nagging feeling I've mentioned and forgotten this very thing before.
#346 Dec 28 2010 at 4:57 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Allegory wrote:
I believe the asylum has a separate set of word filters that allow for more crude speech. I assumed we could write almost anything in here.


I've always had to break the word filter in here. That's just allowed, from what I understand. Whereas, it's not allowed elsewhere. I don't think there's a seperate filter at all.

Though, that would be nice. Smiley: grin

____________________________
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.
#347Almalieque, Posted: Dec 28 2010 at 4:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) As I said multiple times over, equality is the practice of treating everyone the same unless there is a justification to do otherwise. All you have said is "he has a penis". If you support any discrimination simply on the fact that you don't have a penis, then you should just go back in the kitchen, because that's a dumb argument.
#348 Dec 28 2010 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
[...]which statement do you believe is true? DADT is about the military telling people that they will shower with homosexuals or that DADT is about telling homosexuals to keep their sexuality to themselves or get kicked out?


Why can't it be both...?

Almalieque wrote:
As I said multiple times over, equality is the practice of treating everyone the same unless there is a justification to do otherwise.


The justification is that men have the same anatomy as men, and women have the same anatomy as women.

Almalieque wrote:
All you have said is "he has a penis". If you support any discrimination simply on the fact that you don't have a penis, then you should just go back in the kitchen, because that's a dumb argument.


You really did eat paint chips as a kid.

Almalieque wrote:
Once again, where does it end?


It ends in the places where you aren't required to be naked. You know this, you've been in public showers and restrooms before. Don't be a moron.

Almalieque wrote:
Bottom line is, there's nothing wrong with discrimination based on sex, but you have to be able to justify it and all you have said that they're different. If you can't see how that's a circle that doesn't go anywhere, then you can't be helped.


Smiley: laugh Speaking of can't be helped. I suggested you seek help earlier. I think that would be a waste of your money and a therapist's time.

Almalieque wrote:
I'll help you out: During a shower, it's an independent event. You wash yourself and you get out. Why does it matter who's next to you if someone's next to you? Anatomy only plays a role when it's a factor. There's no physical strength involved. There's no handicap involved. There's no weight or height factor. It's just you, a bar of soap and water. So where does the other person come in to play? What changes if the person next to you has a penis or not?


You're both naked. Get it? Stop being obtuse.
____________________________
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.
#349 Dec 28 2010 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
If I dressed up as a woman and entered the woman's locker room, the women in there wouldn't care. Why? because they would think I was a woman. If I left and came back as a man, I'm sure they would have a problem. Even if I told them that I dressed up as that woman earlier, they would still feel uncomfortable.


You sir are an idiot. Unless your elaborate costume is going to contain a set of titties and a va-jay-jay instead of your current tackle your point makes no sense.

You have a penis, therefore you creep chicks out by showering with them. Gay men also have a penis, therefore gay or not they would creep chicks out. Gay women have a vagina, they can shower with other women because they won't creep them out. Put that same gay women in a shower with men and some might be uncomfortable do to "fear of small dick".

Your analogy is stupid. You are not a woman and women would know this. Unless of course you went full out, and got the works.

Quit being a retard.


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

#350 Dec 28 2010 at 5:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You said that DADT was the military telling people that they will shower with homosexuals.

No, I said that under DADT, you're showering with homosexuals with the military aware of this based on the fact that homosexuals are allowed to be in the military. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
Then you responded that it was "irrelevant"

I said your personal feelings on showering with homosexuals was irrelevant. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
Here you go again bringing up the actual repeal of DADT

Which is the only thing that actually matters as I said earlier. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
when I'm discussing the double standard of men not being able to say that they don't want to shower with a homosexual.

Which, again, is irrelevant. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
First and foremost, the "good" answer for all of these questions were "mixed, positive or no effects".

70% of which which is a pretty great majority. It wasn't hard to understand so I'm not sure where you failed.

Quote:
You all said ...

"You all" being me or some random collection of people I'm expected to answer for?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#351 Dec 28 2010 at 6:17 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Alma's obsession with showers is much more disturbing than his being a bigot.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 68 All times are in CDT
ElneClare, Jophiel, LordMagius, Samira, Anonymous Guests (64)