Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#352 Dec 28 2010 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Jophiel wrote:
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!


That's funny, because I heard the exact opposite. I actually heard that the fact that no time table was given is upsetting people. I don't know which one is accurate, but I do find it funny that you have all this faith in the DoD. This is probably the same people who ended "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Yea, we just changed the name.....and somehow people just went on about their ways....

Allegory wrote:
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 **** 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.


I'm not debating on the overall concept of bigotry. I'm referencing specifically to this situation. You may be 100% accurate on your study, but that isn't the case here.

Women and men are often segregated in sleeping and showering scenarios. There is absolutely no reason why they are separated other than personal comforts. Men and women sleep together all of the time, why can't they share public rooms or showers? It doesn't matter if the person next to you is a man, woman or a dog. None of that has anything to do with you sleeping or showering. Yet, as a society, we're ok with that. At the same time, men who express the same comfort issues with other men are frown upon as if it is somehow different.

So, either the women are bigots for not wanting to be in close quarters with men or the men are not bigots. Which one is it? Unless you can show how the scenarios are somehow different, both can't be true.

Belkira wrote:

Why can't it be both...?


Because I was talking about the assumption that "everyone is heterosexual". In reality, everyone knows that everyone isn't heterosexual, but they are assumed to be and treated as such. If they are seen otherwise, then they will be kicked out. That's the whole point of DADT. His post was claiming otherwise, so the two can't coexist.

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


Did you comprehend anything I just wrote or are you purposely being dense? That's not a justification. You just stated the obvious. No two people are the same, regardless of sex, race or color. That isn't a justification to treat anyone differently. There has to be a reason other than "they are different" to treat them differently. Else, there is no point in "equality". Just because another lady at work has a "supermodel body" doesn't mean she should be treated differently than you (if you don't also have a supermodel body. Now, if your job was modeling, then now you have a justification. Working a bank, there isn't a justification. That's how it works.

So, what is your justification? If all you have is "I don't have a penis", then ok. That would clear up a lot of things.

Belkira wrote:
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.




Why does it end there? So you admit that it has nothing to do with the anatomy. The man's anatomy doesn't change in the office. You're just more COMFORTABLE in the office because you can't see their anatomy and they can't see yours. This is all psychological. If it were about anatomy, it would be consistent. It isn't consistent because it's not the fact that Joe has a penis, it's because you don't want to see Joe's **** nor do you want him to see you naked.

You know this to be the truth, I'm not so sure why you decide to pretend as if it weren't. To further prove my point, let's take the pool as an example. This is where both women and men are mostly naked sharing one body of water. It's ok, why? Private parts are hidden, that's why. If it were about the anatomy, the pool would be segregated also. Only areas such as spas or other areas where people are naked are they segregated. So, this is clearly about seeing each other private parts and not the simple fact that they are different.

Belkira wrote:

You're both naked. Get it? Stop being obtuse.


How does the person next to you affect you washing yourself if that person is washing him or herself? Most people tend to shower naked, so being naked doesn't make a difference. Even still, how is that person being naked affect your ability to wash yourself?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#353 Dec 28 2010 at 8:14 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Alma's not even arguing the whole **** thing any more, he's just arguing against community showers... or maybe he's just **** stupid and doesn't realize he's arguing in a lopsided circle of ****
#354 Dec 28 2010 at 8:20 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Quote:
How does the person next to you affect you washing yourself if that person is washing him or herself? Most people tend to shower naked, so being naked doesn't make a difference. Even still, how is that person being naked affect your ability to wash yourself?


But if he is **** it is totally going to different right??
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#355 Dec 28 2010 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I do find it funny that you have all this faith in the DoD.

I do? I'm just saying what I've been hearing.
Politico wrote:
EXCLUSIVE: DOD ONLY NEEDS WEEKS FOR REPEAL, REPORT SAYS – A new study by the Palm Center makes the case that DOD can get to open service in only a few weeks. Written by former Air Force Maj. Aaron Freed, who was discharged in 2005 under DADT, the report says that DOD implements policy changes before it trains the force all the time; training, as any staff sergeant or chief petty officer might say, is a continuous process. In 1994, DOD implemented DADT in about 40 days, Freed writes, and it shouldn’t even need that much time to dismantle it.
MSNBC wrote:
While the law itself does not lay out a timetable for those plans, Gates has suggested that it could take as long as a year.
San Francisco Chronicle wrote:
Defense officials have not said how long that process could take. A Pentagon task force, in a report issued last month, outlined numerous revisions to training, military education and regulations that would be needed.

Gates said he would "immediately proceed with the planning necessary to carry out this change carefully and methodically, but purposely."

Two senators said they expect the time required will be "months not years."
Aurora Sentinel wrote:
But Obama said: "We are not going to be dragging our feet to get this done."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama thinks actual implementation of the new law will be "a matter of months."

Pentagon personnel chief Clifford Stanley and his staff have already started working to put together an action plan based partly on recommendations from the study. The plan will look at a host of questions, from how to educate troops on the change to how sexual orientation should be handled in making barracks assignments.
New York Times wrote:
There will certainly be pressure to get it done in 2011,” one defense official said, indicating that repeal will be a relatively slow but not years-long process.


Just a small sampling. I don't really have a strong stake in when it happens but there's definite conversation about it being within the next year.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#356 Dec 28 2010 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,889 posts
Great. Another indefinitely-long **** thread. Just what we need!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#357 Dec 28 2010 at 8:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
I'll respond to the rest later, I thought I'll just respond to Joph's stats..


While the law itself does not lay out a timetable for those plans, Gates has suggested that it could take as long as a year


Now the question is how long it will be before **** men and lesbians can serve openly.

The service chiefs wanted to have more than a year to implement the new policy, citing the need to train the force and prepare it for “open service,” according to a source close to the matter.

Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, for example, may demand that physical modifications be made to accommodate concerns among some Marines about showering with other Marines who are serving openly. All of this could take time.


Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed but questions remain about how long it will take for the new law to go into effect. What kind of timeline can be expected?


All I googled was "DADT Timeline". As you can see, it was not a biased search and none of the results came back expressing any time line. All stated that they needed time.

So as I said, I don't know which one is accurate, but from what I've heard, there is no time line.


I will address everyone's posts in the morning. I have to get up early...
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#358 Dec 28 2010 at 9:05 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
That's not a justification.


Sure it is, when it comes to communal naked places.

That was easy. We didn't even need the rest of your drivel!

#359 Dec 28 2010 at 9:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
All I googled was "DADT Timeline". As you can see, it was not a biased search and none of the results came back expressing any time line.

Erm, "it could take as long as a year" is a timeline. It means "within a year" or, to put numbers on it, within 2011 given that it's currently 2010.

Expanding on your Frumforum (actually Politico) link:
Quote:
Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, for example, may demand that physical modifications be made to accommodate concerns among some Marines about showering with other Marines who are serving openly. All of this could take time.

Amos may have backing on Capitol Hill, where Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Marine, has been pushing the Pentagon to phase in any new policy.

That's kind of amusing since Webb is one of the senators saying he expects a roll-out time line of "months, not years".

None of them give the implication that it has to take longer than a year or that it can't be done while we're fighting any wars. I'm not sure why you thought those contradicted mine (especially when you used one of mine).

The Pentagon report has a section about other nations who have converted to allowing homosexuals and reports that by-in-large they simply removed any explicit mention of homosexuality from their policies and had little to no significant impact on their military functioning including no impact to their recruiting or retention goals. Even segments of the foreign militaries who worried about scary showers and stuff went along without a hitch. Like I said before, other countries have figured it out. According to the report, it's as difficult as saying "make it happen".

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 9:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#360 Dec 29 2010 at 4:31 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, for example, may demand that physical modifications be made to accommodate concerns among some Marines about showering with other Marines who are serving openly. All of this could take time.


[/quote]

Anybody that has served in the military, has ALREADY showered with **** members of the same sex. They've done so for the most part, knowing full well, or suspecting that those people were gay. Anyone that claims otherwise is a fool, and a liar. There have always been **** people in the military, and they have always showered with their straight counterparts. Whether they serve openly or not is irrelevant. Almost nobody in the military is going to come out as **** and shock people, everyone around them is going to respond with "Yup, I figured he/she was queer".

The point is moot. STFU and move on.
#361 Dec 29 2010 at 6:50 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LAST
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#362 Dec 29 2010 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma can just be "that guy" in the showers whom wears swimming trunks if he's uncomfortable with dudes, be it **** or straight, seeing his junk.

If he's still uncomfortable being around gays even after the trunks, then he's not as comfortable with his own sexuality as he thought he was.
____________________________
"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 **** out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#363Almalieque, Posted: Dec 29 2010 at 9:08 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's interesting because Belkira claims otherwise. So, which one is it?
#364 Dec 29 2010 at 9:25 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's not a justification.


Sure it is, when it comes to communal naked places.

That was easy. We didn't even need the rest of your drivel!



You ignored my "drivel" because you have no counter for it.

I'll ask again:

"How does the person next to you affect you washing yourself if that person is washing him or herself? "

Maybe you don't know what "justification" means, because according to the English dictionary, that isn't a justification.


1. a reason, fact, circumstance, or explanation that justifies or defends: His insulting you was ample justification for you to leave the party.

2.an act of justifying: The painter's justification of his failure to finish on time didn't impress me.

3.the state of being justified.

4.Also called justification by faith. Theology. the act of god whereby humankind is made or accounted just, or free from guilt or penalty of sin.

5.Printing. the spacing of words and letters within a line of type so that all full lines in a column have even margins both on the left and on the right.


Given that, the action itself, can't be the justification for the action. The question is being asked, why are you segregating men from women. Your response that men are different from women does not give any additional information. We already know that, that's why we're asking you why you decided to segregate themselves in the first place. You know, kinda like Brown v. Board of Education in 1954?

"Why should black children and white children be separated"-
"Because black children are black and white children are white, they aren't the same"-
"Oh, my.. that's a great justification!"

All you have done is state the obvious and pretend as if it meant something...but RDD stated something interesting...

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

Do you agree with this? Why or why not. I believe that this is more along the lines of your opinion, but you don't want to say that because then I'll be right that it's no different. So, instead, you try to act like it's about anatomy, even though you admitted that it's only an issue when you're naked. So, it can't be about the anatomy.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#365 Dec 29 2010 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
That's not a justification.


Sure it is, when it comes to communal naked places.

That was easy. We didn't even need the rest of your drivel!



You ignored my "drivel" because you have no counter for it.

I'll ask again:

"How does the person next to you affect you washing yourself if that person is washing him or herself? "


I did answer that. Multiple times. Because you are both naked. And boy parts and girl parts are different.

Want to answer how someone being a homosexual is an issue if you're both washing yourself in the shower? Want to justify how that's an issue to allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals? Because you can't pretend that there is no affect if it's men and women showering together, but there is a problem if there's a straight man and a **** man showering together.

So like I said before: Drivel. Would you like me to get all fancy and quote you the definition of that? Because I'm starting to think you don't undrestand what it means. You clinging to a desperate plea of, "But... PRIVACY!!!" is, indeed, drivel.

ETA: As for asking me to support or deny another poster's arguments, no. If you honestly can't understand my point, give this up. Anatomy only matters when you're naked and showering. If you honestly can't understand that, then you really must be functionally retarded.

Edited, Dec 29th 2010 9:37am by Belkira
#366 Dec 29 2010 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,674 posts
Women are women, men are men. Our society has provided for separate facilities for them forever. Whether it's necessary or not is an interesting argument, however it's irrelevant to this one.

The civilian world seems to have little issue using public facilities even knowing full well the guy peeing next to you might be **** - or might be straight - or whatever.





____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#367 Dec 29 2010 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
In thinking about it, another reason that men and women are, for the most part, kept seperated when in communal naked spaces has to do with mitigating risk. I'm not sure how many men realize this, but if a woman is to be in a doctors office and asked to remove any clothing by a male doctor, a female nurse is asked to step into the room. This is just as much for the doctor's protection (maybe even moreso, really) as for the woman's protection. I wonder if that plays a factor here, as well.
#368 Dec 29 2010 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,674 posts
Teen girls grow into women. Likewise boys grow into men. Boys have wet dreams. Girls get periods. Curiosities abound.

Men get hard-ons. Women shave their entire body (it seems like anyways). Some men are circumcised. Some are not. Sperm can live for moments outside the body. Nursing womens **** leak and are swollen.

The thing is women have boobs and a vagina, men have a penis. Men pee differently than women. Women pull **** plugs from their bodies. Issues arise with our different **** parts. We learn to deal with these issues, privately, from others that have the same **** parts an so have experienced the same issues.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#369 Dec 29 2010 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
What's the confusion? The last thread ridiculed me for saying it was stupid to try to have this all done at once, that the sodomy rules has nothing to do with DADT. Now you're saying that there was a package deal the whole time. Which one is it? Are the rules being changed all at once or not? Make up your mind.

You never answered my question. If you're saying that I specifically made various claims, go ahead and quote me so I know exactly what you're whining about. If you're using some nebulous and meaningless "you all" then stop expecting me to respond to whoever in the world you're thinking of.

Edited, Dec 29th 2010 12:04pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#370 Dec 29 2010 at 12:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
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.


You failed because the point wasn't that homosexuals are allowed in the military, but homosexuals are not allowed in the military, but the military will not question your sexuality, creating the assumption that everyone is heterosexual till proven otherwise. You are confusing "being allowed" with "being able to". Even before DADT was established, homosexuals were able to join. All they had to do is say "no" to the question of their sexuality. Removing that question doesn't allow homosexuals in the military, it enables homosexuals to join without lying. The act of them being homosexual is still punishable under UCMJ. If they were "allowed" to join, then they couldn't be kicked out for being homosexual now could they?
Totally pointless, whether you look at it as allowed or as able, that doesn't change the point at all, under DADT, you're showering with homosexuals with the military aware of this.

Almalieque wrote:
What's the confusion? The last thread ridiculed me for saying it was stupid to try to have this all done at once, that the sodomy rules has nothing to do with DADT. Now you're saying that there was a package deal the whole time. Which one is it? Are the rules being changed all at once or not? Make up your mind.
Apparently you were having trouble following that last thread, because the point that was made was that the sodomy laws shouldn't STOP DADT from being repealed. People freely admitted that the sodomy laws didn't really make sense, and that there might be other changes, but that the starting point should be repealing DADT and then working out the details. You were insisting we deal with all these other things first and keep putting DADT off.
____________________________
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
#371 Dec 29 2010 at 8:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
All I googled was "DADT Timeline". As you can see, it was not a biased search and none of the results came back expressing any time line.

Erm, "it could take as long as a year" is a timeline. It means "within a year" or, to put numbers on it, within 2011 given that it's currently 2010.

Expanding on your Frumforum (actually Politico) link:
Quote:
Marine Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, for example, may demand that physical modifications be made to accommodate concerns among some Marines about showering with other Marines who are serving openly. All of this could take time.

Amos may have backing on Capitol Hill, where Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a former Marine, has been pushing the Pentagon to phase in any new policy.

That's kind of amusing since Webb is one of the senators saying he expects a roll-out time line of "months, not years".

None of them give the implication that it has to take longer than a year or that it can't be done while we're fighting any wars. I'm not sure why you thought those contradicted mine (especially when you used one of mine).

The Pentagon report has a section about other nations who have converted to allowing homosexuals and reports that by-in-large they simply removed any explicit mention of homosexuality from their policies and had little to no significant impact on their military functioning including no impact to their recruiting or retention goals. Even segments of the foreign militaries who worried about scary showers and stuff went along without a hitch. Like I said before, other countries have figured it out. According to the report, it's as difficult as saying "make it happen".

Edited, Dec 28th 2010 9:48pm by Jophiel


How convenient that you left out the quote "Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed but questions remain about how long it will take for the new law to go into effect. What kind of timeline can be expected?"


The reason why we could quote the same quotes is because it is apparent that the military is saying that they need more time..while the politicians are saying it will be done in no time..

"The service chiefs wanted to have more than a year to implement the new policy, citing the need to train the force and prepare it for “open service,” according to a source close to the matter."

Maybe we have a different interpretation of what a time line is. In my line of work, a time line actually have dates involved broken in phases. For example, phase I should be completed no later than (NLT) the 1st quarter, the second phase will be completed NLT the 2nd quarter, etc. Saying "it could take as long as a year" is not a time line but a guestimation, especially when DADT was implemented in 40 days (if I'm not mistaken). Besides, we're practically in 2011, so "could take as long as a year" could very well be in 2012. I admit, that is semantics.

This could be put into affect within a month, I don't know. All I'm saying is that from what I've gathered, there is no real time line. This has been nothing but a political push to check some blocks before the new year. That's why it may take "months", because it wasn't thought out first.

Jo wrote:

You never answered my question. If you're saying that I specifically made various claims, go ahead and quote me so I know exactly what you're whining about. If you're using some nebulous and meaningless "you all" then stop expecting me to respond to whoever in the world you're thinking of.


Oh, I didn't fully understand your question. I get it now. I'll have to look back in the last thread. It'll take me a while, but I distinctly remember you laughing at me for mentioning the survey. It'll just take me a while since I don't have premium.

Death wrote:
Anybody that has served in the military, has ALREADY showered with **** members of the same sex. They've done so for the most part, knowing full well, or suspecting that those people were gay. Anyone that claims otherwise is a fool, and a liar. There have always been **** people in the military, and they have always showered with their straight counterparts. Whether they serve openly or not is irrelevant. Almost nobody in the military is going to come out as **** and shock people, everyone around them is going to respond with "Yup, I figured he/she was queer".

The point is moot. STFU and move on.


You're ignorant. You're just making up crap. Please silence yourself.

Belkira wrote:
I did answer that. Multiple times. Because you are both naked. And boy parts and girl parts are different.


So me having a **** somehow prevents you from washing yourself? How so?


That's funny, because the person next to me can be a boy, girl, man, woman, straight, gay, bi, aroused, **** having sex, participating in a group orgy or even be a freakin marching band and none of that prevents me from being able to lather up a wash cloth and wash myself. Now, would I want to do that? No, why? Because of various levels of comfort.

So, I'm curious on how a person of different body parts physically prevents you from being able to wash yourself and not me or anyone else? Does your body physically shut down if there's a man in the shower, preventing you from lifting your arms? Or is this all psychological like you and everyone else already knows it is?

Belkira wrote:

Want to answer how someone being a homosexual is an issue if you're both washing yourself in the shower? Want to justify how that's an issue to allowing homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals? Because you can't pretend that there is no affect if it's men and women showering together, but there is a problem if there's a straight man and a **** man showering together.

So like I said before: Drivel. Would you like me to get all fancy and quote you the definition of that? Because I'm starting to think you don't undrestand what it means. You clinging to a desperate plea of, "But... PRIVACY!!!" is, indeed, drivel.


I'm not claiming any problems with homosexuals in the showers. My entire point has been that I have a problem with people labeling men bigots for not wanting to shower with homosexual men because it's no different than why women don't want to shower with men, comfort reasons.

Belkira wrote:

ETA: As for asking me to support or deny another poster's arguments, no. If you honestly can't understand my point, give this up. Anatomy only matters when you're naked and showering. If you honestly can't understand that, then you really must be functionally retarded.


Until you're able to show how the person next to you somehow prevents you from washing yourself, all you are doing is expressing psychological discomfort. If this was all about anatomy, then it wouldn't matter if you're naked or not, like an all boys or an all girls school. They are segregated for reasons beyond physical traits, such as the difference in classroom behavior.

Elinda wrote:
Women are women, men are men. Our society has provided for separate facilities for them forever. Whether it's necessary or not is an interesting argument, however it's irrelevant to this one.

The civilian world seems to have little issue using public facilities even knowing full well the guy peeing next to you might be **** - or might be straight - or whatever.


Like I told Jophiel, if my entire point was pointing out that separate facilities are unnecessary, then you can't claim that me proving that is irrelevant. That doesn't make sense.

Elinda wrote:
Teen girls grow into women. Likewise boys grow into men. Boys have wet dreams. Girls get periods. Curiosities abound.

Men get hard-ons. Women shave their entire body (it seems like anyways). Some men are circumcised. Some are not. Sperm can live for moments outside the body. Nursing womens **** leak and are swollen.

The thing is women have boobs and a vagina, men have a penis. Men pee differently than women. Women pull **** plugs from their bodies. Issues arise with our different **** parts. We learn to deal with these issues, privately, from others that have the same **** parts an so have experienced the same issues.


Me standing next to a **** woman or a woman breast feeding her child does not in any way prevent me from showering myself. This is nothing but a comfort issue, nothing more nothing less.

Sir X wrote:
Totally pointless, whether you look at it as allowed or as able, that doesn't change the point at all, under DADT, you're showering with homosexuals with the military aware of this.


Only pointless if you're not part of the actual discussion. The argument was about the assumption that everyone is heterosexual rather they are or aren't. In that reference, as part of the discussion, it makes a big difference if we're talking about being able to join and being allowed to join. This is because if they were allowed to join, then there really is no "assumption" because it doesn't matter. Given the fact that they aren't allowed, but only able to, there is indeed a "Benefit without a doubt" or an assumption or else they would be chaptered out.

So once again, it is 115% relevant to the discussion that I started with the OP. It maybe pointless to other DADT arguments, but those aren't mine. Thank you...

Sir X wrote:
Apparently you were having trouble following that last thread, because the point that was made was that the sodomy laws shouldn't STOP DADT from being repealed. People freely admitted that the sodomy laws didn't really make sense, and that there might be other changes, but that the starting point should be repealing DADT and then working out the details. You were insisting we deal with all these other things first and keep putting [b]DADT off.[/b[


The bold is **** you just made up if you're referencing to "forgetting about it" or "placing it in the back burner". I think I can remember my argument of a 40+ page debate, thank you very much. My whole argument was simply that it was an image issue to have sodomy laws with the repeal of DADT, People argued that the two had no relation and that it was stupid to want to wait for some package deal that would address everything all at once. People gave examples on how everything else in history was done in increments. I countered to say that all the DoD has to do is change a few sentences in the UCMJ, it's not like they can't do it all at once. Now, Jophiel is arguing that there was always a package deal in the works. Given that there isn't a time line, I think it's pretty safe to say that "they" don't believe you can just "flip the switch" either and they are addressing the very same image issues that I brought up.

Bottom line is, I was right.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#372 Dec 29 2010 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
How convenient that you left out the quote "Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed but questions remain about how long it will take for the new law to go into effect. What kind of timeline can be expected?"

You seem to think that means something more than it means. It's means that it still remains to be seen what the exact timeline will be. People who have been offering suggestions about how long it'll take are all shooting within the 2011 mark. More to the point, they're not saying "We can't implement anything if there's a war".
Quote:
Besides, we're practically in 2011, so "could take as long as a year" could very well be in 2012. I admit, that is semantics.

We're practically in January 2011. "As long as a year" from Jan 1, 2011 is Jan 1, 2012, not December 31, 2012.
Quote:
Oh, I didn't fully understand your question. I get it now. I'll have to look back in the last thread. It'll take me a while, but I distinctly remember you laughing at me for mentioning the survey. It'll just take me a while since I don't have premium.

Well, let me know. Sounds better than being expected to answer to half-remembered statements from "you guys".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#373 Dec 29 2010 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So me having a **** somehow prevents you from washing yourself? How so?


It doesn't. It is, however, the reason that we segregate communal naked places. Stop trying to change the subject, please.


Almalieque wrote:
That's funny, because the person next to me can be a boy, girl, man, woman, straight, gay, bi, aroused, **** having sex, participating in a group orgy or even be a freakin marching band and none of that prevents me from being able to lather up a wash cloth and wash myself. Now, would I want to do that? No, why? Because of various levels of comfort.

So, I'm curious on how a person of different body parts physically prevents you from being able to wash yourself and not me or anyone else? Does your body physically shut down if there's a man in the shower, preventing you from lifting your arms? Or is this all psychological like you and everyone else already knows it is?


When did we go from, "Why are we segregating the showers between sexes?" to "How does this prevent you from doing X?" Because those are two totally different questions, Alma. Two questions that are completely unrelated. NO ONE has made the claim that a man and a woman are incapable of showering together. You just sound stupid.

Almalieque wrote:
I'm not claiming any problems with homosexuals in the showers. My entire point has been that I have a problem with people labeling men bigots for not wanting to shower with homosexual men because it's no different than why women don't want to shower with men, comfort reasons.


Almalieque wrote:
Sure, at first I had my own personal opinion, then I heard a 4 star mention something that I didn't ever realize.

The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of **** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.


Edit: This is easier than trying to paraphrase you. You are, indeed, using "scary homosexuals in showers!!!!!" as a justification to not repeal DADT.

Almalieque wrote:
Until you're able to show how the person next to you somehow prevents you from washing yourself, all you are doing is expressing psychological discomfort. If this was all about anatomy, then it wouldn't matter if you're naked or not, like an all boys or an all girls school. They are segregated for reasons beyond physical traits, such as the difference in classroom behavior.


And until you stop twisting the discussion around to make it into a shape you like, I really don't have much more to say to you.

Edited, Dec 29th 2010 9:13pm by Belkira
#374 Dec 29 2010 at 9:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Jo wrote:

You seem to think that means something more than it means. It's means that it still remains to be seen what the exact timeline will be. People who have been offering suggestions about how long it'll take are all shooting within the 2011 mark. More to the point, they're not saying "We can't implement anything if there's a war".


I read it on AKO, which I can look for, and heard it somewhere else which I don't remember. I'll try to find a reference, but in any case my point was that the military leaders said that they need more than a year and the politicians claim that it can be done in no time...... which means that there is no actual time line, just desires.

Jo wrote:

We're practically in January 2011. "As long as a year" from Jan 1, 2011 is Jan 1, 2012, not December 31, 2012.


I admitted that it was semantics, not to be taken seriously.

Jo wrote:
Well, let me know. Sounds better than being expected to answer to half-remembered statements from "you guys".


Ok..

Almalieque wrote:
I'll be patiently waiting as it seems that you and maybe 2 others are the only ones actually following the case. I wonder what effects, if any, will this have on the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. The government sent out emails to military personnel asking for feedback. I'm glad that they at least made an attempt to hear our opinions...


Omega Vageta wrote:
They don't care what you think dude, they just care that you follow orders.


Almalieque wrote:
That's a whole lot of effort for not caring.


Jophiel wrote:
Opening a Hotmail account?


Almalieque wrote:
WTF are you talking about? If you could get on AKO, which you can't, you'll see the effort that I'm referring to. I simply cut/paste the email referencing that effort...

Edit: You actually think the government uses hotmail/yahoo/etc. accounts to disperse information? Really?


Omega wrote:
You do realize that your thoughts don't matter, right? If its repealed its repealed & you will either follow orders & work with the now out of the closet gays, or you'll GTFO.


Jophiel wrote:
No, but I mistakenly thought you'd be smart enough to pick up on intentional flippancy. So I guess I was wrong about something this morning but it wasn't Hotmail accounts.

With that said, opening an "inbox" for "opinions" is hardly a whole lot of effort. Your local gas station has an "opinion box" in the employee break room. If you're referring to effort no one else can see then it's not exactly compelling to say "See this email! Lots of effort! Trust me!"


You basically downplayed the email, yet now you're using the "70%" result of the very same email in your argument.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#375 Dec 29 2010 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Erm, I didn't downplay the fact that they were having a study, I was laughing at your assertions that they were putting "a whole lot of effort" into getting opinions based on your quoted message saying to e-mail them your opinions.

I mocking you, not the study.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#376 Dec 29 2010 at 9:34 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira wrote:
It doesn't. It is, however, the reason that we segregate communal naked places. Stop trying to change the subject, please.


I'm not changing the subject. My whole point is that there is no reason why men and women are segregated other than personal comforts. You claimed that it had to do with the anatomy, so I asked you how does my anatomy prevent you from showering? You answered that it doesn't, so it's not based on anatomy, but comfort levels. If it were based on anatomy, then the work office would be segregated as well. It's not because people are clothed and you even admitted to that.

Belkira wrote:
When did we go from, "Why are we segregating the showers between sexes?" to "How does this prevent you from doing X?" Because those are two totally different questions, Alma. Two questions that are completely unrelated. NO ONE has made the claim that a man and a woman are incapable of showering together. You just sound stupid.


Read above...

My argument has always been that the reason why men and women are segregated in showers/rooms, etc. is psychological comforts, the same psychological comforts expressed by men with homosexual men. You claimed that it wasn't psychological, but physical, so I asked you how are you physically prevented from showering? You aren't affected, so the only other reason is psychological.

I sound stupid? lol... get real... Instead of admitting the obvious, men and women are segregated in communal areas because of comfort levels, you defend physical trait segregation with no additional reason to support why...

Belkira wrote:
Noooooo. That's not true. Not at all. You have said many, many times, "I have my own, personal reasons for not wanting DADT repealed, but the general brought up a good point that I hadn't thought about: Privacy issues. That's a very good point!"


I think you're confusing my argument for SSM. I said I was against the repeal of DADT based on image as long as sodomy laws existed, but a 4 star had a better point that I haven't thought about because I live and shower by myself. This is where you ridiculed me for "changing opinions" based off of what someone else said and doubted that I wasn't ever in support of it in the first place.

In any case, in this thread, I responded to the OP on an entirely different point "A man can want not to shower or room with a homosexual and not be a bigot and the reasoning is the same as why women don't want to room or shower with a man". That has been my point the entire time. Just because you got confused in the mix, doesn't mean I've been changing subjects.

My very first response to this thread..

Almalieque wrote:
idiggory wrote:


The whole argument stems from the idea of the **** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war, which is why they are claiming that it would destroy unit cohesion (with the tough straight soldier unwilling to trust the guy with gaga playing on his ipod in the middle of a fire fight). Of course, they conveniently forget that there are plenty of super masculine **** guys. You know, all those **** guys who were in the military for years before getting caught...


o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.

According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used...


I merely responded that he was making stuff up that the only reasons against open homosexuality in the military was based on bigotry.

Belkira wrote:
And until you stop twisting the discussion around to make it into a shape you like, I really don't have much more to say to you.


As stated above, I haven't been twisting anything. You just started to catch on what my point was. You have been stuck in some fairy tale argument that I was never presenting and now that you've seen the distinction, you are claiming that I'm twisting stuff around....

Nope.. Once again, the argument is that straight men can choose not to want to share close quarters with **** men and not be bigots. Their reasoning is no different than what women provide to be segregated from men in the same scenarios. Society has created a double standard to accept the comfort levels for women but not men. That's not necessarily a "bad" or "good" thing, but you can't pretend that it doesn't exist and calling men bigots for having the same feelings as women do is wrong.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#377 Dec 29 2010 at 9:37 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Backpedaling and twisting the subject.


Sure, sparky. Whatever. Live in your delusional world.
#378 Dec 29 2010 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,564 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Sure, sparky. Whatever. Live in your delusional world.

Usually this is no solace to me, because people still vote based on delusions. But not this time. This time they lost. Even though in the future their opposition will be forgotten, white washed, or even twisted as having championed **** rights, and even though no lessons will be learned, today--now--is victory. The past can be tarnished, but the present can not be diminished.

Don't worry, even I don't buy my own spiel.
#379 Dec 29 2010 at 11:48 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
In thinking about it, another reason that men and women are, for the most part, kept seperated when in communal naked spaces has to do with mitigating risk. I'm not sure how many men realize this, but if a woman is to be in a doctors office and asked to remove any clothing by a male doctor, a female nurse is asked to step into the room. This is just as much for the doctor's protection (maybe even moreso, really) as for the woman's protection. I wonder if that plays a factor here, as well.


Men and women are kept separate for several reasons, mainly sociological, cultural reasons stemming from childhood. Whether or not they're good ones is up for debate.

1) Body shame. As children, we are taught that certain parts of our bodies are only for us (our "privates"). Part of this is to protect us from predators, and part of it is simply part of the Puritan background of not showing skin. Children will gladly go about naked and exposing themselves if not taught to do otherwise, usually through scolding. As a result, most of us grow up with a deeply ingrained sense that we should not expose ourselves to others, especially those of the opposite sex. However, children typically are taught that it is ok for their same-sex immediate family (other trusted individuals) to see them.

2) Sexuality innocence. As children grow, we generally try to suppress their knowledge of sexuality until later adolescence (aside from discouraging it). We continue to segregate them by **** so that they have less exposure to sexual temptation and knowledge.

3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape. Sexual urges increase, and the substantial weight and strength advantage that males typically have over women increases the risk considerably. Women are also likely to feel afraid of men in such situations (considering they are afraid of them in many safer situations, like simply walking in a public place). While there may be similar urges by placing like sexes together, the lower prevalence of homosexuality alongside the more similar physiques makes it far less of a problem.

So even among the reasons that do relate to comfort, they are predominantly a matter of comfort with respect to gender rather than sexuality for adults. Of course MEN are typically less comfortable with the idea of showering with a **** man than a woman. That has nothing to do with the social reasons with which we originally began (and continue) segregating men and women (primarily for female protection, puritanism, and to reduce adolescent sex).
____________________________
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.
#380 Dec 30 2010 at 4:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Death wrote:
Anybody that has served in the military, has ALREADY showered with **** members of the same sex. They've done so for the most part, knowing full well, or suspecting that those people were gay. Anyone that claims otherwise is a fool, and a liar. There have always been **** people in the military, and they have always showered with their straight counterparts. Whether they serve openly or not is irrelevant. Almost nobody in the military is going to come out as **** and shock people, everyone around them is going to respond with "Yup, I figured he/she was queer".

The point is moot. STFU and move on.


You're ignorant. You're just making up crap. Please silence yourself.


Wrong again fUcknuts. I spent most of my time in the Navy living in a room about the size of a school bus with 18 other guys. You really can't get any closer living arrangements. Everyone knew (or suspected with a high degree of accuracy) who was **** and who was not.

Again, the point is moot. Straights and gays have been showering together in the military since the invention of the shower. And Varus's arguments look thoughtful and well planned compared to your disjointed gibberish. Please, shut the fUck up and go away.
#381 Dec 30 2010 at 6:07 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
It's hardly indicative of great insight to know whether someone in the navy is **** or not.

Hint: they are.

Edited, Dec 30th 2010 12:09pm by Kavekk
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#382 Dec 30 2010 at 6:26 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Backpedaling and twisting the subject.


Sure, sparky. Whatever. Live in your delusional world.


How is posting my original post backpedaling and twisting the subject? Just admit that you were wrong. You confused my argument with a fictional one that you made up. Why don't you read Kachi's response quoted below. That is the real reason why men and women are separated, not that trash that you made up. So at this point, you can accept the truth (what Kachi posted below) or stay in denial. You know and everyone knows that this separation is psychological.

Kachi, The Person With the Right Answer wrote:
Men and women are kept separate for several reasons, mainly sociological, cultural reasons stemming from childhood. Whether or not they're good ones is up for debate.

1) Body shame. As children, we are taught that certain parts of our bodies are only for us (our "privates"). Part of this is to protect us from predators, and part of it is simply part of the Puritan background of not showing skin. Children will gladly go about naked and exposing themselves if not taught to do otherwise, usually through scolding. As a result, most of us grow up with a deeply ingrained sense that we should not expose ourselves to others, especially those of the opposite sex. However, children typically are taught that it is ok for their same-sex immediate family (other trusted individuals) to see them.

2) Sexuality innocence. As children grow, we generally try to suppress their knowledge of sexuality until later adolescence (aside from discouraging it). We continue to segregate them by **** so that they have less exposure to sexual temptation and knowledge.

3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape. Sexual urges increase, and the substantial weight and strength advantage that males typically have over women increases the risk considerably. Women are also likely to feel afraid of men in such situations (considering they are afraid of them in many safer situations, like simply walking in a public place). While there may be similar urges by placing like sexes together, the lower prevalence of homosexuality alongside the more similar physiques makes it far less of a problem.

So even among the reasons that do relate to comfort, they are predominantly a matter of comfort with respect to gender rather than sexuality for adults. Of course MEN are typically less comfortable with the idea of showering with a **** man than a woman. That has nothing to do with the social reasons with which we originally began (and continue) segregating men and women (primarily for female protection, puritanism, and to reduce adolescent sex).



QFT.. That is right.. of course with you saying that, it will be treated differently than me saying it. That's all I'm saying is to acknowledge the fact that this is all about comfort, but when men use "comfort" against **** men, it is negatively labeled.

Death wrote:
Wrong again @#%^nuts. I spent most of my time in the Navy living in a room about the size of a school bus with 18 other guys. You really can't get any closer living arrangements. Everyone knew (or suspected with a high degree of accuracy) who was **** and who was not.

Again, the point is moot. Straights and gays have been showering together in the military since the invention of the shower. And Varus's arguments look thoughtful and well planned compared to your disjointed gibberish. Please, shut the @#%^ up and go away.


Let me break this down for you. I'm not denying the living conditions of the military. My dad was in the Navy, I've been on Tiger cruises and seen the living conditions. What I'm calling you out on is the belief that every military person showered with a homosexual. You simply don't know that, because you're just making that up. In the handful of times that I actually did participate in an open shower, there is a much higher percentage that I have not as opposed to I have showered with a homosexual. Have I ever? I don't know, maybe maybe not. But with 5-10 group showers in my life, you can't say with confidence that I have.

There's a reason why other servicemen label the Navy as "gay". You can't compare your time in the Navy with other services on living conditions, because they are completely different.

So, as I said earlier, please silence yourself. You sound real ignorant.


Edit: Quoted for relevance:

"It's hardly indicative of great insight to know whether someone in the navy is **** or not.

Hint: they are. " - Kavekk


Edited, Dec 30th 2010 2:27pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#383 Dec 30 2010 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
what have i done
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#384 Dec 30 2010 at 8:55 AM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
How is posting my original post backpedaling and twisting the subject?


You're using privacy as a reason for why DADT shouldn't be repealed. Now that you realize how assinine that sounds, you've decided to change your tune and pretend you were just trying to stick up for the men who are afraid to shower in a communal space with someone who might be homosexual.

That's called backpedalling. And you trying to pretend that's what you were on about from the very begining is called twisting the subject.

I understand why you need it spelled out for you. It's difficult to be confronted with your delusions. Smiley: frown

And while I don't disagree with Kachi, and have said some of the same things myself, you're both idiots if you think those are the only reasons that exist for why men and women are seperated in communal naked places. There are a myriad of reasons, and sure, comfort is one of them. Some comforts are understandable and should be accomodated. Some should not be tolerated.

If it makes a platoon in the army more comfortable to shower with underage girls, should we then change the rules for them?
#385 Dec 30 2010 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,674 posts
Quote:

3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#386 Dec 30 2010 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,199 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


I always though women had developed a natural defense to this situation by comparing the men's **** sizes in front of them. It would either disable a man by making him turn away in shame, or have them start taunting each other which would shift focus away from the women allowing them to escape.
____________________________
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
#387 Dec 30 2010 at 10:09 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


I always though women had developed a natural defense to this situation by comparing the men's **** sizes in front of them. It would either disable a man by making him turn away in shame, or have them start taunting each other which would shift focus away from the women allowing them to escape.


what were you thinking when you made this post

what were you thinking
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#389 Dec 30 2010 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,199 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


I always though women had developed a natural defense to this situation by comparing the men's **** sizes in front of them. It would either disable a man by making him turn away in shame, or have them start taunting each other which would shift focus away from the women allowing them to escape.


what were you thinking when you made this post

what were you thinking


I don't know. Let me ask NyQuil, he'll be able to figure it out.
____________________________
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
#390 Dec 30 2010 at 5:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
How is posting my original post backpedaling and twisting the subject?


You're using privacy as a reason for why DADT shouldn't be repealed. Now that you realize how assinine that sounds, you've decided to change your tune and pretend you were just trying to stick up for the men who are afraid to shower in a communal space with someone who might be homosexual.

That's called backpedalling. And you trying to pretend that's what you were on about from the very begining is called twisting the subject.



WTFRU talking about? WTF do you think me and Sir X was arguing about for pages now? You just haven't been paying attention and now you realized that you were confused and instead of admitting that you were confused yourself, you're claiming that I changed propositions...

Let me spell this out for you... This is my first post....again..

Almalieque The Wonderful wrote:
"o.O Source? From my experiences, that has been the least of anyone's concerns. Sounds like you're making stuff up.

According to the big brass who agreed to the repeal on certain circumstances stated a whole other argument. Coincidentally, the same one I later used... "


The bold was in reference to the nonsense the OP stated that this was all about bigotry. I countered to ask for sources because that hasn't been the case from my experiences.

Then I said the following:

Almalieque The Best wrote:
"The military living conditions are often tight and close, causing people to live with each other and shower together. Allowing open homosexuals to live with heterosexuals causes the same privacy issues as allowing men and women to live, sleep and shower together. So, the conclusion would be to either have separate billeting or have everyone live, sleep and shower together, regardless of **** or sexuality. This is why they agreed to the repeal, just at a later date.
"

This was me explaining that the privacy argument is being used, the same privacy issues between men and women, not bigotry remarks that the OP said, i.e "The whole argument stems from the idea of the **** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war,".

From there, me and Sir X talked back and forth on what exactly are these "same reasons" between men and women vs straight and homosexual men.. See below...

"[Sir X]You bring up the privacy issue, but why would there be a privacy issue with **** men that wouldn't be there with straight men? What is the issue of privacy?
"

From this point, Sir X was claiming that the reasons why women don't want to be in close quarters with men are different thanwhy straight men don't want to be in close quarters with **** men. I countered to say that they are the same thing except one is upheld and the other isn't, creating a double standard.

See below:

Almalieque The epitome of all that is masculine wrote:
Sir X wrote:

What is the privacy issue that exists for a **** man that doesn't exist for a straight man? If you want to say it's the same as with a woman, explain the connection please.



I made the connection by telling you it's the same as with women. If you want a better explanation, why don't you ask a woman who doesn't approve with showering with random men why she feels that way. I have no problem with that idea. Throw everybody together in the shower, I don't care...


This is where you came in...

Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

No, I'm telling you it's a privacy issue and you want more detail than I can give. So, instead of me making stuff up, something that you all are so very use to doing, I'm telling you to ask a female. This is because the best response I can give is "it's the same privacy issue with women and men".



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

Alrighty then..


This is where you started off being confused. I was never arguing that it shouldn't be repealed, but there are legitimate reasons for not repealing it other than bigotry listed by the OP, i.e. "The whole argument stems from the idea of the **** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war,".

You created an argument that never existed and begun arguing it. I even told you at this point that I was just trying to get Sir X to acknowledge the similarity in scenarios..

Almalieque The Man that words just can't quite describe wrote:
This has been nothing but a game the entire time with Sir X.

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


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

I responded yet another time in order to correct you .

I said the following:
Almalieque, The one who is right 97% of the time wrote:
Once again, I merely corrected the false assumption that everyone who is against the repeal is because of prejudice. I only used the privacy issue because that's what the generals and big politicians are stating in their defense. The entire point is that while some people are just bigots, that isn't true for everyone. The privacy issue is a legitimate point. You all just refuse to accept that because that's how society is making homosexual gains, by calling everyon bigots and homophobes if they disagree.


I can keep going on and on and on, but it is evident that my entire point has been that there are legitimate reasons for not wanting to repeal DADT with privacy being an example.

You responded to the privacy issue by saying "It's not an issue, though. There are homosexuals in the military right this second. You probably showered with one when you last took a communal shower. All the yammering about privacy is just a way to stall and keep people from getting rid of an archaic and stupid rule."

So, I asked if you had a problem with open showers with men since "it isn't an issue"? This was me making the connection that the reasons for why heterosexual men don't want to take showers with homosexual men are the same reasons why women don't want to shower with men. These reasons are legitimate reasons that are not based on bigotry as the OP stated, i.e. "The whole argument stems from the idea of the **** as a sissy who can't be trusted in war,".

You responded that you would have a problem with men, but not women. So, I asked, if it weren't a privacy issue, then why do you care if it's a man or a woman next to you? You responded to say that because men and women have different body parts. So, I asked you where does this physical discrimination stop? You replied in places where you aren't naked. That response proves that it has nothing to do with the fact that your coworker has a penis, but the fact that you don't feel comfortable seeing it or him seeing you. Else, it wouldn't matter if you were naked or clothed, because in both scenarios, your coworker still has a penis.


So in conclusion, I've been on topic the entire time. You have been the confused one debating a fictional argument. When you said "Noooooo. That's not true. Not at all. You have said many, many times, "I have my own, personal reasons for not wanting DADT repealed, but the general brought up a good point that I hadn't thought about: Privacy issues. That's a very good point!", it became obvious that you combined 3 different arguments and confused yourself.

TL:DR: You're wrong.

Belkira wrote:
And while I don't disagree with Kachi, and have said some of the same things myself, you're both idiots if you think those are the only reasons that exist for why men and women are seperated in communal naked places. There are a myriad of reasons, and sure, comfort is one of them. Some comforts are understandable and should be accomodated. Some should not be tolerated.


As long as you admit that you're wrong about anatomy being the primary reason for the segregation as opposed to comfort.

Belkira wrote:
If it makes a platoon in the army more comfortable to shower with underage girls, should we then change the rules for them?


Nope. As I said, a double standard isn't necessarily good or bad. I'm just wanting you to accept the fact that it's there and stop pretending that it's somehow different.

Just as you complain about people throwing in children, objects and animals in SSM arguments, there's no reason why two grown adults can't shower together other than comfort.

I'm glad that you finally agree.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#391 Dec 30 2010 at 7:08 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
Now than I can shower with other men while screaming "I'M GAY!!", I plan on joining the military. It just wasn't the same without the yelling and obvious pixie dust wafting off my skin.
____________________________
Mazra wrote:
When you cast Moonfire on someone, it's not some Druid base on the moon launching a precision deathbeam across space to strike people
#392 Dec 30 2010 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
CBD wrote:
Now than I can shower with other men while screaming "I'M GAY!!", I plan on joining the military. It just wasn't the same without the yelling and obvious pixie dust wafting off my skin.


I've been wondering where you were in this thread.
#393 Dec 30 2010 at 9:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:

3) Rape. Gee, no surprise that if you throw naked women in front of naked men, there might be some extra rape.
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


To be fair in playing Devil's Advocate, theoretically, no it wouldn't, but in practice, maybe. I wouldn't go so far to say "rape", but I wouldn't doubt an increase in sexual harassment. This goes back to my point. It's typically acceptable for a woman to express such concern of being harassed or assaulted, but not men, when in both scenarios, the "attacker" is a man.

Again, not saying double standards are inherently bad or good, but they exist. I would argue that women are more likely to come forward about a sexual harassment or sexual assault than men. I would go further to say that a male's pride is probably the biggest reason for him not to come forward in fear of being ridiculed or seen less of a man, while a woman is probably fear of further harassment.

There was a male Soldier in my last unit who was sexually assaulted by a **** man and they were definitely feelings of embarrassment floating.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#394 Dec 30 2010 at 10:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
It's typically acceptable for a woman to express such concern of being harassed or assaulted, but not men, when in both scenarios, the "attacker" is a man.

Again, not saying double standards are inherently bad or good, but they exist.

Unless it's statistically more likely to a significant degree that women would be harassed by men than men by men or women by women. In which case it makes complete sense to make arrangements accounting for the majority cases and leave the minority cases to be handled in some other fashion as they arise.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#396 Dec 31 2010 at 12:28 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
That's all I'm saying is to acknowledge the fact that this is all about comfort, but when men use "comfort" against **** men, it is negatively labeled.


As it probably should be. Comfort is only ONE of the reasons for segregation in the first place, and in those cases, it is because men are able to easily overpower women-- women who are legitimately afraid to be around men in a vulnerable state. Men are typically comfortable in this situation BECAUSE they have nothing to worry about from women. And men and women are not really afraid of sharing facilities with the same sex-- just uncomfortable. There's a substantial difference between a shyness/modesty/homophobia and fear. Plenty of males and females are uncomfortable changing or showering around the same sex-- that doesn't mean they're afraid of them.

Quote:
you're both idiots if you think those are the only reasons that exist for why men and women are seperated in communal naked places.


Those were the only major ones I could think of. If you know of others, please share.

Quote:
I don't think unisex bathrooms or even group sleeping quarters would cause more (extra) rape.


It probably would, but not significantly, no. However, shared locker rooms and showers-- places where people are undressing-- are the primary places for elevated risk, and surprise surprise, these are the places that opponents of gays in the military are most concerned with.

If there was any doubt from my earlier post, I strongly support the repeal. Restricting the freedom to perform a job one is perfectly capable of doing based on what is at best a weak case for an inconvenience just doesn't jive with me in the least. I thought I made that clear enough otherwise.
____________________________
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.
#397 Dec 31 2010 at 7:08 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LAST
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#398 Dec 31 2010 at 7:40 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
It's typically acceptable for a woman to express such concern of being harassed or assaulted, but not men, when in both scenarios, the "attacker" is a man.

Again, not saying double standards are inherently bad or good, but they exist.

Unless it's statistically more likely to a significant degree that women would be harassed by men than men by men or women by women. In which case it makes complete sense to make arrangements accounting for the majority cases and leave the minority cases to be handled in some other fashion as they arise.


I'm not denying that. That's why I say double standards aren't inherently bad or good. It's only logical to make the separation as it is currently done, but at the same time, people shouldn't act like the men's concern is somehow different than women's concern in reference to comfort.


oh, as for the downplaying of the survey, I kept forgetting to reply. I can't prove that you were just "making fun of me" and not downplaying the survey, but it very well seems that you were doing both by mentioning the local gas station suggestion box. By mentioning that, it appeared as if you were making a comparison of the two. I'll leave it at that.


Kachi wrote:
As it probably should be. Comfort is only ONE of the reasons for segregation in the first place, and in those cases, it is because men are able to easily overpower women-- women who are legitimately afraid to be around men in a vulnerable state.


Correction, Comfort is the MAIN reason for the segregation. The women's concern is just as legitimate as the men's concern, because they are the same thing. How is the man not in any less vulnerable state? Haven't heard "Don't drop the soap" before?

As pointed out, the person next to you does not affect you washing yourself in any way, shape or form. You are simply afraid, prejudging that a man might do something or just not comfortable with the idea of sharing a shower. It's one or the other and people label it as "legitimate" for women and "homophobia" for men.

Kachi wrote:
Plenty of males and females are uncomfortable changing or showering around the same sex-- that doesn't mean they're afraid of them.


This is my point exactly. They are people expressing otherwise. Some people may just feel uncomfortable changing around homosexuals, but they aren't afraid of them.

Kachi wrote:
It probably would, but not significantly, no. However, shared locker rooms and showers-- places where people are undressing-- are the primary places for elevated risk, and surprise surprise,


From my "research" and years of propaganda reception, rape more commonly occurs with someone you know in a private area. If you were alone in a public shower, I can see an increase in rape, but I would argue a higher result of sexual harassment than assault.

Kachi wrote:
these are the places that opponents of gays in the military are most concerned with.

Concerned, yes, but not because of an increase of assault or harassment, just out of comfort. If a **** person wasn't doing those things before, s/he probably isn't going to start doing them being open.

In any case, that was my point to the OP, these concerns aren't based on bigotry, just comfort.

Kachi wrote:
If there was any doubt from my earlier post, I strongly support the repeal. Restricting the freedom to perform a job one is perfectly capable of doing based on what is at best a weak case for an inconvenience just doesn't jive with me in the least. I thought I made that clear enough otherwise.

You say weak, yet all of society (practically world wide) segregates men and women on the same inconvenience.

This is all politics. Women are still restricted from performing certain jobs and there is no outcry, because no one cares beyond women being able to serve.

I wouldn't be surprised if they treat the homosexuals just as they do women, not authorized to be in certain combat arms and special teams since they are the ones that express the greatest discomfort. LOL that would be funny because society would fight that and then the women would be upset because they haven't been able to join those organization for a much longer time.



____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#399 Dec 31 2010 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,282 posts
In Alma's world, all **** men have no restraint and will go at any other male no matter his orientation or where they are. Or if they're even attracted to said "vulnerable male".
#400 Dec 31 2010 at 8:24 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,943 posts
Nadenu wrote:
In Alma's world, all **** men have no restraint and will go at any other male no matter his orientation or where they are. Or if they're even attracted to said "vulnerable male".


No, in my world, homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men in reference to sexual desires.


Why do you insist that there's more to it other than what it really is?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#401 Dec 31 2010 at 8:49 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
LAST
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Poldaran, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (35)