To answer you legitimate question, you are correct. That's why I support, single showers/rooms or put everyone together. I don't support giving certain people "privileges" because they don't feel comfortable, but telling everyone else to suck it up.
Well, the first option is clearly never going to happen. I pay 24k a year to go to school, and I don't get a private bathroom. The military clearly isn't going to pay for it.
So the only other option, in your mind, is for everyone to shower together. But what does that help? At all? You were arguing that DADT shouldn't be repealed because it would violate soldier privacy. How is ensuring that everyone is as maximally uncomfortable as possible a solution?
Furthermore, you are laboring under the assumption that the only reason people are uncomfortable changing with the opposite *** is because of sexual attraction. That's absolutely untrue. I'd be just as uncomfortable changing in front of a ******* as a straight woman. And that's because I was raised with modesty.
I told you that I stopped reading your posts because you didn't know what you were talking about and really because they are way too long with no breaks.
I'm sorry I hurt your brain.
Really? I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing that out. This is why I was ignoring you, you're clueless. I think you're too emotionally attached to the subject to think clearly. Else, you would have known that the point wasn't that it was "obvious", but Sir X doesn't want to state any difference, because he can't. If I state the "similarities" first, he'll just use my argument as the basis as his argument while dropping the issue all together.
Please re-read what you have written in this thread. "It's obvious" is literally
the only defense you have ever given. And we have ALL stated differences, to which you replied that this was "obviously" untrue. Maybe you can try making a rational argument for once?
You're an idiot. Even though I stated the exact opposite, stating that homosexual men are different than heterosexual men is counterproductive. Claiming that they are nothing but horndogs that only want *** like many heterosexual guys are labeled as is a much more supportive argument.
I'm sorry, I must have confused your point. I know it's easy to do when I quote what you said, specifically, when you apparently ACTUALLY said the opposite. I guess my eyes just totally fabricated a sentence where you claim that *** men will act completely differently from straight men when doing so isn't punishable.
Alm, you're fu
cking retarded. You haven't once, in four pages, made an argument that amounts to more than "because I said so." And whenever someones makes so decisive an objection that you can't dismiss it, you turn around and attack the poster, rather than the argument. Maybe you weren't aware, but that's a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem objection.
Here's something that should be fun! Here's a list of the 20 most common logical fallacies
. Let's see how many you have used. We mentioned one already.
Well you've made an argument from authority, referencing "top officials" that agree with you. Because, you know, if THEY said it, it must be true! (I'd also note that you've never linked any PROOF that your line of thought even has significant following).
Oh, next on that list--Argument from final Consequence. This is basically where you take an end result and argue the cause, without having a logical proof to support it. You know, like referencing how males and females don't want to shower together and extrapolating that it is caused by their mutual sexual attraction.
HA, the next--Argument from personal Incredulity. That boils down to "I don't get what you are saying, so you must be wrong." You've done this every single time you've responded to xsarus and locke, among others.
Next, confusing association with causation. You may actually be free from this one--I can't remember a specific instance where you did it. Good job!
Non-sequitars are clear--you haven't made a single valid argument that I've seen (and I'm not even talking about a SOUND one).
Reductio ad absurbum-- this is when you take two claims and try to stretch them as thinly as possible so that they are only true in the most obviously false definitions.
Ha, ad hoc arguments, you've offered little else.
But my FAVORITE On the list is this one:
Unstated Major Premise
This fallacy occurs when one makes an argument which assumes a premise which is not explicitly stated. For example, arguing that we should label food products with their cholesterol content because Americans have high cholesterol assumes that: 1) cholesterol in food causes high serum cholesterol; 2) labeling will reduce consumption of cholesterol; and 3) that having a high serum cholesterol is unhealthy. This fallacy is also sometimes called begging the question.