Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#402 Dec 31 2010 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm not denying that. That's why I say double standards aren't inherently bad or good.

If you thought this was true, you wouldn't keep trying to use some emotionally laden phrase as a bludgeon for your arguments.

Quote:
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.

They are different. For one thing, they're considerably less significant from a statistical point of view.

Quote:
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

You're right you can't because that's exactly what was happening. But feel free to make up your own reality in your head to justify your ******** if it makes you feel better.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#403 Dec 31 2010 at 9:39 AM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
No, in my world, homosexual men are no different than heterosexual men in reference to sexual desires.


This just made me realize your problem:

Either you got diddled as a child, in which case your fear is based upon a misconception, but that misconception is at least understandable.

Or you know zero *** people. So all of this shit you're spewing is based upon some sort of hypothetical nightmare that is only in your head.

____________________________
"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


#404 Dec 31 2010 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#405 Dec 31 2010 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Kachi wrote:
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.


I have offered two other reasons, though one is sort of related to your "rape" reason. (1)The anatomy difference, which seems to make Alma's eyes roll and foam to flick from his lips, and (2) mitigating the risk of actual or accused sexual assault. I was really thinking more along the lines of "accused." Like I said before, when a woman goes to a male doctor and is expected to remove any clothing, a female nurse is brought into the room. I speculate that's more for the doctor's protection than for the woman's. She can't sue him for sexual harassment, because there's a witness in the room. But when I go to my female doctors, that's simply not an issue.
#406 Dec 31 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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?


Because all the men I know, straight or ***, have restraint.

It's been YEARS since some guy dry humped me in an elevator.

dammit
#407 Dec 31 2010 at 2:03 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jo wrote:
If you thought this was true, you wouldn't keep trying to use some emotionally laden phrase as a bludgeon for your arguments.


False: My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots. To show that, I demonstrated that there is a double standard where women who have the same concerns aren't considered bigots. That has nothing to do with me thinking double standards are good or bad. So, no, you're wrong.

Jo wrote:
They are different. For one thing, they're considerably less significant from a statistical point of view.


They are the exact same concerns, just one scenario is statistically lower than the other. The possibility of it occurring doesn't change the fact that they have the same concerns.

Jo wrote:
You're right you can't because that's exactly what was happening. But feel free to make up your own reality in your head to justify your ******** if it makes you feel better.


Whatever man....

Omega wrote:
This just made me realize your problem:

Either you got diddled as a child, in which case your fear is based upon a misconception, but that misconception is at least understandable.

Or you know zero *** people. So all of this **** you're spewing is based upon some sort of hypothetical nightmare that is only in your head.


Orrrrr.. I'm a man, who know other men, heterosexual and homosexual, of all ages and realize that biggest difference is only what we considered attractive.

My "problem" is that I live reality. I don't live in this fantasy world where people are only attracted to certain people who have their same sexuality. Yea, because we all know that men don't like seeing lesbians making out... of course not.... Get real..

Belkira wrote:
I have offered two other reasons, though one is sort of related to your "rape" reason. (1)The anatomy difference, which seems to make Alma's eyes roll and foam to flick from his lips, and (2) mitigating the risk of actual or accused sexual assault. I was really thinking more along the lines of "accused." Like I said before, when a woman goes to a male doctor and is expected to remove any clothing, a female nurse is brought into the room. I speculate that's more for the doctor's protection than for the woman's. She can't sue him for sexual harassment, because there's a witness in the room. But when I go to my female doctors, that's simply not an issue.


1) That's because that's just nonsense that you made up. If it were about the "anatomy", you would feel the same way clothed as well. Your breast don't go away when you're in the office. You know it's because of comfort, you just don't want to admit it. If you aren't consistent in the segregation, then it is evident there is more to it.

2) So, basically comfort, because in a unisex shower, there would also be witnesses, plenty of them. Matter of fact, you would statistically have more witnesses.

Nadenu wrote:
Because all the men I know, straight or ***, have restraint.

It's been YEARS since some guy dry humped me in an elevator.


Exactly, didn't say that they didn't have restraint. That's why I said that there is no reason why men and women aren't integrated in the showers other than comfort. That's my whole point, thank you for agreeing with me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#408 Dec 31 2010 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
False: My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots. To show that, I demonstrated that there is a double standard where women who have the same concerns aren't considered bigots. That has nothing to do with me thinking double standards are good or bad. So, no, you're wrong.

Well, I guess you'd know what you were thinking.

Quote:
Whatever man....

Man, what a double standard. :(
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#409 Dec 31 2010 at 2:40 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Almalieque wrote:


Nadenu wrote:
Because all the men I know, straight or ***, have restraint.

It's been YEARS since some guy dry humped me in an elevator.


Exactly, didn't say that they didn't have restraint. That's why I said that there is no reason why men and women aren't integrated in the showers other than comfort. That's my whole point, thank you for agreeing with me.


You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.
#410 Dec 31 2010 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Nadenu wrote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#411 Dec 31 2010 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Alma, just get over it.
DADT changes only 1 thing and that's that *** people in the military don't have to hide the fact that they're *** anymore. It's not a big deal, nothing really changes.

If people are uncomfortable with it they're uncomfortable with it now too or just delusional.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#412 Dec 31 2010 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Alma, just get over it.
DADT changes only 1 thing and that's that *** people in the military don't have to hide the fact that they're *** anymore. It's not a big deal, nothing really changes.

If people are uncomfortable with it they're uncomfortable with it now too or just delusional.


Almalieque for the Umpteenth time wrote:
My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#413 Dec 31 2010 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
****
5,684 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#414 Dec 31 2010 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,512 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
CBD wrote:
Now than I can shower with other men while screaming "I'M ***!!", 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.


I got lost in a pile of clothing at work. I think I'm back now.

What's weird about this thread is that Alma is sort of acknowledging that he has no real point. It almost makes me feel like I should just leave again.
____________________________
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
#415 Dec 31 2010 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,590 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Almalieque for the Umpteenth time wrote:
My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots.

Sure, you could also be ignorant to the facts or just be plain stupid. You get to pick one: stupid, ignorant, bigoted. I know you don't like to hear that, and will probably chalk it up to bias, but that really is how obvious this issue is.

It is going to be viewed as one of the big civil rights duhs of American history, alongside integration of women and blacks into the military, alongside women suffrage and the end of slavery. Should your potential children ever read this thread, they will probably be ashamed, and your potential grandchildren will definitely be. I'm not trying to put you down here, but I do want to emphasize how obvious this question will seem to future generations.

For those supporting homosexual rights, the situation is a forgone conclusion. This has never been a fight about whether gays will gain equal rights, but when they will. Everything achieved by social conservatives pertaining to gays' rights is only a stall.

Edited, Dec 31st 2010 6:12pm by Allegory
#416 Dec 31 2010 at 6:14 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
LAST
What Bard said.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#417 Dec 31 2010 at 6:15 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
CBD wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
CBD wrote:
Now than I can shower with other men while screaming "I'M ***!!", 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.


I got lost in a pile of clothing at work. I think I'm back now.

What's weird about this thread is that Alma is sort of acknowledging that he has no real point. It almost makes me feel like I should just leave again.


No, what I've acknowledged is that I'm not participating in these made up arguments that people are creating, only the nonsense that the OP mentioned (opponents think *** military servicemen are sissies who can't fight).

What you have noticed is that I was never debating the stuff that they were projecting. It's not that I don't have a point, but my point was something completely different than what has been argued.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#418 Dec 31 2010 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.


I don't think I said anything about women.

Numbnut.
#419 Dec 31 2010 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
hey alma you are at an even post count!.

Edited, Dec 31st 2010 8:43pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#420 Dec 31 2010 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I have offered two other reasons, though one is sort of related to your "rape" reason. (1)The anatomy difference, which seems to make Alma's eyes roll and foam to flick from his lips, and (2) mitigating the risk of actual or accused sexual assault. I was really thinking more along the lines of "accused." Like I said before, when a woman goes to a male doctor and is expected to remove any clothing, a female nurse is brought into the room. I speculate that's more for the doctor's protection than for the woman's. She can't sue him for sexual harassment, because there's a witness in the room. But when I go to my female doctors, that's simply not an issue.


I don't really think those add on the reasons I gave. Anatomical differences relate to those body shame and sexual innocence reasons I gave, and sexual innocence and rape relate to sexual assault accusations (when I said "rape" I was being hyperbolic-- I was referring to any kind of sexual assault/harassment). But yes, those are valid points.

Quote:
Correction, Comfort is the MAIN reason for the segregation.


Not really, at least not in the way you mean. The main reason for adult gender segregation is that it's a holdover from our upbringings. We grow up doing it, and we don't bother trying to change it, because that would involve a psychological rewiring that simply isn't practical versus any potential "benefits." Basically, we start doing it as kids and never really consider doing it any other way.

You could argue that "we're not comfortable with the idea of changing it," just like "we're not comfortable with changing with homosexuals," but that's tantamount to defending homophobia. We already change with homosexuals-- we probably all have at some point.

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


You either missed my point or you're just wrong. Women are still allowed to do those jobs, and my point was that gays should be allowed to as well. It's a minor inconvenience to allow women to serve if you provide separate facilities, but we let them serve. There's no stronger an argument for prohibiting gays from serving.

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


No, they're not. Women are not restricted from performing virtually any job in which they are physically capable of performing the essential tasks. If they are, they are only an easily-settled lawsuit away from being allowed.

Quote:
I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated.


They're not exactly the same though-- not even close. Men have a distinct physical (not to mention socially systemic) advantage against women. *** men do not have that same advantage against other men.
____________________________
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.
#421 Dec 31 2010 at 9:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.


I don't think I said anything about women.

Numbnut.


Yea, I know.. that was kind of the point, keep up.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#422 Dec 31 2010 at 9:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


I never said that either. I said that some men have legitimate comfort issues that are exactly the same as with men and women being integrated. If you think men will "have better things to do" than look at the women that they are attracted to in the shower, you are sadly mistaken.


I don't think I said anything about women.

Numbnut.


Yea, I know.. that was kind of the point, keep up.


Keep up with what? You haven't had a point since you started posting in this thread.

Junior.
#423 Dec 31 2010 at 9:34 PM Rating: Excellent
I don't buy into the comfort argument. When has comfort been a concern for the military? They're repeatedly sent thousands of miles away from home to live in heavily cramped quarters. They're put in places where people are trying to shoot and bomb them. They are trained to shoot and bomb people in return. This is okay, but the potential of a homosexual checking out their junk when they shower is just too uncomfortable? Please.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#424 Dec 31 2010 at 10:17 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Kachi wrote:
Not really, at least not in the way you mean. The main reason for adult gender segregation is that it's a holdover from our upbringings. We grow up doing it, and we don't bother trying to change it, because that would involve a psychological rewiring that simply isn't practical versus any potential "benefits." Basically, we start doing it as kids and never really consider doing it any other way.


This has nothing to do with upbringing. As other posters stated, we are taught that our private parts should be kept private, that includes both men and women, heterosexual or homosexual. So, in our first open shower experience, we have to rewire our psychological thinking. So there is no difference.

Kachi wrote:
You could argue that "we're not comfortable with the idea of changing it," just like "we're not comfortable with changing with homosexuals," but that's tantamount to defending homophobia. We already change with homosexuals-- we probably all have at some point.


That's the thing, it isn't homophobia, that's just BS that proponents say to scare people into their views. If men are homophobes for not feeling comfortable of changing in front of homosexuals, then those women are heterophobes for not feeling comfortable for changing in front of men. The thought of the two are equally stupid, yet you only want to recognize one.

Kachi wrote:
You either missed my point or you're just wrong. Women are still allowed to do those jobs, and my point was that gays should be allowed to as well. It's a minor inconvenience to allow women to serve if you provide separate facilities, but we let them serve. There's no stronger an argument for prohibiting gays from serving.


I was referencing to showers, bathrooms, locker rooms, etc. You say that it is a "weak" argument, yet the same segregation occurs for the same exact reason practically world wide.

Kachi wrote:
No, they're not. Women are not restricted from performing virtually any job in which they are physically capable of performing the essential tasks. If they are, they are only an easily-settled lawsuit away from being allowed.


I'm sorry, I'm talking about the U.S military, which military are you referring to? Anybody in the U.S military can tell you that women do not have the same opportunities as men.

Kachi wrote:
They're not exactly the same though-- not even close. Men have a distinct physical (not to mention socially systemic) advantage against women. *** men do not have that same advantage against other men.


You are making the assumption that an assault has already occurred, which is the prejudice I'm referring to. You are making the assumption that a heterosexual man is unable to shower next to a woman without control. If not, then what's the problem?

As for the advantages of the men, you don't know the physical advantage unless you actually seen the two men. That's like saying a man can't fight a man because they're physically equal. That's stupid. Once again, there was a male soldier in my last unit sexually assaulted by a *** man. It all depends on the size of the two people. It's possible for a woman to overpower a man as well. It's just the likelihood of that is not as high. It's all about the size of the people, not the *** or sexuality of the people.

Allegory wrote:
Sure, you could also be ignorant to the facts or just be plain stupid. You get to pick one: stupid, ignorant, bigoted. I know you don't like to hear that, and will probably chalk it up to bias, but that really is how obvious this issue is.

It is going to be viewed as one of the big civil rights duhs of American history, alongside integration of women and blacks into the military, alongside women suffrage and the end of slavery. Should your potential children ever read this thread, they will probably be ashamed, and your potential grandchildren will definitely be. I'm not trying to put you down here, but I do want to emphasize how obvious this question will seem to future generations.

For those supporting homosexual rights, the situation is a forgone conclusion. This has never been a fight about whether gays will gain equal rights, but when they will. Everything achieved by social conservatives pertaining to gays' rights is only a stall.


Only stupid, ignorant or bigoted people believe discrimination based on a psychological trait is the same as physical trait, so you choose. I seriously can't believe the amount of denial on this thread. The main reason why women don't want to share showers with men is that they are AFRAID of getting raped, sexually assaulted, sexually harassed and or don't want men looking at their goods. I guarantee you those are in the top 3 reasons of a woman not wanting to shower with men, PERIOD. To pretend otherwise is just plain stupid.




Edited, Jan 1st 2011 6:18am by Almalieque

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 6:20am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#425 Dec 31 2010 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Keep up with what? You haven't had a point since you started posting in this thread. ever.

Junior.


Fixed.
#426 Dec 31 2010 at 10:42 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Keep up with what? You haven't had a point since you started posting in this thread.

Junior.


You mean this one?

Almalieque for the Umpteenth time +1 wrote:
My argument is that not everyone who is against open sexuality in the military are bigots.


Wow, that's crazy, that's even on this very same page.. Your failure to read isn't a failure on my part.

let me walk you through it, since you couldn't get it.

Do you believe heterosexual men would have "Better things to do" rather than checking out the women that they are attracted to in a shower?

Belkira wrote:
Fixed.


Awwww. you're still ****-hurt for looking like a fool by trying to convince me that I was changing points. You must have felt pretty silly when I can quote where I've TOLD you my very point multiple times through out the thread. This is the very same point you said that I was "changing" to... it's ok.. You can admit that you were wrong, it's ok.

Punk Floyd wrote:
I don't buy into the comfort argument. When has comfort been a concern for the military? They're repeatedly sent thousands of miles away from home to live in heavily cramped quarters. They're put in places where people are trying to shoot and bomb them. They are trained to shoot and bomb people in return. This is okay, but the potential of a homosexual checking out their junk when they shower is just too uncomfortable? Please.


From the moment they decided to separate women and men, they took comfort into consideration.

You would be surprised. I thought you were once in the military? The military is very political when it comes to certain things. The higher you get up the chain, the less stuff you can do and more things you can't do. When my dad was in the Navy, they had to undergo training prior to being integrated with women on the ship. If they didn't care about "comfort", there wouldn't have been any training.

Every time there is a change of command, there is supposed to be a climate survey to see how the unit feels about things being conducted. Not only that, the DoD sent us surveys on how we would feel if DADT was removed and that was used in the basis of their argument.

Also, people joined to go thousands of miles away to live in a heavily cramped quarters to shoot and kill people. That's why many have joined. So, women join the military to be thousands of miles away, living in a heavily cramped quarters to shoot and kill people and the potential of men checking out their breast, thighs and behinds is just too uncomfortable? Wake up call: Those women didn't join to be a piece of eye candy for men to drool over. They joined to accomplish a mission in the military.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#427 Dec 31 2010 at 10:54 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,254 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Wake up call: Those women didn't join to be a piece of eye candy for men to drool over. They joined to accomplish a mission in the military.


Not my aunt. She joined just to be a piece of eye candy for the men to drool over and bang. She's currently trying to get sent overseas, after her newest kid just turned one year old (the father is her married officer). Two kids, two different dads, no marriage. She wants to go overseas so she doesn't have to be around her kids anymore and can be around, instead, 1000s of men.

(Just thought I'd tell the forums that my aunt is a *****).
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#428 Dec 31 2010 at 11:03 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Wake up call: Those women didn't join to be a piece of eye candy for men to drool over. They joined to accomplish a mission in the military.


Not my aunt. She joined just to be a piece of eye candy for the men to drool over and bang. She's currently trying to get sent overseas, after her newest kid just turned one year old (the father is her married officer). Two kids, two different dads, no marriage. She wants to go overseas so she doesn't have to be around her kids anymore and can be around, instead, 1000s of men.

(Just thought I'd tell the forums that my aunt is a *****).


Correction: I did over generalize... Women shouldn't inherently be treated as eye candy..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#429 Jan 01 2011 at 12:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
and *** men shouldn't be inherently considered as *** crazed maniacs. Look your comparisons are stupid. The only thing that matters that you still have not answered in a way that makes you sound like a Bigot, a Homophobe, or whatever cute little label you want to put on being a general douche is:

Gays currently serve in the military, there is currently no issue with them being in the military. The only reason you could have an issue is with them being allowed to come out and say they are ***. So Are you against open gays in the military, or not. That is the only question that matters because it is the only thing that has changed.

Either you are cool with them being there. Or you aren't its a simple Yes, or No.


If you are against them being open, you are a bigot, if you are not, then why is there 9 pages of drivel about it.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 1:15am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#430 Jan 01 2011 at 2:38 AM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
It is going to be viewed as one of the big civil rights duhs of American history, alongside integration of women and blacks into the military, alongside women suffrage and the end of slavery. Should your potential children ever read this thread, they will probably be ashamed, and your potential grandchildren will definitely be. I'm not trying to put you down here, but I do want to emphasize how obvious this question will seem to future generations.


I don't think we should be too keen to take progress for granted, here.

Quote:
You're right. You never brought up restraint. I did. You keep harping on how straight men will feel funny if teh gheys are looking at their junk.

Teh gheys have better things to do, trust me.


In the shower?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#431 Jan 01 2011 at 3:04 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
This has nothing to do with upbringing. As other posters stated, we are taught that our private parts should be kept private, that includes both men and women, heterosexual or homosexual. So, in our first open shower experience, we have to rewire our psychological thinking. So there is no difference.


No, as I have already pointed out, we are also generally brought up taught that our same *** immediate family can see us nude, and then that the same *** can change in the same room. The latter of these is generally an awkward and uncomfortable moment that we learn to deal with, some of us better than others. So there is a difference. We are taught much earlier and much more strictly to keep our private parts private from the opposite ***.

Quote:
That's the thing, it isn't homophobia, that's just BS that proponents say to scare people into their views. If men are homophobes for not feeling comfortable of changing in front of homosexuals, then those women are heterophobes for not feeling comfortable for changing in front of men. The thought of the two are equally stupid, yet you only want to recognize one.


As I've already pointed out at least twice, in the case of women, their fear comes primarily from the distinct physical advantage that men have over them. This is a fact, supported by many studies. I have never seen a study demonstrating that men have any substantial fear of being overpowered and sexually assaulted by other men (outside of prison, which in many cases are not even about sexuality).

Quote:

I'm sorry, I'm talking about the U.S military, which military are you referring to? Anybody in the U.S military can tell you that women do not have the same opportunities as men.


Your statement was too general to assume that you were talking about the U.S. military, but please name a position that women are disqualified from where they are able to adequately perform the essential tasks.

Quote:
You are making the assumption that an assault has already occurred, which is the prejudice I'm referring to. You are making the assumption that a heterosexual man is unable to shower next to a woman without control. If not, then what's the problem?


I'm not?

Quote:
As for the advantages of the men, you don't know the physical advantage unless you actually seen the two men. That's like saying a man can't fight a man because they're physically equal. That's stupid. Once again, there was a male soldier in my last unit sexually assaulted by a *** man. It all depends on the size of the two people. It's possible for a woman to overpower a man as well. It's just the likelihood of that is not as high. It's all about the size of the people, not the *** or sexuality of the people.


That sort of completely misses the point. Particularly in the military, just as a matter of sheer human physiology, it's extremely rare for a woman to have a physical advantage on a male (being an average of 30 lbs. lighter and having far less upper body strength) and for there to actually be a risk for sexual assault in that case. If you figure sexual assault as an equation that factors both exposure between assailant and victim, and advantage of assailant and victim, the numbers would clearly show a tremendous increase in men and women grouped together versus men grouped together, even ***, and women grouped together, even ***. We pretty much already have those figures, considering that as others have pointed out, *** people are and have been there. The incidence: extremely low. The incidence in the former situation? You tell me.

Think I'm done with this, unless I get the sense that dignifying you with a response will actually get somewhere.
____________________________
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.
#432 Jan 01 2011 at 8:25 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
RDD wrote:
and *** men shouldn't be inherently considered as *** crazed maniacs. Look your comparisons are stupid.



/sigh, just because you fail at the comprehension of comparisons, doesn't mean that my comparison failed. The argument was being made that if a man is being viewed as eye candy, then he should just take it. I countered to say that a woman, who joined under the same scenario, shouldn't have to take it. So, why should a man?

You response doesn't even address the comparison.

In any case, I never said that they were *** crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a "special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it?

RDD wrote:
The only thing that matters that you still have not answered in a way that makes you sound like a Bigot, a Homophobe, or whatever cute little label you want to put on being a general douche is:


The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.

RDD wrote:

Gays currently serve in the military, there is currently no issue with them being in the military. The only reason you could have an issue is with them being allowed to come out and say they are ***. So Are you against open gays in the military, or not. That is the only question that matters because it is the only thing that has changed.

Either you are cool with them being there. Or you aren't its a simple Yes, or No.


If you are against them being open, you are a bigot, if you are not, then why is there 9 pages of drivel about it.


You my friend, are an idiot. I'm not against open homosexuals in the military (after revisions of the rules) I'm against open homosexuals in open showers or in close living quarters with people who feel the same discomfort as women do with men. I don't care about in the work place because their sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to perform their job. I've said this from the beginning. Why you are pretending that I haven't is evident that you haven't been paying attention. That's why there are 9 pages in this thread.

So that doesn't make me a bigot,homophobe or any other made up nonvalue word you use because I don't care if SGT so and so is ***, I just don't want to shower with him.

This is why I told Belkira that this isn't based on anatomy because if it were, then it would be the same way clothed or naked. It isn't consistent so it isn't about anatomy. Same way with me. If a person had a feeling with homosexuals clothed and naked, then there's a chance of homophobia. not saying that it is or isn't If you only have a problem in the showers, then it isn't consistent,just like the anatomy argument, and therefor it's less likely about homophobia more likely about comfort.

Kachi wrote:
No, as I have already pointed out, we are also generally brought up taught that our same *** immediate family can see us nude, and then that the same *** can change in the same room. The latter of these is generally an awkward and uncomfortable moment that we learn to deal with, some of us better than others. So there is a difference. We are taught much earlier and much more strictly to keep our private parts private from the opposite ***.


That's family, not strangers. We are taught that it's ok within the same *** of our family. Then that changes rather quickly as you grow up into preteens and teenagers when you get your own room and stop changing and bathing with your siblings. So, by the time you're old enough to realize what bodies are, you have become more private with your body. So when you're placed in an open environment to be naked in front of others, it is a major change, especially if you have never been exposed to that at an early age like in sports or something. People in general still feel less comfortable changing in front of strangers.

Kachi wrote:
As I've already pointed out at least twice, in the case of women, their fear comes primarily from the distinct physical advantage that men have over them. This is a fact, supported by many studies. I have never seen a study demonstrating that men have any substantial fear of being overpowered and sexually assaulted by other men (outside of prison, which in many cases are not even about sexuality).


As I've already pointed out at least twice that in the case of women, it's based off of prejudice because you're assuming that a man would attack you. What difference does it matter of the physical advantage if the person shows no sign of aggression? "Well he's so much bigger than me, so I'll know he'll just might try to rape me". That's like the special teams kicker being afraid to shower with the defensive line because they have a physical size advantage. That's stupid. If the lineman doesn't show any signs of aggression, then it doesn't matter how big he is.

Do you need a study to prove that no one wants to be raped? The definition of the word means against own's will. As with the jail, what difference does it make on the sexuality, if you're getting **** raped? How is it not about sexuality? A guy needs to get a nut off, he sees a man that he can overtake and wants and rapes him. Sounds like sexuality to me.

Kachi wrote:
Your statement was too general to assume that you were talking about the U.S. military, but please name a position that women are disqualified from where they are able to adequately perform the essential tasks.


Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.

Kachi wrote:

I'm not?


Read what I said earlier in this post. What difference does the size advantage matters if there is no malicious intent? You (or the woman) is making an assumption that something will happen when there is no evidence of anything happening. Prejudice.

Kachi wrote:
That sort of completely misses the point. Particularly in the military, just as a matter of sheer human physiology, it's extremely rare for a woman to have a physical advantage on a male (being an average of 30 lbs. lighter and having far less upper body strength) and for there to actually be a risk for sexual assault in that case. If you figure sexual assault as an equation that factors both exposure between assailant and victim, and advantage of assailant and victim, the numbers would clearly show a tremendous increase in men and women grouped together versus men grouped together, even ***, and women grouped together, even ***. We pretty much already have those figures, considering that as others have pointed out, *** people are and have been there. The incidence: extremely low. The incidence in the former situation? You tell me.

Think I'm done with this, unless I get the sense that dignifying you with a response will actually get somewhere.


Please quit then, because you aren't moving this anywhere forward.

I'm not denying statistics. What I'm telling you, statistics or not, there is nothing to say that the person next to you will do anything. The person psychologically creates a discomfort zone of "what if's". What you and others have done is accepted this type of behavior in one scenario and rejected it in another scenario.

We've gotten off track into only focusing on physical attacks, but what about the uncomfortable feeling of being "checked out" while naked? Size doesn't come into play there (well it does, but a different type of size bom-bom tish). Women express this as well. What's the justification for this?

The bottom line is that this "fear" that women have is self made not based on any evidence to prove one way or the other and we accept it. We accept it based on the psychological factor involved. The separation of men and women is logical based on that. My point is that you can't go around calling men homophobes and bigots for having the same exact feelings as women. That may not justify the practicality of an additional separation, but it does justify the cease of ignorance.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#433 Jan 01 2011 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


No you are bigot. Anyone who can not accept someone for what they are is a bigot. If you can not accept peoples right to live their lives openly in any place in society, including the military, you are a bigot. You can try and put the spin on it whichever way you want, comfort, privacy etc, when in comes down to it in the end you do not want to accept that gays are indeed in the military.

Your comparisons are stupid, your reasoning is retarded, and you are a homophobe.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#434 Jan 01 2011 at 10:42 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


No you are bigot. Anyone who can not accept someone for what they are is a bigot. If you can not accept peoples right to live their lives openly in any place in society, including the military, you are a bigot. You can try and put the spin on it whichever way you want, comfort, privacy etc, when in comes down to it in the end you do not want to accept that gays are indeed in the military.

Your comparisons are stupid, your reasoning is retarded, and you are a homophobe.


No, you're an idiot. You asked a question. I answered it. I do not have a problem with homosexuals in the military. Yet, you're still calling me a homophobe. Give it up, you're an idiot. You have no basis for anything, you're just a little kid stumping their feet whining and calling everyone a poo-poo face because they don't agree with you. If you think this society is built on everyone freely expressing themselves openly in public places, then you're sadly mistaken and confused.

According to your misguided view, everyone is a x~phobe for not feeling comfortable around person y doing z in their presence. That is entirely stupid. Grow up man and get in the real world where people have different views and opinions.

You're nothing but a commonsense-a-phobe because apparently you hate to use it.

Edit:

you "forgot" to answer my question:

"In any case, I never said that they were *** crazed. I said that they are no different than heterosexual men. I don't know a single heterosexual man that wouldn't look a woman that he's attracted to in the shower. So unless you're arguing that homosexual men are a "special" breed of men, then they would do the same thing. If you claim that they are indeed somehow different, then they should be treated differently. So which one is it? "

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 6:46pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#436 Jan 01 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Good
Alma wrote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


And your main argument for this is psychological discomfort? How is that any different than bigotry? Are your trying to convince us of this, or yourself?
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#437 Jan 01 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Alma wrote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


And your main argument for this is psychological discomfort? How is that any different than bigotry? Are your trying to convince us of this, or yourself?


It's only bigotry if it is consistent. If you have a problem with homosexuals in general, than yes, it may very well be bigotry. If your only concern is in the shower, then it's no different than what women feel with being in the showers with men. Unless, that is, you call that bigotry also. Which in that case, you're claiming just about everyone is a bigot. At that point, there is no value in that "insult".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#438 Jan 01 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
You've spent 9 fucking pages on that point?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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

#439 Jan 01 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Good
***
3,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
PunkFloyd, King of Bards wrote:
Alma wrote:
The point have always been that you can be against open homosexuality in the military and not be a bigot.


And your main argument for this is psychological discomfort? How is that any different than bigotry? Are your trying to convince us of this, or yourself?


It's only bigotry if it is consistent. If you have a problem with homosexuals in general, than yes, it may very well be bigotry. If your only concern is in the shower, then it's no different than what women feel with being in the showers with men. Unless, that is, you call that bigotry also. Which in that case, you're claiming just about everyone is a bigot. At that point, there is no value in that "insult".
Aren't you supposed to leave all those feelings behind when you join the military? You know, become one force? You're mighty inconsistent, Alma. That must be how we know you're not a bigot.
#440 Jan 01 2011 at 1:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
You've spent 9 fucking pages on that point?


No. I spent 1 post on that point, the 9 pages were spent on countering made up arguments.

LWV wrote:
Aren't you supposed to leave all those feelings behind when you join the military? You know, become one force? You're mighty inconsistent, Alma. That must be how we know you're not a bigot.


What are you making up now? I already made a post in regards to this nonsense. If that were the case, men and women wouldn't be segregated. We wouldn't have climate surveys. The DoD wouldn't have made a survey about DADT. So, please stop making up stuff to argue, this is why we are at 9 pages. Accept it and let's move on.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#441 Jan 01 2011 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
It's only bigotry if it is consistent.


False. This one of the stupidest things I've ever read and I spend a lot of time in OOT.

Almalieque wrote:
If you have a problem with homosexuals in general, than yes, it may very well be bigotry. If your only concern is in the shower, then it's no different than what women feel with being in the showers with men. Unless, that is, you call that bigotry also. Which in that case, you're claiming just about everyone is a bigot. At that point, there is no value in that "insult".


The argument is with homosexuals in general. It's about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. It's not about letting homosexuals shower with heterosexuals; they're already showering together right now as they have been for as long we've had showers in the military.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#442 Jan 01 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
You my friend, are an idiot. I'm not against open homosexuals in the military (after revisions of the rules) I'm against open homosexuals in open showers or in close living quarters with people who feel the same discomfort as women do with men. I don't care about in the work place because their sexuality has nothing to do with their ability to perform their job. I've said this from the beginning. Why you are pretending that I haven't is evident that you haven't been paying attention. That's why there are 9 pages in this thread.


This is the carear you have chosen, you know there is privacy and comfort issues from the start, you are told during recruitment to expect close living quarters etc. It is not some new thing. When it boils down to it, the simple fact is, you have an issue with homosexuals. Period, there is not ifs ands or buts, not weird spins. You have an issue with homosexuals. Period. End of story.

You are a bigot. If you do not feel comfortable you leave. It is not another persons responsibility to provide you with the feeling of comfort. It is your responsibility. You don't want to shower/live with *** men, the don't quit and go find a new job.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#443 Jan 01 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Punk Floyd wrote:
False. This one of the stupidest things I've ever read and I spend a lot of time in OOT.

False: You're in denial.

big·ot
   /ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled[big-uht] Show IPA
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


You can't be a bigot towards homosexuality if your problem isn't with working, talking or interacting with homosexuals.

Punk FLoyd wrote:
The argument is with homosexuals in general. It's about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. It's not about letting homosexuals shower with heterosexuals; they're already showering together right now as they have been for as long we've had showers in the military.


This is why this thread is 9 pages. MY ARGUMENT, that I'm referencing to has nothing to do with homosexuals being able to serve in the military, but the ability for a man to say that he isn't comfortable showering with homosexual men and not be labeled something that he isn't, in or out of the military. Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#444 Jan 01 2011 at 3:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.

You've read the thread title, right?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#445 Jan 01 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
You can't be a bigot towards homosexuality if your problem isn't with working, talking or interacting with homosexuals.


You can be a bigot if you are utterly intolerant of sharing a communal shower with them.

Almalieque wrote:
Punk FLoyd wrote:
The argument is with homosexuals in general. It's about allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. It's not about letting homosexuals shower with heterosexuals; they're already showering together right now as they have been for as long we've had showers in the military.


This is why this thread is 9 pages. MY ARGUMENT, that I'm referencing to has nothing to do with homosexuals being able to serve in the military, but the ability for a man to say that he isn't comfortable showering with homosexual men and not be labeled something that he isn't, in or out of the military. Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.


What Joph said. And you were the one that brought up showering.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#446 Jan 01 2011 at 4:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.


So the ones where they lack the physical ability to keep up with the expectations necessary to perform the essential tasks? Like I said? Way to go.

In any case, you're clearly being intentionally obtuse on the other points, so I guess I'll just let you keep being a tard. If I were up for a game of cat and mouse, gbaji is still much better at this than you.

Edit: Actually, just to round out the clearly retarded:

Quote:
That's family, not strangers.


Until middle school, where kids learn to change in front of eachother, which is based heavily on this ingrained familial comfort, and the message that, "It's ok for boys to see boys, and girls to see girls."

Quote:
The bottom line is that this "fear" that women have is self made not based on any evidence to prove one way or the other and we accept it.


Right, it has nothing to do with the fact that women are much more likely to be sexually assaulted, even with segregated facilities.

Edited, Jan 1st 2011 2:20pm by Kachi
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#447 Jan 01 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.

You've read the thread title, right?


Yes, I have, but you do realize how online forums work, right? I responded to the OP ignorance of calling people bigots and homophobes.

Punk Floyd wrote:
You can be a bigot if you are utterly intolerant of sharing a communal shower with them.


Yea, that makes no sense. That means, if you don't like something, you're a bigot. Well, guess what? No one likes everything. That would make everyone a bigot. The term is in reference to general ideas. All those people who complain about TWA security are nothing but BIGOTS!!! Complaining about nude scans and pat-downs.... They're homophobes!

In any case, as I said before, I have no complaints with full open showers to include everyone, men and women of any sexuality. So, you have nothing left to call me a bigot and I'm sure more men would approve of that idea over women, because you know, women are just bigots, not wanting to shower with men and all.

Punk Floyd wrote:
What Joph said. And you were the one that brought up showering.


Exactly, my argument is on showering, not homosexuals being able to serve in the military. I'm sorry if you fail to see the difference.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#448 Jan 01 2011 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Why you people consistently try to make this an argument for DADT is beyond me.

You've read the thread title, right?


Yes, I have, but you do realize how online forums work, right? I responded to the OP ignorance of calling people bigots and homophobes.

Punk Floyd wrote:
You can be a bigot if you are utterly intolerant of sharing a communal shower with them.


Yea, that makes no sense. That means, if you don't like something, you're a bigot. Well, guess what? No one likes everything. That would make everyone a bigot. The term is in reference to general ideas. All those people who complain about TWA security are nothing but BIGOTS!!! Complaining about nude scans and pat-downs.... They're homophobes!

In any case, as I said before, I have no complaints with full open showers to include everyone, men and women of any sexuality. So, you have nothing left to call me a bigot and I'm sure more men would approve of that idea over women, because you know, women are just bigots, not wanting to shower with men and all.

Punk Floyd wrote:
What Joph said. And you were the one that brought up showering.


Exactly, my argument is on showering, not homosexuals being able to serve in the military. I'm sorry if you fail to see the difference.
Grasping. At. Straws.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#449 Jan 01 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.


So the ones where they lack the physical ability to keep up with the expectations necessary to perform the essential tasks? Like I said? Way to go.

In any case, you're clearly being intentionally obtuse on the other points, so I guess I'll just let you keep being a tard. If I were up for a game of cat and mouse, gbaji is still much better at this than you.


How can you tell if someone isn't physically able to perform a job without giving them a chance? You do realize that not every male is physically able to perform a task either, you know what, they still get a chance to prove otherwise. Women are not.

Obtuse? Fact, women don't want to share showers with men because they don't feel comfortable sharing with men. There's nothing obtuse about that.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#450 Jan 01 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.


So the ones where they lack the physical ability to keep up with the expectations necessary to perform the essential tasks? Like I said? Way to go.

In any case, you're clearly being intentionally obtuse on the other points, so I guess I'll just let you keep being a tard. If I were up for a game of cat and mouse, gbaji is still much better at this than you.


How can you tell if someone isn't physically able to perform a job without giving them a chance? You do realize that not every male is physically able to perform a task either, you know what, they still get a chance to prove otherwise. Women are not.

Obtuse? Fact, women don't want to share showers with men because they don't feel comfortable sharing with men. There's nothing obtuse about that.
So the average guy would like a closeted *** showering with them, than knowing that the guy is ***? If I were afraid of gays, I'd rather know who to avoid.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#451 Jan 01 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Lubriderm the Fussy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Any position as an Infrantryman. The ones I'm no 100% on, but pretty certain, Ranger School and Armor, I want to say Field Artillery as well, but they might have changed that too. Basically, much of the Combat arms services wide are restricted to women. The fact that you don't know that is my point. It's all politics. Just like most people don't know that oral *** is not allowed in the military, but they know homosexuals aren't.


So the ones where they lack the physical ability to keep up with the expectations necessary to perform the essential tasks? Like I said? Way to go.

In any case, you're clearly being intentionally obtuse on the other points, so I guess I'll just let you keep being a tard. If I were up for a game of cat and mouse, gbaji is still much better at this than you.


How can you tell if someone isn't physically able to perform a job without giving them a chance? You do realize that not every male is physically able to perform a task either, you know what, they still get a chance to prove otherwise. Women are not.

Obtuse? Fact, women don't want to share showers with men because they don't feel comfortable sharing with men. There's nothing obtuse about that.
So the average guy would like a closeted *** showering with them, than knowing that the guy is ***? If I were afraid of gays, I'd rather know who to avoid.


Well, I guess if you were afraid of homosexuals then you might have a point. I'm sure the men who are afraid of homosexuals do not want to even be near them let alone shower with them.

I'm not talking about people who are afraid of homosexuals, which have been my point in past 9 pages. There are people who may have comfort issues with sharing showers who are not bigots. Is this really that hard to comprehend?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CST
r1ng0sc4rr, Samira, Tasera, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (31)