Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Senate Repeals DADTFollow

#202 Dec 21 2010 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Men and women are the same now? that's interesting. I'm not sure exactly in what level of detail you want me to explain to you how men and women are different. Let me know what parts you're confused about.
The term "they" was in reference to the two scenarios, not men and women... You know, what I've been arguing from the beginning.
/sigh. the scenarios are different because one scenario only involves men or women, and the other scenario involves men and women. Since they are different it follows that the scenarios are different. Maybe there are meaningful similarities, but you haven't bothered to explain what they are aside from saying they are there.

Almalieque wrote:
In the first posts you quoted, you didn't say that they were different, you asked how they were different. It wasn't till the third quote where you explicitly said that you don't see the difference. I did not interpret the first two as such, if that's what you were doing, then I apologize, I was wrong. That's not how interpreted your posts.
Smiley: dubious Seriously? you interpreted me asking you to justify the connection you were drawing as me saying I agree with you but please explain more? Really? wow. Also in the first quote you hadn't brought up the comparison yet anyway.

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Why would they be able to act any differently? Are you picturing them just starting to make out all over the place? Smiley: dubious Why do you think that would be acceptable?
Because that's what other couples do?
Interesting. You must live in some weird orgy world I'm not familiar with. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 3:24pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#203 Dec 21 2010 at 3:38 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Idigg wrote:
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.


There's a reason why I never thought about the privacy issue, it's because I always have my own bathroom. I'm sorry you spend that much for education, but school is for education and not living. The living conditions only come into place when you're in the field or not authorized to have your own room, usually due to rank.

Idigg wrote:
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?


How is that maximal? I feel much more comfortable showering with women than men. I would argue that most men would rather shower with women inclusively than men exclusively. With women being the minority in the military, that's no where near the maximal discomfort.

The benefit is less money spent on building additional rooms/showers/etc to accommodate a small percentage of the population.

Id wrote:
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'm actually pointing out that there are various reasons why people feel uncomfortable changing infront of anyone.

I'm the opposite of you. I feel uncomfortable changing in front of males, heterosexual or homosexual, but when I say that, I get called a homophobe, but you call yourself "modest". What's the difference? You feel uncomfortable in front a group of people, I'm uncomfortable in front of a group of people. I can easily call you names for being equally as insecure.

Id wrote:
I'm sorry I hurt your brain.

You didn't hurt it because I didn't bother to read it.. the only reason why i'm replying now is that I'm stuck at a car dealership.

ID wrote:
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).


This is your problem. My entry on this thread wasn't to argue anything other than there are reasons other than bigotry for not wanting repeal DADT. You, being overly emotionally driven, threw all of these stats and papers and other unrelated material.

I referenced "Top Officials" because they are people you can google who used arguments other than bigotry. Which was my entire point, that they exist.

You're looking for an argument that I've never participated in and wonder why I haven't given any arguments for or against DADT. Well maybe if you learn how to read, you'll notice that wasn't ever my point. I already had at least two arguments on this topic already not too long ago. You're the only person who wasn't here before.


So which one of those fallacies involve "Arguing against a non-existent argument?".. that's you..
#204 Dec 21 2010 at 3:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Locke wrote:
Good! That should happen. And that's completely different from separating yourself from women because you're afraid to say something harassing, especially if you're doing it as a supervisor.


This isn't about saying something embarrassing. This is about creating a fictional environment where it seems ok to behave a certain way, then using double standards as the solution.

My, then it's a good thing I didn't say embarrassing, isn't it? We're talking about harassment. Nice job trying to change the subject again, though Smiley: nod

Quote:
You're continuing to make stuff up. If I weren't waiting on my car to be serviced, I wouldn't waste my time with you as you're jumping all over the place. As soon as it looks like we're agreeing, you make up some crap about fear or anger, even though I've stated numerous times that isn't the case. I've realized that's all you got, so you wont drop it.

And again, I wonder why you keep going on about it if you think it's not upsetting you?

Quote:
Locke wrote:
Edit: I'm also not sure why you went from "I got a text" to "I'm a supervisor!" But then I read your next sentence where you tried to change the topic from how you can't use sexually harassing speech and it's not fair to how to run a harassment free office with basic freaking rules everyone already knows and it made a lot more sense.


Or maybe I'm giving you examples... Can supervisors not receive texts?

It's entirely different if the woman involved is a subordinate, not your co-worker. Might have wanted to mention that, then Smiley: oyvey

Quote:
Locke wrote:
People "like me," huh? Ran out of fuel for your fire and decided to just start making things up? I'm amazed that the entire time we've been talking about saying things that could be misinterpreted by others, and your response is "Hey, that means you're fine with nude pics!" Somehow, blatant harassment is blatant Smiley: lol If you can't find good example and need to change the topic to try and respond, try thinking before you speak (type?).


So, now you're avoiding the topics by accusing me of changing the subject. I've never attempted to change the subject, you're just ignoring examples that you can't respond to. Sexual harassment extends beyond than touching or talking, it also includes pictures. I had a Sergeant receive a complaint because his wallpaper was a picture of his wife and her female friends. They all were fully clothed with jeans and shirts.

How are nude pictures blatant harassment if no one is harassed? That's my point, you can't make assumptions that people in your office are offended by nude pictures being posted on the wall. The point I'm trying to get you to see is that allowing nude pictures in the office and saying it's ok because no one is harassed is the same thing as allowing women to talk dirty because people aren't offended by what they are saying.

In both scenarios, indecent behavior is being conducted. I'm claiming to be proactive and nip all of it in the bud BEFORE someone is offended. Your claim that this is all "common sense", "social decency", etc. supports the belief that it's ok to say/do whatever you want as long as no one is offended.

You did change the subject, and even quoted exactly how I said you were doing it Smiley: laugh
I'm still not sure why you're making a jump from you not being able to comment on a woman's appearance to the opposite belief by necessity allowing nude pictures in an office. Perhaps I'm missing the part where you seriously think that nude pictures are not offensive to most people? Or perhaps that your office allows them? Because pretty much everywhere I've ever been they're not allowed. Except, I suppose, *** shops.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#205 Dec 21 2010 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Are we going to get one of these 5+ page threads when the Senate passes the START treaty tomorrow?

What if Russia agrees to limit the number of homosexuals working in nuclear silos?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#206 Dec 21 2010 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Are we going to get one of these 5+ page threads when the Senate passes the START treaty tomorrow?

What if Russia agrees to limit the number of homosexuals working in nuclear silos?


5? Lightweight.
#207 Dec 21 2010 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Belkira wrote:
See above...

Apparently once you get to the point where you realize your argument is complete crap, you start losing your mind. Interesting to note.

Complete crap?

I've been simply asking you to justify why you think men and women should shower exclusively. You said: "No. I'm saying that women all have the same parts, and men all have the same parts so it makes sense to keep the showers seperate. For me, personally, it's not embarrassing for a woman to see me naked, but would be for a man.
"

So your response is "It makes sense".. I just want to make sure exactly what your point is before I attack it. But, if you finally realized that you have no real reason for the separation.
#208 Dec 21 2010 at 3:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Cultural norms mostly I'd guess.
____________________________
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
#209 Dec 21 2010 at 3:50 PM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What if Russia agrees to limit the number of homosexuals working in nuclear silos?
I bet they all decon together, *** or not.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#210 Dec 21 2010 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I haven't been following this thread much at all but why on earth are "showers" relevant? Homosexuals and straights in the military have been showering together under DADT for 16 years. And longer than that with deeper closeted gays from before the DADT era. Somehow our military has managed to grind on.

Have showers changed in the last week in ways I don't know about?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#211 Dec 21 2010 at 4:02 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
I frankly have lost all grasp of the argument you are making Alm. Completely. You've contradicted yourself so many times that it makes absolutely no sense. You began this thread by asserting that people are uncomfortable changing with others when there is a perceived sexual preference. And this is the basis for why you opposed the repeal, saying that forcing straight men to shower with openly *** men would be uncomfortable and so they shouldn't be forced to. And that this was the exact reason why a men and women would be uncomfortable showering with the opposite ***.

There's THREE PAGES of people opposing you on this, and you don't budge at all in them.

Then, out of no where, you claim you were never arguing this? That's crap. EVERY post you have made includes it.

What's more, you say it is completely untrue in your own case, when you've been claiming it to be "obviously" true up until now.

Alm, it's so not worth talking to you. Until you figure out what you even think, I'm not bothering.

[EDIT]

Quote:
I haven't been following this thread much at all but why on earth are "showers" relevant? Homosexuals and straights in the military have been showering together under DADT for 16 years. And longer than that with deeper closeted gays from before the DADT era. Somehow our military has managed to grind on.

Have showers changed in the last week in ways I don't know about?


We've been asking Alm this for 5 pages. The closest we've gotten is him claiming that closeted *** guys, after DADT's repeal, will turn into super gays or something, and their flamboyance will make all the burly straight guys uncomfortable.

Edited, Dec 21st 2010 5:04pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#212 Dec 21 2010 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 posts
idiggory wrote:
Alm, it's so not worth talking to you. Until you figure out what you even think, I'm not bothering.

Welcome to the party.
____________________________
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]
#213 Dec 21 2010 at 4:11 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Sir X wrote:
/sigh. the scenarios are different because one scenario only involves men or women, and the other scenario involves men and women. Since they are different it follows that the scenarios are different. Maybe there are meaningful similarities, but you haven't bothered to explain what they are aside from saying they are there.


Ok, now we're back where we were before you got us off track. You asked me to explain the privacy issue, I responded that it's the same reason why women and men don't shower. You claimed that they are different, I said how so? You said because men are men and women are women. I responded that equality is treating everyone the same unless there's a justification for any discrimination. So I asked you for the justification. You can't simply discriminate because of ***.

Sir X wrote:
Seriously? you interpreted me asking you to justify the connection you were drawing as me saying I agree with you but please explain more? Really? wow. Also in the first quote you hadn't brought up the comparison yet anyway.


That's because I thought you were playing games, but if you weren't, then I was wrong.

Sir X wrote:
Interesting. You must live in some weird orgy world I'm not familiar with. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.


Since when did showing affection and/or making out turn into "orgies"?

Locke wrote:
My, then it's a good thing I didn't say embarrassing, isn't it? We're talking about harassment. Nice job trying to change the subject again, though Smiley: nod


That was an error on my part. I misread "harassing" as "embarrassing" for some reason. In any case, that wasn't changing the subject because I was arguing that it was NOT about embarrassment.

Locke wrote:
And again, I wonder why you keep going on about it if you think it's not upsetting you?

Because that's the basis of your argument?

Locke wrote:
It's entirely different if the woman involved is a subordinate, not your co-worker. Might have wanted to mention that, then


She wasn't a subordinate. You're merging two different stories told at two different times as one scenario. That's why you're confused.

Locke wrote:
You did change the subject, and even quoted exactly how I said you were doing it Smiley: laugh
I'm still not sure why you're making a jump from you not being able to comment on a woman's appearance to the opposite belief by necessity allowing nude pictures in an office. Perhaps I'm missing the part where you seriously think that nude pictures are not offensive to most people? Or perhaps that your office allows them? Because pretty much everywhere I've ever been they're not allowed. Except, I suppose, *** shops.


Because most people would not allow nude pictures in the office, not because it doesn't offend anyone but because it MIGHT offend someone and it's not professional. On the other hand, you somehow believe it's "common sense" and "social decency" to "watch your words" when other people are talking inappropriate.
#214 Dec 21 2010 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Ok, now we're back where we were before you got us off track. You asked me to explain the privacy issue, I responded that it's the same reason why women and men don't shower.
So what is that reason, and how does it apply to a man showering with a man, or women showering with women? Seeing as these two groups already shower together, there is no change if DADT is there or not.

Smiley: lol oh alma, ignore the orgy word, I should have realized you'd latch onto that and miss the point. I'll just edit that out of my quote so you can read it again.
Sir X wrote:
Interesting. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.


Edited, Dec 21st 2010 4:36pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#215 Dec 21 2010 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Come on man, give me a break here.. loosen up a little... I wasn't serious. I was merely doing what you did to me by replacing "homophobe" with "racist". No substance, just name calling because someone doesn't agree with you.


But you are a homophobe. Currently you have no issue with gays in the military, as long as you do not know who is *** and who isn't. With DADT gone you are opposed because gays will become known, and you afraid your personal privacy will be jeopardized.


homophobia (ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

—n
intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

You are afraid gays will make your time unpleasant. There for you fit the bill. Someone who is homohophobic or suffers from homophobia is a a homophobe.

I am not a racist, you are a homophobe. I don't call you a homophobe to make fun of you, I call you a homophobe because you are one.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#216 Dec 21 2010 at 5:04 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
ok, So I just got my car back and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today, so I'm done playing with you all while I enjoy my break...

Sir X wrote:
So what is that reason, and how does it apply to a man showering with a man, or women showering with women? Seeing as these two groups already shower together, there is no change if DADT is there or not.


The same way men and women already shower together as well, so what's the difference? I asked for your justification on the segregation. I would like to see it.

Sir X wrote:
Interesting. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.


Who said "all of the time". People show affection during the work day in public. Yes, it happens. You're trying to make this seem worse that what it actually is. My point is that there would be changes and nothing else. If there wouldn't be any changes, then it wouldn't matter if DADT was repealed or not.

RDD wrote:
But you are a homophobe. Currently you have no issue with gays in the military, as long as you do not know who is *** and who isn't. With DADT gone you are opposed because gays will become known, and you afraid your personal privacy will be jeopardized.


homophobia (ˌhəʊməʊˈfəʊbɪə) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

—n
intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality

You are afraid gays will make your time unpleasant. There for you fit the bill. Someone who is homohophobic or suffers from homophobia is a a homophobe.

I am not a racist, you are a homophobe. I don't call you a homophobe to make fun of you, I call you a homophobe because you are one.



You're just as much a racist. I have no fear or hatred. You just can't comprehend the idea of someone not supporting the repeal of DADT without having one or the other, so you say that "I'm afraid" to make an argument.

To prove that, I'm telling you now, that I'm not afraid or have any hatred and instead of accepting that truth, you're going to question it.... because you don't believe me, because you're a racist.
#217 Dec 21 2010 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
You know what would fix this?

Yup! Disband the military! Sorted!

The whole world would breath a huge sigh of relief (Well, the whole world except the fast food industry, because they would no doubt end up employing Almalique again) , and think of the $ that you would all save.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#218 Dec 21 2010 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
So what is that reason, and how does it apply to a man showering with a man, or women showering with women? Seeing as these two groups already shower together, there is no change if DADT is there or not.
The same way men and women already shower together as well, so what's the difference? I asked for your justification on the segregation. I would like to see it.
Men and women already shower together? I was under the impression that they didn't. I don't have a justification for men and women showering separately, assuming they do, because I don't care. If you want to know why the military separates them, I'd assume it's mostly cultural norms in the US. Just to check, Men and women currently shower separately in the military right?

Almalieque wrote:
Sir X wrote:
Interesting. So right now straight men and women in the military are making out all the time? See because I thought it was the opposite of that. Please note that I'm restricting this to behavior on duty, in public.
Who said "all of the time". People show affection during the work day in public. Yes, it happens. You're trying to make this seem worse that what it actually is. My point is that there would be changes and nothing else. If there wouldn't be any changes, then it wouldn't matter if DADT was repealed or not.
Sure, showing affection would now be allowed in the same measure that straight couples can show affection. You brought it up with people acting differently in showers and such though, which I thought was strange.
____________________________
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
#219 Dec 21 2010 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You're just as much a racist. I have no fear or hatred. You just can't comprehend the idea of someone not supporting the repeal of DADT without having one or the other, so you say that "I'm afraid" to make an argument.

To prove that, I'm telling you now, that I'm not afraid or have any hatred and instead of accepting that truth, you're going to question it.... because you don't believe me, because you're a racist.


Then what is you problem with repealing DADT if you are not afraid. There are gays currently in the military, you have no issue with that. Your issue is with the Gays who can now make themselves publicly known. You are worried these known gays will cause privacy issues.

They are already there, many likely longer than you.

The only thing DADT does is allow them to be open with it

Based on those two things you are without a doubt a homophobe. Yo do not have an issue with gays being in the army as long as you do not know who is ***.

**** after all these years of brainwashing maybe you are ***.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#220 Dec 21 2010 at 5:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I have learned from this that in Alma's world, people don't shower in the shower, they have ***. Straight, ***, it doesn't matter. And he's not getting any action from either side and it's ******* him off.
#221 Dec 21 2010 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I have learned from this that in Alma's world, people don't shower in the shower, they have ***. Straight, ***, it doesn't matter. And he's not getting any action from either side and it's ******* him off.


I think Almalique (AlMalique...AlMaliki?????? You sure you're not one of those ghey muzzie Camel/ship of the desert/ arab seamean types, Alma???? Smiley: eek) gets plenty of *** in the shower.

But only when he's all on his own.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#222 Dec 21 2010 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
That, or giving his dog a bath.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#223 Dec 21 2010 at 6:30 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,362 posts
Quote:
and I'm at 3900 posts, which was my goal for today, so I'm done playing with you all while I enjoy my break...
Does anyone find this as sad as I do?
#224 Dec 21 2010 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Does anyone find this as sad as I do?


Personally I found it downright hilarious, among other things. Like suddenly pretending to be the mastermind of this cat and mouse game (which is really more like six dogs cornering a squirrel) to reach a nice round number would convince anyone that he is even remotely in his right mind.
____________________________
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.
#225 Dec 21 2010 at 6:37 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Alma, someday I'll teach you how to +1
____________________________
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.
#226 Dec 21 2010 at 6:46 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,020 posts
It's kinda like this.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)