Don't ask, don't tell, don't persueFollow

In order to refute the evidence I presented, you have to do a little more than say "I'm making stuff up." Ya know, because my link has actual evidence to support my claim while "nu uh" does not.

Just because you grew up someplace where ****** aren't accepted, doesn't mean the rest of the country is in agreement with your backwards views.



I think the casting process is discriminatory by nature however, since the logic behind it is "who best can play the part?" & not "no darkies" the logic behind the discrimination isn't itself, discriminatory.



I don't owe you ****. I can't see a logical reason to discriminate due to sexual orientation or race in the military, you haven't presented any, & I see some justification in some scenario's to discriminate due to gender, religion, & country of origin.



They're pretty awesome ******* shorts.



What logic? And the repeal doesn't do anything about homosexual marriage, it simply allows homosexuals to serve openly, so I don't know what your point is?

If you want to present some logic, go for it. But for clarity's sake it should start, "I believe it is logically justified to discriminate in the military due to one's sexual orientation because..."

But you either can't or won't & will remain nothing more than a homophobic windbag.

Do you or do you not think it's a logical discrimination to cast an actor/actress of a certain skin color to portray a person of the said skin color?

It's called typecasting.

Alma Logic:

I have no shame in saying I stopped paying any appreciable attention to this thread a long while back.


However, it's the artist's vision of what he attempts to portray. If he wants to portray Superman as Asian, he should cast that way. If he doesn't think it's important at all, he should disregard it entirely when casting. Choosing to cast a particular actor isn't much different from choosing red paint over green in that regard.


Or a woman. Or an elderly man. Or an infant. Or a midget. Are these all forms of discrimination as well? I don't see it as such (again, aside from the most generic definition) since those people are all legitimately incapable of filling the artist's vision but, even if you did, I would say it's justified due to the circumstance and extremely limited application.

You're right. That wasn't my question though. I'm not talking about casting a person who just so happens to be a certain color. I asked you if you think it's logical discrimination to want to cast a white male to play as Elvis. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are race and sex criteria (along with other criteria) in order to audition for a particular role.



You say "artist's vision" as if people vision Bruce Lee, or any other famous person, any differently than the artist.

That's how PEOPLE vision Ray Charles, Mohamed Ali, Einstein, Bruce Lee, George Washington, etc., because that's what they look like. Any other "vision" from what they actually look like is wrong.



I guess you should start paying more attention also. It's blatantly obvious you weren't if you think that is the topic of conversation.

Oh, you'll have to forgive me...topics with you drag and diverge in such mind-numbing ways that it's pretty tough for anyone to sustain attention on you for the whole thing. That's why people drop in and out of arguing with you.

Also, you do this thing where you keep repeating the first stage of your hypothetical without ever stating what point you're trying to make with it. You could just connect it to the ultimate point and we'd all be able to respond to that, instead of playing a ******* argument game with the whole thing.

I've got a theory about why you choose to smash your thesis into tiny little pieces and then scatter them to the four corners of the earth, but I don't think you'd like to hear it.

Edited, Oct 25th 2011 11:43am by Eske

This winter, Emma Stone is... Idi Amin.

The movie version of Shawshank Redemption has a black guy (Morgan Freeman) named 'Red'.

I'm confused as to why this tangent has anything to do with being openly gay in the military.

You're confused about why he'd try to obfuscate the argument?

Are you new here?

Well, if you were paying attention to any of my posts that you claim to notice this pattern, then you would know that I've answered that question a million times over. I always start off saying everything at once (i.e. post 206) and people either don't read it and/or don't understand it. As a result, I just ask simple questions and then people refuse to answer them out of fear of contradicting themselves, wanting the "whole picture". I was simply asking a question, if you want to know my "point", then read post 206. Just don't complain about restating or breaking it down.



So, let me get this straight. Denying someone a job based on the color of their skin is NOT discrimination, only in the most generic definition?



So, as an employer, if you don't fit my "vision", regardless if you can do the job or not, then it is NOT discrimination?

Only because so many people are bringing this up.

I'm pointing out to Vageta that he accepts discrimination towards every human trait EXCEPT homosexuality. Because of that, he has an irrational bias towards it and will refuse to accept any logical discrimination against it.

He tried to counter to say no, it's not true, that he also believes that there aren't any logical discrimination against skin color as well and asked me to provide scenarios proving other wise.

I did as such by asking him that question.

He ignored that question and changed his wording to "no logical discrimination within the military". That is still false, but one thing at a time.

So, I asked him the question again. Him answering that question will demonstrate that he supports discrimination against all human traits except for homosexuality since the only two he claimed were immune were sexuality and skin color. By, admitting to skin color, the only thing left is sexuality.

Now, the next logical answer is, "why is homosexuality so special"? How is it ok to deny someone a job based on their skin color and sex but not due to their sexuality in a place where there shouldn't be any discrimination?

If you were paying attention, you would have also realized that I said that I can't make something that I don't know isn't clear clearer. It's up to you to tell me exactly what part doesn't make sense, else I'll just repeat what I said. Post 206, to include my other quoted post, is a lot of writing. I'm not going to waste time rewriting all of that when you can just point out which parts don't make sense.

If you say "all of it", then you're either lying or can't read. Since you don't seem to have a problem reading my last posts, I will have to defer to option A.