Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#452 Oct 05 2011 at 12:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
So are you implying that there isn't (some scenario where discrimination due to sexual orientation is ok)?


I think so, but your internal thoughts are your own. I think it's a bit silly, but perfectly ok, that you're creeped out by *** men. However, as an employee of the US Government it isn't ok for you to discriminate due to sexual orientation while on the job. Off the job? Hit a Klan rally if you feel like it, just make sure your sheet is "solid" enough that they don't notice the color of your skin.

Alma wrote:
So are you implying that there aren't any (laws, rules and regulations that openly and blatantly discriminate against ***, skin color, height, weight, age, nationality, national background, family background, & religious preference)?


No, but I'd like you to name one that's enforced on any sort of regular basis since you seem to think there are. "Blue Laws" do not count, since they are rarely enforced.

Alma wrote:
If you knew the difference between gender and *** then you would realize that you're making an unnecessary differentiation, because not only does that make no sense, it doesn't hinder my argument.


How? Sexual orientation has never & will never be a factor in deciding that girls shower with girls & boys shower with boys. ***/Gender are not sexual orientations. This makes perfect sense. How does it support your argument? What is your argument, for that matter?

Alma wrote:

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination". Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.


Agreed.

Alma wrote:
So you agree that there is no discrimination against homosexuals in SSM because it's based on *** not sexual orientation and every man is held by the same rules regardless of sexual orientation. Finally...


I wasn't talking about SSM, we are talking about DADT. But in regards to SSM, I'll grant you that opposite *** marriages were assumed when marriage laws were first written, but since then the US Government has progressed to the point where they've made it illegal to discriminate based upon sexual orientation. Ipso-Facto, not allowing one group (Gays) while allowing another group (straights) to take part in Government sanctioned benefits is the very definition of discrimination.


Alma wrote:
I believe I gave at least 3 (logical reasons for DADT), maybe you should learn to read.


I can read fine, you simply can't communicate effectively via the written word. It's ok, some people are just better at it than others. What I'd like you to do, using complete sentences, is write what YOU (no hypothetcals) believe are 3 logical reasons DADT shouldn't have be repealed. I'd like you to start this response, for clarity's sake, with, "I, Alma, believe it is logical to repeal DADT because..."

Bonus points if you bullet point the 3 logical reasons you believe DADT should not have been repealed.

Alma wrote:
Ask yourself this. If you're living with a roommate, and you had a chance to marry him and receive literally hundreds to thousands of extra dollars a month, your own house, more freedom, benefits, etc, that you wouldn't?


No, I wouldn't. Could you please link to any evidence at all that straights are pretending to be *** for the benifits in the military? Can you link to any evidence that this is happening in States where SSM is legal?

Alma wrote:
Your ignorance is making the best of you...


See what I mean about you not being clear? What does THAT attempt at a diss even fucking mean? What am I even ignorant of (Besides anatomy when I draw using MsPaint)?

This is WHAT YOU SAID:

Alma wrote:
If a janitor cleans a woman's locker room while women are in there only to later find out that the janitor is really a male, not a female, do you think the women would be like "oh, well, he's been here the whole time, so who cares?" I'm sure that they would be creeped out.


So far, in all of the plethora of craptastic posts you've made on any and all subjects that are "***", the above quote is the closest I've ever seen you come for giving a reason as to why YOU think DADT shouldn't have been repealed. Applying that analogy to yourself, once again, YOU would logically be the girls in the locker room & GAYS would logically be male janitors dressed as girls.

And you would be creeped out by finding out your fellow soldier, was ***.

There's nothing wrong with that; but it isn't a logical or legal reason to make your fellow soldier HAVE to hide their identity from you. The choice should have ALWAYS been theirs & now it is.







____________________________
"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


#453 Oct 05 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Decent
The Duck Whisperer
*****
15,512 posts
I don't particularly care that a man sees me naked, but I've said why I don't like to shower with them and it was really only two sentences. However, since I'm capable of writing things without them being drowned in garbage syntax, I'll list them:

  • Same reason lots of women carry pepper spray
  • Been catcalled enough times by dudes while wearing clothes. Been catcalled in front of my sweatpants-clad mom while I was a gangly boy-like twelve year old. Never gotten catcalled when I've been with a male friend.


Somehow this makes me uncomfortable about showering with men
____________________________
Iamadam the Prophet wrote:

You know that feeling you get when you have a little bit of hope, only to have it ripped away? Sweetums feeds on that.
#454 Oct 05 2011 at 8:54 AM Rating: Decent
****
6,470 posts
Alma took this argument to the stupid place, and Omega's going right in there after him.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#455 Oct 05 2011 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,272 posts
That means the terrorists have won.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#456 Oct 05 2011 at 9:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
That means the terrorists have won.


Does that mean I don't have to strip to fly on a plane anymore?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#457Almalieque, Posted: Oct 06 2011 at 5:40 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not literally at 100% of the time. Some men prefer to be medically checked out by another male doctor. At the same time, if a man had to choose between being sexually checked out by a homosexual male or an attractive woman, I would bet a paycheck that the majority would pick the latter, especially if the other person were naked as well. I would argue the former for women if the men were strangers.
#458 Oct 06 2011 at 5:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
(and two in the rear!!).
Well look who's singing a different tune about this repeal now!
____________________________
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
#459 Oct 06 2011 at 5:52 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Omega,

I'll address your post shortly. I'm at a cafe and only have limited time at each sitting (half day today), but I will say the following.

If you are unable to provide EXACTLY what part is incoherent, then you have no argument about my "inability to communicate", especially when others can repeat my claims with a 75%+ accuracy.

You haven't provided anything yet to show otherwise.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#460 Oct 06 2011 at 5:56 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Sweetums wrote:
I don't particularly care that a man sees me naked, but I've said why I don't like to shower with them and it was really only two sentences. However, since I'm capable of writing things without them being drowned in garbage syntax, I'll list them:

  • Same reason lots of women carry pepper spray
  • Been catcalled enough times by dudes while wearing clothes. Been catcalled in front of my sweatpants-clad mom while I was a gangly boy-like twelve year old. Never gotten catcalled when I've been with a male friend.


Somehow this makes me uncomfortable about showering with men


So are those acceptable reasons for a heterosexual not want to shower with a homosexual? If not, then why?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#461 Oct 06 2011 at 5:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I wasn't trying to get you to do anything by that comment. I was just stating the obvious. There is no other legitimate reason for you not to answer that question other than the belief that by answering it, you'll contradict yourself.

Hrmm... nope. Still didn't work. Nice job trying to pretend that you weren't doing it, though. Was almost as successful as your attempts to "scare" me into answering your poorly created argument Smiley: laugh

Quote:
And once again, no, everyone isn't allowed to speak openly about their sexuality in the military. That's just BS that you made up.

You're conflating "speak openly" and "speak without limits".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#462 Oct 06 2011 at 5:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
you have no argument about my "inability to communicate", especially when others can repeat my claims with a 75%+ accuracy.

Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh
Smiley: lolSmiley: laughSmiley: lol
Smiley: laughSmiley: lolSmiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#463Almalieque, Posted: Oct 06 2011 at 6:32 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If the above quote is all that you can see as being a reason, then honest to God, you are truly an idiot. I'm not even joking. I listed several reasons why and if all you can gather is what YOU want to believe to be my argument even after I explicitly said that WAS NOT MY ARGUMENT, just answering the question, then you are incapable of comprehending.
#464 Oct 06 2011 at 6:44 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hrmm... nope. Still didn't work. Nice job trying to pretend that you weren't doing it, though. Was almost as successful as your attempts to "scare" me into answering your poorly created argument


You already did, hence your reply. I didn't give you an argument, I asked a question. There is no need for me to "trick" you into answering the question because I already know the answer. The simple fact that you wont answer it, only proves ensures the answer. Else, if you thought it contradicted my point, you would have answered it in attempt to counter. Instead, you're merely playing around for your own enjoyment.

Jophiel wrote:

You're conflating "speak openly" and "speak without limits".


How so?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#465 Oct 06 2011 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Instead, you're merely playing around for your own enjoyment.

You've noodled out that I'm rolling around your retarded question like a cat with a ball rather than wasting time dignifying an asinine query?

Nice job, Nancy Drew.

Quote:
Jophiel wrote:
You're conflating "speak openly" and "speak without limits".
How so?

By pretending that the mere mention of your heterosexual partner or an attraction to the other *** is disallowed as it was for homosexuals.

You already knew this, of course.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#466 Oct 06 2011 at 9:27 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You've noodled out that I'm rolling around your retarded question like a cat with a ball rather than wasting time dignifying an asinine query?

Nice job, Nancy Drew.


What you have done was avoid self-contradiction. There was no "stupid question" involved. The fact that you've been "rolling around" the question and admitted to it is evident that you're not taking this seriously nor are concerned about time. Given that, you can't use the "waste of time/ irrelevant" argument on answering that question, because everything you've been saying has been a "waste of time" and "irrelevant" to the argument.

The only thing left is that you're avoiding self-contradiction by making fun out of the situation as opposed to just addressing it. At least you recognize it, because I can play cat and mouse like this all day (if time permits). It's much better than arguing with people who pretend statements aren't there or understandable. I would much rather play your game.


Jophiel wrote:
By pretending that the mere mention of your heterosexual partner or an attraction to the other *** is disallowed as it was for homosexuals.

You already knew this, of course.


Depending on the person, it is. Nice to pretend or believe that it isn't.

Anyways, that wasn't even my point. My point was that there are other forms of discrimination outside of sexuality in a whole that people accept, i.e. women not serving in the Infantry or Armor. I'm not saying it's "right", but various forms of discrimination is blatant in the US military forces and none of that seems to matter, only for people to be open about being ****.

So by only making a big deal when it affects homosexuals, you are indeed pretending that they are special because everyone else is expected to "suck it up". The point wasn't that any other form of discrimination is the SAME as the discrimination towards homosexuals (as you attempted to prove) but that other forms of discriminatio exist.

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 5:28pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#467 Oct 06 2011 at 9:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
There was no "stupid question" involved.

Smiley: laugh

Quote:
Given that, you can't use the "waste of time/ irrelevant" argument on answering that question, because everything you've been saying has been a "waste of time" and "irrelevant" to the argument.

Even a brief flash of intellectual rigor would show you the problem with that line of assumptions.

Quote:
My point was that there are other forms of discrimination outside of sexuality in a whole that people accept, i.e. women not serving in the Infantry or Armor.

*Shrug* So pass around a petition.

What you're failing to get, or else you do understand but you just want to make a big deal of it anyway, is that people can have legitimate reasons for worrying about one thing over the other or can believe there's a good enough reason for one thing to justify it, but not the other. So one can think that barring people from admitting their sexuality is a poor decision but feel that barring women from the infantry is valid and thus not try to change it. ****, you can even feel the opposite way if you'd like -- it's just that most people in charge didn't and so they changed it.

I'm not sure why this is such a sticking point with you but you latch onto it in every debate tangentially related to sexuality.

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 10:44am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#468 Oct 06 2011 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
And once again, no, everyone isn't allowed to speak openly about their sexuality in the military. That's just BS that you made up.

You're conflating "speak openly" and "speak without limits".


Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
By pretending that the mere mention of your heterosexual partner or an attraction to the other *** is disallowed as it was for homosexuals.

You already knew this, of course.


Depending on the person, it is. Nice to pretend or believe that it isn't.

Anyways, that wasn't even my point. My point was that there are other forms of discrimination outside of sexuality in a whole that people accept, i.e. women not serving in the Infantry or Armor. I'm not saying it's "right", but various forms of discrimination is blatant in the US military forces and none of that seems to matter, only for people to be open about being ****.
Your memory is pretty bad Alma.

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 5:53pm by Aethien
____________________________
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.
#469 Oct 06 2011 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Sweetums wrote:
I don't particularly care that a man sees me naked, but I've said why I don't like to shower with them and it was really only two sentences. However, since I'm capable of writing things without them being drowned in garbage syntax, I'll list them:

  • Same reason lots of women carry pepper spray
  • Been catcalled enough times by dudes while wearing clothes. Been catcalled in front of my sweatpants-clad mom while I was a gangly boy-like twelve year old. Never gotten catcalled when I've been with a male friend.


Somehow this makes me uncomfortable about showering with men


So are those acceptable reasons for a heterosexual not want to shower with a homosexual? If not, then why?

Surely if it's this big of a deal, the soldier in question would be able to not shower with the other soldier in question?

Or are you forced to stand next to a particular person when you shower?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#470 Oct 06 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
What you're failing to get, or else you do understand but you just want to make a big deal of it anyway, is that people can have legitimate reasons for worrying about one thing over the other or can believe there's a good enough reason for one thing to justify it, but not the other. So one can think that barring people from admitting their sexuality is a poor decision but feel that barring women from the infantry is valid and thus not try to change it. ****, you can even feel the opposite way if you'd like -- it's just that most people in charge didn't and so they changed it.

I'm not sure why this is such a sticking point with you but you latch onto it in every debate tangentially related to sexuality.


If someone can get this point through his thick skull, I will send them $10.00*

Seriously.


*I'm poor.

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 12:42pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#471 Oct 06 2011 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
He's of the opinion that everything must be 100% equivalent and that if there are even perceived contradictions it's a huge problem. Of course that attitude makes you freeze, and leaves you unable to ever change anything, and so is pretty much useless. It also completely ignores the issue that equivalency is based on your initial assumptions and what metrics you're using to evaluate the situation, and so isn't some absolute state that can really be nailed down.

Still ignoring my post I see.

Edited, Oct 6th 2011 12:20pm 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
#472 Oct 06 2011 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,272 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
He's of the opinion that everything must be 100% equivalent
He's the Full Idiot Alchemist.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#473 Oct 06 2011 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Smiley: lol
____________________________
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
#474 Oct 06 2011 at 11:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Omega wrote:
I can read fine, you simply can't communicate effectively via the written word. It's ok, some people are just better at it than others. What I'd like you to do, using complete sentences, is write what YOU (no hypothetcals) believe are 3 logical reasons DADT shouldn't have be repealed. I'd like you to start this response, for clarity's sake, with, "I, Alma, believe it is logical to repeal DADT because..."

Bonus points if you bullet point the 3 logical reasons you believe DADT should not have been repealed.


Alma wrote:

Read my previous post towards you. Unless you tell me exactly which part that you don't understand, then you're full of trash because others were able to repeat my point with a much greater percentage of accuracy.


I, Alma, believe it is logical to repeal DADT because...read my other posts?

You give various situations & fall back on your shower defense. You say "Oh, men will marry men for the money!"

Neither of these are reasons why you, Alma, believe DADT shouldn't be repealed. You've said so yourself: you don't use common showers. Why do you care if two men want to milk the system? You can't possibly oppose SSM & DADT repeal as much as you do without a "Horse in the race": There is an underlying reason in this somewhere.

In all of your gibberish, the "creeped out if *** dude's look at my junk" is the only time I've seen you communicate YOUR feelings on gays. You dance around a lot, but you're not communicating what it is about gays being married or being open in the military that effects you.

Let's do this madlibs style:

"I Alma, believe DADT shouldn't have been repealed because________________________________________
I feel this way because___________________________________________________________________________
The repeal of DADT effects me negatively because__________________________________________________
(You can use this space to ramble, but please try to limit this to one paragraph. Focus!)________
In conclusion, it was illogical to repeal DADT because____________________________________________"

You still haven't explained what I'm ignorant of, but I'd rather you just focus on the mad lib.





____________________________
"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


#475 Oct 06 2011 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,741 posts
Almalieque wrote:
if a man had to choose between being sexually checked out by a homosexual male or an attractive woman, I would bet a paycheck that the majority would pick the latter, especially if the other person were naked as well.
Would you bet a paycheck if the options were homosexual and unattractive woman?
____________________________
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

#476Almalieque, Posted: Oct 07 2011 at 4:13 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I've only supported that notion since day 1 of any sexuality argument. I've accepted numerous times that life has double standards. My argument towards you all is the belief that double standards don't exist. Instead of accepting the fact that the very same reason why women and men are separated are the same reasons why certain people don't want to be in close quarters with homosexuals, you all pretend that there exist other reasons in order to support your claim. Just admit that it's a double standard, stop pretending that women and men are separated for any other reason.
#477 Oct 07 2011 at 5:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Since you're so willing to explain everything else, why wont you break it down for me as why that is such?

It's as simple as "I type for my own benefit". Humoring your asinine question didn't amuse me but pointing out how asinine it was did. Anyway, I already did answer it and you haven't yet explained how my answer was inadequate to the situation at hand.
Quote:
If you accept the fact that double standards exist, as you are stating above, then you must actually argue something more than "it's discrimination or it's not fair"

Not at all. "It's discrimination" is an excellent reason to stop something all by itself. The question is, can the other side come up with a defense for that discrimination to justify it? In the case of women serving in the infantry, most people agree that there reason justifies the discrimination. In the case of DADT, they didn't think the defense was good enough.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#478varusword75, Posted: Oct 07 2011 at 7:47 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) All that babbling by you radical lefties and you still can't answer the only question that should matter. Does allowing homosexuals strengthen or weaken our military. Of course we all know that it weakens it but you keep running around like chickens with your heads cut off; that's always amusing to watch as well. Give the men joining a choice of whether or not they want to bunk with a real open in touch with his feminine side **** and you'll find out just how popular this liberal social experiment is.
#479 Oct 07 2011 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,272 posts
Still pretending that question wasn't asked and answered decades ago I see.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#480 Oct 07 2011 at 7:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We did answer it. You just didn't get the answer you want so you're pretending you didn't hear it.

But if it matters that much to you, start a drive to reinstate DADT and be sure to include your brilliant reasons so lots of people sign on.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#481varusword75, Posted: Oct 07 2011 at 8:22 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#482 Oct 07 2011 at 8:24 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,272 posts
You're going to petition to ban the Catholic Church?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#483Almalieque, Posted: Oct 07 2011 at 8:55 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I guess you completely overlooked my entire equality vs fairness argument where I explicitly said the opposite of that notion.
#484Almalieque, Posted: Oct 07 2011 at 9:02 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post)
#485Almalieque, Posted: Oct 07 2011 at 9:11 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's only legitimate if you're against discrimination. You can't support it, then turn around and use it as your base argument whenever it doesn't benefit you. That's like you joining the klan and saying that they shouldn't discriminate against Hispanics because your wife is Hispanic and that's "wrong". How does that make Hispanics any different from any other group hated?
#486 Oct 07 2011 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
This was never serious, only out of fun and games and you spent more time playing than it would have taken to just answer the question. As a result, you can't say "time" was an issue.

Did I say "time" was the issue? I'm pretty sure I said the dumb question was the issue.

Quote:
It's only legitimate if you're against discrimination. You can't support it, then turn around and use it as your base argument whenever it doesn't benefit you. That's like you joining the klan and saying that they shouldn't discriminate against Hispanics because your wife is Hispanic and that's "wrong". How does that make Hispanics any different from any other group hated?

It doesn't. But then we're not talking about Hispanics and the KKK. We're talking about two disparate groups being denied two disparate things for two disparate reasons. The only common bonds are that they're both being denied something and the military. That's not really enough to start playing the "you need to be equal in being against discrimination" card.

My feeling that DADT was rightfully repealed also doesn't affect my feeling that discrimination is appropriate when denying a 4'3" person a firefighting job, telling school children they can't get married and saying that practicing Mormons can't take vows as a Roman Catholic priest. I'm just wacky that way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#487Almalieque, Posted: Oct 07 2011 at 12:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You went off the deep on that. I'm not talking about discrimination in a universal sense. I gave specific examples, i.e., SSM, KKK and the military. This is a very simple concept. If you ACCEPT discrimination from a discriminating organization, then you can't simply use discrimination as a reason to do or not to do anything.
#488 Oct 07 2011 at 12:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I'm pretty sure I addressed both issues in the previous post.

Obviously not.

Quote:
I'm not comparing the discrimination of one organization to the discrimination of another organization. I'm comparing the discrimination all within one organization.

I'm against refusing a firefighting position to someone because he's black. I'm okay with it because he's 4'3" and weights 35lbs.

Crazy!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#489 Oct 07 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm against refusing a firefighting position to someone because he's black. I'm okay with it because he's 4'3" and weights 35lbs.

Crazy!


You just don't get it, Joph. If you discriminate for one thing, then you have to discriminate for everything. It's all or nothing! To **** with analysis!

Edited, Oct 7th 2011 3:30pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#490 Oct 07 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,272 posts
Are you crazy Joph? He'd be perfect for firefighting. Save time on a ladder when the other firefighters can just toss him through a window.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#491 Oct 07 2011 at 1:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,991 posts
Is this the part of the game where we get to talk about what a BFOQ is, and Hooters only hiring attractive women?
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#492 Oct 07 2011 at 6:48 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
varusword75 wrote:
All that babbling by you radical lefties and you still can't answer the only question that should matter. Does allowing homosexuals strengthen or weaken our military.


Strengthens it. There's more people willing to fight for our country.

That was easy.
#493 Oct 07 2011 at 9:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,013 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
All that babbling by you radical lefties and you still can't answer the only question that should matter. Does allowing homosexuals strengthen or weaken our military.


Strengthens it. There's more people willing to fight for our country.

That was easy.


And the few who object so strenuously that they refuse, aren't disciplined enough to fight. Win-win!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#494 Oct 07 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
I've learned in this thread that Alma's too *** to fill out a mad lib.
____________________________
"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


#495 Oct 08 2011 at 3:37 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Obviously not.


Obviously so. Just read up..

Jophiel wrote:
I'm against refusing a firefighting position to someone because he's black. I'm okay with it because he's 4'3" and weights 35lbs.

Crazy!


And? How does that contradict anything that I've said?

Eske wrote:
You just don't get it, Joph. If you discriminate for one thing, then you have to discriminate for everything. It's all or nothing! To **** with analysis!


Are you implying that is my argument, if so, your comprehension failed you, terribly.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#496 Oct 08 2011 at 3:49 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,044 posts
Omega Vageta wrote:
How? Sexual orientation has never & will never be a factor in deciding that girls shower with girls & boys shower with boys.



Then why are they separated? Give me one logical explanation in why both men and women can't shower together that has nothing to do with sexuality.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#497 Oct 08 2011 at 5:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Omega Vageta wrote:
How? Sexual orientation has never & will never be a factor in deciding that girls shower with girls & boys shower with boys.



Then why are they separated? Give me one logical explanation in why both men and women can't shower together that has nothing to do with sexuality.

It certainly has to do with sexuality. But, there are huge differences. The probability of a group of *** men ganging up and raping the one or two straight men in the shower is on the order of 0. Even in a one on one scenario, a man fending off an aggressive *** man has a much better chance of a woman in the same situation. If men weren't such historical assholes, there wouldn't be as much of a stigma of having a unisex shower. Some people can look at naughty parts without blushing or praying to Jesus for forgiveness.
____________________________
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
#498 Oct 08 2011 at 5:48 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,264 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Surely if it's this big of a deal, the soldier in question would be able to not shower with the other soldier in question?

Or are you forced to stand next to a particular person when you shower?


That's not answering the question.


That's because I was asking a question. Answer it, please.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#499 Oct 08 2011 at 6:09 AM Rating: Excellent
ALma wrote:

Then why are they separated? Give me one logical explanation in why both men and women can't shower together that has nothing to do with sexuality.


They're separated because of their gender. I care not about your "shower" ****, since by your own admission it doesn't effect you. Please fill out the mad lib, I will not accept "see post 206" as it doesn't convey how it effects you, persoanlly.
____________________________
"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


#500 Oct 08 2011 at 6:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Omega Vageta wrote:
How? Sexual orientation has never & will never be a factor in deciding that girls shower with girls & boys shower with boys.



Then why are they separated? Give me one logical explanation in why both men and women can't shower together that has nothing to do with sexuality.

It certainly has to do with sexuality. But, there are huge differences. The probability of a group of *** men ganging up and raping the one or two straight men in the shower is on the order of 0. Even in a one on one scenario, a man fending off an aggressive *** man has a much better chance of a woman in the same situation. If men weren't such historical assholes, there wouldn't be as much of a stigma of having a unisex shower. Some people can look at naughty parts without blushing or praying to Jesus for forgiveness.

Well, most men would have 0 effort fending off an unwanted attack. Alma on the other hand...
#501 Oct 08 2011 at 6:32 AM Rating: Excellent
If alma were around, he'd probably be the attacker. I stand by my theory that he doesn't like the repeal because DADT was his last excuse for remaining closeted.
____________________________
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
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 41 All times are in CST
ElneClare, Iamadam, Kavekkk, Anonymous Guests (38)