Don't ask, don't tell, don't persue :: World of Warcraft

Quote Reply

#727 Oct 15 2011 at 11:21 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Only because it appeared that you honestly tried.

No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination. That is unless you are arguing for them as well.

In layman terms, every argument is essentially "DADT was wrong because the Earth is round". How is the Earth being round an exclusive argument against DADT? Unless you want to end all of discrimination, then that is a poor argument.

So, do you have any type of defense for discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation, or are you just going to keep telling us how we must phrase our arguments? I mean, I realize it's easier for you to just keep using a lot of words that amount to "Nuh uh, you can't say that. You have to say this," but it really gets us nowhere.

Well, that's not true. Apparently it gets us 15 pages. But that's mostly because you use a lot of words instead of just saying, "Nuh uh, you can't say that."

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#728 Oct 15 2011 at 11:42 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1599438059439

Scholar

5,159 posts

Almalieque wrote:

No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination. That is unless you are arguing for them as well.

So then, what is the unique reason that it isn't okay to discriminate based on race?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#729 Oct 15 2011 at 11:59 PM Rating: Excellent

Omegavegeta

View User Forum

Sage

8,236 posts

Alma wrote:

To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.

Mojivo wrote:

So then, what is the unique reason that it isn't okay to discriminate based on race?

Get it now, Alma? You can serve in the military for the same reason that gays can: because there's nothing you can't do (as a black man)that the [formerly] discriminating majority [white people] can. You're equals. There was NO justifiable reason to discriminate because of race & the ONLY reasons it was justified was because of ignorance, power, "comfort", & bigotry.

____________________________

"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

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#730 Oct 16 2011 at 12:01 AM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Almalieque wrote:

No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.

Bzzzttt!!

Oh, I'm sorry. You lost the washer/dryer AND the trip to Cancun, but we DO have a nice copy of the home game as a parting gift...

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#731 Oct 16 2011 at 4:34 AM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

lolgaxe wrote:

Uglysasquatch wrote:

Alma wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

You're implying what he does is considered debate.

No, that's what he's implying. Talking to him, making fun of him, telling him to go fuck himself: all things he views as debating with him.

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

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

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#732 Oct 16 2011 at 4:35 AM Rating: Excellent

Nilatai

View User Forum

Drunken English Bastard

15,268 posts

Omegavegeta wrote:

Alma wrote:

To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.

Mojivo wrote:

So then, what is the unique reason that it isn't okay to discriminate based on race?

Get it now, Alma? You can serve in the military for the same reason that gays can: because there's nothing you can't do (as a black man)that the [formerly] discriminating majority [white people] can. You're equals. There was NO justifiable reason to discriminate because of race & the ONLY reasons it was justified was because of ignorance, power, "comfort", & bigotry.

Don't bother, I've tried to equate his intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuals, and the intolerance and bigotry of racist white men in the past. He doesn't see the two as being even remotely similar, you know, because he's a moron.

____________________________

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

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#733 Oct 16 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent

CoalHeart

Sage

505 posts

I'm just jazzed that I was here for the incubation of post 206. I feel like I was in the room at the patent office with Einstein, or sitting under that apple tree next to Newton.

I'll be selling "Post 206 - I was there" merchandise shortly. Imagine your coworkers gawking in reverential awe as they eye your "P206-IWT" coffee mug!

____________________________

Never regret.To regret is to assume.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#734 Oct 16 2011 at 3:46 PM Rating: Excellent

lolgaxe

View User Forum

+1

50,767 posts

Post 3 sums up my feelings about this thread rather nicely.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think itâ€™s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#735 Oct 16 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1658708287938

View User Forum

Sage

9,507 posts

I'll give my final opinion in post 834. Stay tuned, folks!

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#736 Oct 16 2011 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent

Xsarus

View User Forum

10,601 posts

He's tried to make this whole that argument doesn't count because it's not valid for another situation for entirely different reasons before, and it was just as stupid that time. His logic isn't so much flawed as non-existent, especially in that he doesn't apply it to his own argument at all. Besides which, the the idea that the onus is on the side fighting discrimination is ludicrous.

Edited, Oct 16th 2011 9:28pm 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

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#737 Oct 17 2011 at 3:50 AM Rating: Decent

rdmcandie

View User Forum

Scholar

7,564 posts

Quote:

You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain

relevant sig is relevant then?

____________________________

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

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#738 Oct 17 2011 at 6:17 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

rdmcandie wrote:

Eske Esquire wrote:

someproteinguy wrote:

By the way, anyone actually take that training or is in the service atm? Would be kind of cool to hear that perspective.

I know of someone who'd be more than happy to share his perspective, but he's been absent for a bit, and I don't want to invoke him...

Edited, Sep 20th 2011 2:02pm by Eske

Eske said this on page one in the second post. I hate Eske.

Edited, Oct 15th 2011 6:15pm by rdmcandie

It's mutual.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#739 Oct 17 2011 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent

Xsarus

View User Forum

10,601 posts

rdmcandie wrote:

Quote:

You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain

relevant sig is relevant then?

____________________________

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

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#740 Oct 17 2011 at 11:48 AM Rating: Good

Elinda

View User Forum

Skelly Poker Since 2008

16,781 posts

#740.

I never knew or noticed that posts were numbered before.

____________________________

Alma wrote:

I lost my post

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#741 Oct 17 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

Elinda wrote:

#740.

I never knew or noticed that posts were numbered before.

Neither did I. I think Post 206 should be a new meme.

____________________________

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.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#742 Oct 17 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

Debalic wrote:

I think Post 206 should be a new meme.

Agreed. Lets make this a thing.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#743 Oct 17 2011 at 12:37 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1636935913888

Sage

27,272 posts

That should only be a thing once Alma is a thing from the past.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#744 Oct 17 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

That should only be a thing once Alma is a thing from the past.

Speaking to his views on sexuality and gender, he already is a thing from the past. He's pretty much a caveman.

Edited, Oct 17th 2011 3:31pm by Eske

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#745 Oct 17 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent

Bijou

View User Forum

GBATE!! Never saw it coming

9,957 posts

Eske Esquire wrote:

Speaking to his views on sexuality and gender, he already is a thing from the past. He's pretty much a caveman.

____________________________

remorajunbao wrote:

One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

▲ Page top

#746 Almalieque, Posted: Oct 18 2011 at 1:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) If you're comparing skin color with sexuality, a physical trait with a personality trait and claiming that they are the same thing, then you are beyond confused. This entire time, you acted like homosexuality was the only thing being discriminated against. You asked me to list these other forms of discrimination. I listed them and your only responses were attempts of justification and "they are not the same" even though my point was just to simply prove to you that the military discriminates in more ways than one.

Quote Reply

#747 Oct 18 2011 at 1:37 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

No, that isn't accurate. To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.

Bzzzttt!!

Oh, I'm sorry. You lost the washer/dryer AND the trip to Cancun, but we DO have a nice copy of the home game as a parting gift...

???

So, you're arguing that if you want to EXCLUSIVELY argue for a specific group that you can or must include other groups? Do you not know what "exclusive" mean?

Nilatai wrote:

Omegavegeta wrote:

Alma wrote:

To clarify, if you want to argue that the military can't discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation (and sexual orientation only), then you have to provide an argument that is unique to the discrimination of sexual orientation that isn't applicable to other accepted forms of discrimination.

Mojivo wrote:

So then, what is the unique reason that it isn't okay to discriminate based on race?

Get it now, Alma? You can serve in the military for the same reason that gays can: because there's nothing you can't do (as a black man)that the [formerly] discriminating majority [white people] can. You're equals. There was NO justifiable reason to discriminate because of race & the ONLY reasons it was justified was because of ignorance, power, "comfort", & bigotry.

Don't bother, I've tried to equate his intolerance and bigotry towards homosexuals, and the intolerance and bigotry of racist white men in the past. He doesn't see the two as being even remotely similar, you know, because he's a moron.

Read above. You're the ignorant moron. I've not only stated that I'm normally against discriminating against sexuality when hiring for a job, but just like with SSM, the problem is the stupid, ignorant and illogical arguments followed by implementation supported by the same stupid ideology. As I said in the last post, if you're honestly comparing a physical trait with a personality trait, then you're starting off on the wrong foot.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#748 Oct 18 2011 at 1:46 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1709511392366

Sage

6,471 posts

I'm sorry, but after post #206, I just can't motivate myself to read Alma's posts anymore. So much insight can be found within it, that not only do I understand why DADT should not have been repealed, I now am no longer left wanting for the answers to life's questions.

Truly, it is a cornucopia of reason. A font of knowledge, ever-giving. A beacon of truth that never grows dim.

From this day forth, I will consult it whenever uncertainty takes me. Alma, you may trouble yourself to explain things no further....I have everything that I need.

Edited, Oct 18th 2011 4:24pm by Eske

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#749 Oct 18 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1680481127345

View User Forum

Sage

21,262 posts

ITT: Gay is a personality trait.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#750 Oct 18 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Sir Xsarus wrote:

He's tried to make this whole that argument doesn't count because it's not valid for another situation for entirely different reasons before, and it was just as stupid that time. His logic isn't so much flawed as non-existent, especially in that he doesn't apply it to his own argument at all. Besides which, the the idea that the onus is on the side fighting discrimination is ludicrous.

Edited, Oct 16th 2011 9:28pm by Xsarus

Very simple concept that you all seem not to understand. I've used this argument before and I'll use it again.

If you're fighting to change the drinking law from 21 to 18, then your argument should be why the age 18 is appropriate for the new age law. Your arguments wouldn't be, "the new age should be 18 because we can drive, work and pay taxes", because those are not exclusive to 18 and include the ages of 15-17. This means even if you are arguing for the age of 18, you are also arguing for the ages of 15-17 because according to your argument, there is no differentiation between the ages.

Now, if you said the age should be 18 because we can vote, considered legal adults, buy cigarettes, ****, etc., then you now have a better argument.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#751 Oct 18 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Default

Almalieque

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

catwho wrote:

ITT: Gay is a personality trait.

Let's not get caught up in the wrong words. What would you call it? It's not a physical trait like sexuality or skin color.

▲ Page top

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