Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#827 Oct 21 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
It used to be that even if you ignored someone a little blurb of what they posted still showed up. Now it don't.
I found the site feedback thread. I just didn't notice the difference. The ignored post still takes up the same amount of room.
____________________________
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
#828 Oct 21 2011 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
It used to be that even if you ignored someone a little blurb of what they posted still showed up. Now it don't.
I found the site feedback thread. I just didn't notice the difference. The ignored post still takes up the same amount of room.
Yes, but I don't have to see any of his garble unless some **** quotes him.


Edited, Oct 21st 2011 6:57pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
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

#829 Oct 21 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
13,251 posts
Smiley: lol **** quotes.
#830 Oct 22 2011 at 1:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Me wrote:
Hatred & bigotry have nothing to do with many of the logical reasons the military discriminates because of:

gender (There are physical differences between men & woman)
ethnic background (It is in our country's best interest not to give access to some forms of classified information to some foreign born peoples)
religion (Sorry Scientologists, those auditing "machines" are too expensive. Pray to Xenu as much as you like, though.)
weight (It is in the best interest of the military to have physically fit soldiers)
height (You must be this small to fly a jet)
age (Jumping out of airplanes has an expiration date)

Hatred & Bigotry are illogical arguments, based upon emotion. They'll never be "logical" reasons to discriminate.


Alma wrote:
I've already countered all of these claims already, you keep ignoring the post.

Do you or do you not support your claim that we can discriminate based on traditional gender types?


Not a single "counter" argument I've read from you, with the sole exception of "comfort", can be used as a logical reason to discriminate. I've given you logical reasons for the above "discrimination", the onus is on you to counter it using logic.

Comfort is a logical reason to "discriminate" (& I use that loosely) based upon gender. As for the question as to whether or not we can discriminate based upon traditional gender types, I don't really see that as true discrimination. Sure, the end result of having grooming standards that enhance the traditional gender roles of men & woman in the military does lead to "backdoor" discrimination, but the "intent" of the rules regarding grooming standards also has to be taken into account. It isn't the intent of the rules to disenfranchise men by making them have shorter hair standards, it's intent is to have them conform with society's traditional gender roles.

Society's traditional gender roles also apply to homosexuals in the military.

Feel free to apply those same standards to ****** all you want, but considering "Queens" aren't going to get through bootcamp regardless, you don't have to worry at all about gay men being "hurt" by backdoor gender type discrimination.

Alma wrote:
So, you can sit here and pretend that it's what the military want, but it isn't, because it would have happened a long time ago. It wouldn't take a Democrat in office to make it happen. The Joint Chiefs would have done it a long time ago, besides, they were the ones talking against it in the first place.


Well, when a Zogby poll states that 73% of [military] respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel, another poll shows the American people ACROSS party lines favor repeal (majorities of Democrats (86%), Republicans (74%), independents (74%), liberals (92%), conservatives (67%), white evangelical Protestants (70%) and non-religious (84%) in favor of homosexuals' serving openly) I'm going to go ahead & let the facts speak for themselves (all infor from the DADT wiki page).

Alma wrote:

206 explains why it should be instated


No, it doesn't.
____________________________
"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


#831 Oct 22 2011 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
omegavegeta wrote:
you don't have to worry at all about gay men being "hurt" by backdoor
#832Almalieque, Posted: Oct 22 2011 at 11:35 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) How so? Please explain. I currently can not live with a female because I'm not married. If I ask to move in with my BFF Shanice, I can't. Yet, Joe can move in with his BFF Jon. How is that the same? How is that different from me being able to marry my BFF Shanice and Joe not being able to marry his BFF Jon?
#833 Oct 22 2011 at 11:37 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Me wrote:
Hatred & bigotry have nothing to do with many of the logical reasons the military discriminates because of:

gender (There are physical differences between men & woman)
ethnic background (It is in our country's best interest not to give access to some forms of classified information to some foreign born peoples)
religion (Sorry Scientologists, those auditing "machines" are too expensive. Pray to Xenu as much as you like, though.)
weight (It is in the best interest of the military to have physically fit soldiers)
height (You must be this small to fly a jet)
age (Jumping out of airplanes has an expiration date)

Hatred & Bigotry are illogical arguments, based upon emotion. They'll never be "logical" reasons to discriminate.


Alma wrote:
I've already countered all of these claims already, you keep ignoring the post.

Do you or do you not support your claim that we can discriminate based on traditional gender types?


Not a single "counter" argument I've read from you, with the sole exception of "comfort", can be used as a logical reason to discriminate. I've given you logical reasons for the above "discrimination", the onus is on you to counter it using logic.

Comfort is a logical reason to "discriminate" (& I use that loosely) based upon gender. As for the question as to whether or not we can discriminate based upon traditional gender types, I don't really see that as true discrimination. Sure, the end result of having grooming standards that enhance the traditional gender roles of men & woman in the military does lead to "backdoor" discrimination, but the "intent" of the rules regarding grooming standards also has to be taken into account. It isn't the intent of the rules to disenfranchise men by making them have shorter hair standards, it's intent is to have them conform with society's traditional gender roles.

Society's traditional gender roles also apply to homosexuals in the military.

Feel free to apply those same standards to ****** all you want, but considering "Queens" aren't going to get through bootcamp regardless, you don't have to worry at all about gay men being "hurt" by backdoor gender type discrimination.

Alma wrote:
So, you can sit here and pretend that it's what the military want, but it isn't, because it would have happened a long time ago. It wouldn't take a Democrat in office to make it happen. The Joint Chiefs would have done it a long time ago, besides, they were the ones talking against it in the first place.


Well, when a Zogby poll states that 73% of [military] respondents said that they felt comfortable in the presence of gay and lesbian personnel, another poll shows the American people ACROSS party lines favor repeal (majorities of Democrats (86%), Republicans (74%), independents (74%), liberals (92%), conservatives (67%), white evangelical Protestants (70%) and non-religious (84%) in favor of homosexuals' serving openly) I'm going to go ahead & let the facts speak for themselves (all infor from the DADT wiki page).

Alma wrote:

206 explains why it should be instated


No, it doesn't.


So if I understand you correctly, you DO support discrimination based on "Traditional Gender Roles"? In other words, you support denying people certain activities based on traditional beliefs of how men and women should behave in society?
#834 Oct 22 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
Can Joe and Jon move in together if they're both openly gay?
#835 Oct 22 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
It used to be that even if you ignored someone a little blurb of what they posted still showed up. Now it don't.
I found the site feedback thread. I just didn't notice the difference. The ignored post still takes up the same amount of room.
Yes, but I don't have to see any of his garble unless some **** quotes him.


Edited, Oct 21st 2011 6:57pm by Uglysasquatch


Monsieur Spoonless wrote:
Smiley: lol **** quotes.

Now this doesn't make any sense. :(
#836 Oct 22 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,526 posts
Almalieque wrote:

I've only heard of women "choosing" to be gay due to their bad luck with men. I've never heard a man say the same about women.


Maybe they are only gay for you Alma

Edited, Oct 22nd 2011 6:11pm by Olorinus
#837 Oct 22 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
My understanding is that a homosexual couple would not be allowed to live together in barracks. I think there are also some rules about not having sex while on duty or something like that, which would probably come in to play. So you wouldn't just be able to start ******** because you're gay while straight couples wouldn't.

If this actually is a problem, which lolgaxe indicated it wasn't this problem is also very easily solved by simply adding a rule that says couples can't be in the same unit or something. It certainly isn't a legitimate reason to discriminate against gays.

You'll have to convince lolgaxe to contribute if you want more details.
____________________________
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
#838 Oct 22 2011 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot
.
#839 Oct 22 2011 at 10:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you DO support discrimination based on "Traditional Gender Roles"? In other words, you support denying people certain activities based on traditional beliefs of how men and women should behave in society?


Depends on the circumstance. It can't be all or nothing, no matter how much you try & make it so.

Not letting a dude grow his hair out & not letting a dude come out of the closet are two very different things.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2011 3:12am by Omegavegeta
____________________________
"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


#840 Oct 23 2011 at 2:53 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Monsieur Spoonless wrote:
Can Joe and Jon move in together if they're both openly gay?


The rooms are segregated by sexes, not sexuality, hence my argument.

Sir Xsarus wrote:
My understanding is that a homosexual couple would not be allowed to live together in barracks. I think there are also some rules about not having sex while on duty or something like that, which would probably come in to play. So you wouldn't just be able to start ******** because you're gay while straight couples wouldn't.

If this actually is a problem, which lolgaxe indicated it wasn't this problem is also very easily solved by simply adding a rule that says couples can't be in the same unit or something. It certainly isn't a legitimate reason to discriminate against gays.

You'll have to convince lolgaxe to contribute if you want more details.


What are you referring to by "On Duty"? Do you mean at the work place? You're misusing terminology in hopes of supporting your argument. I haven't heard of any regulations back in the states that forbids sex during lunch. Even if there were such regulations, you STILL LIVE WITH each other, so you could have sex when you're not working.


What defines a couple? The military only recognizes married or not married. Engaged, together for 10 years with 4 kids is "single" to the military. You are either married or you are not married.

Sounds like you were arguing with a lack of understanding, hoping that you understood lolgaxe correctly. You said it was "solidly countered" and yet you don't even understand the situation, so how was countered? This conversation isn't between me and him,but you and me. In my scenario, I didn't mention "couples", but BFFs.

Omegavegeta wrote:
Alma wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you DO support discrimination based on "Traditional Gender Roles"? In other words, you support denying people certain activities based on traditional beliefs of how men and women should behave in society?


Depends on the circumstance. It can't be all or nothing, no matter how much you try & make it so.


This is evident on your lack of ability to debate. I can't say "marriage should ONLY be between two people who love each other" and then asked my opinion on SSM say "Well, that's different". I either have to redefine my original argument or add onto it by explicitly explaining how heterosexual love is different from homosexual love.

Bottom line is that you're using a weak argument that is invalid and want to cherry pick when it should accepted or not without any additional reason or logic other than "it's different".

Vageta wrote:
Not letting a due grow his hair out & not letting a dude come out of the closet are two very different things.


Exactly, so you can't use an inclusive argument and then turn around and say "well, not that, it's totally different". You are implying that one is worse than the other. Again, that might be true, but TO YOU, not for everyone.

If given the choice today, I would give up my "sexual freedom" for "hair freedom" without thinking twice about it. You are simply trying to downplay one over the other. There are closeted homosexuals who have absolutely NO DESIRE to be open, so you can't tell them how they SHOULD feel.

We had this discussion years ago in reference to the middle eastern women who live in western societies who continue to cover themselves. That is a choice that they made, you can't tell them how they should feel about that.

You also continue to neglect post 693 of discrimination, i.e. women not being mandated to sign up for selective service. This is beyond grooming regulations.
#841 Oct 23 2011 at 3:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
This is evident on your lack of ability to debate. I can't say "marriage should ONLY be between two people who love each other" and then asked my opinion on SSM say "Well, that's different". I either have to redefine my original argument or add onto it by explicitly explaining how heterosexual love is different from homosexual love.

Bottom line is that you're using a weak argument that is invalid and want to cherry pick when it should accepted or not without any additional reason or logic other than "it's different".


It is different, Captain ******, as the logic behind the discrimination is different. And don't talk to me about "invalid" arguments as you can't even give me one logical reason why it's ok to discriminate due to sexual orientation.

Alma wrote:
Exactly, so you can't use an inclusive argument and then turn around and say "well, not that, it's totally different". You are implying that one is worse than the other. Again, that might be true, but TO YOU, not for everyone.

If given the choice today, I would give up my "sexual freedom" for "hair freedom" without thinking twice about it. You are simply trying to downplay one over the other. There are closeted homosexuals who have absolutely NO DESIRE to be open, so you can't tell them how they SHOULD feel.


What inclusive argument am I using? Hasn't this entire thread been about DADT repeal?

From the implementation of DADT:

WIKI wrote:
The policy prohibited people who "demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because their presence "would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces"


Since I posted those handy facts above about the majority of military personnel being comfortable with homosexual squad mates, isn't it logical to repeal it since the high standards of morale, good order, discipline, & unit cohesion are no longer adversely effected by out homosexuals?

Isn't that logical, since it certainly isn't in the best interest of the armed forces as they're now mostly comfortable around gays?

____________________________
"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


#842 Oct 23 2011 at 6:26 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Vageta wrote:
It is different, Captain ******, as the logic behind the discrimination is different


Another example of your ignorance. The logic behind the discrimination is irrelevant in terms of the argument being used. You can't say "All races should be treated equally" but then say "Oh, not the Japanese, because they're different, I was only referencing to the African slaves in the U.S."

Vageta wrote:
And don't talk to me about "invalid" arguments as you can't even give me one logical reason why it's ok to discriminate due to sexual orientation.


I have, on post 206. You just choose not to acknowledge them, just like you chose not to acknowledge my arguments on discrimination on post 693. The reason why you refuse to do so is because you don't believe that there should be any scenario to discriminate against sexual orientation. As a result, no matter what I say will be seen as "invalid" due to your biased beliefs.

If I'm wrong, then please provide me scenarios where you believe discrimination against sexual orientation is justified. While you're at it, please provide me current discrimination in the U.S. military that you don't believe is justified outside of sexual orientation.

Vageta wrote:
What inclusive argument am I using? Hasn't this entire thread been about DADT repeal?


You used the argument of "traditional gender roles". Gender roles extend beyond hair grooming. So, if you argue that's ok to discriminate based on traditional gender roles, then that means you support discrimination based on anything that supports traditional gender roles, to include women being housewives as opposed to working. If that isn't the case, then you need to build up more on your argument, because that alone INCLUDES all traditional gender roles.

Vageta wrote:
Since I posted those handy facts above about the majority of military personnel being comfortable with homosexual squad mates, isn't it logical to repeal it since the high standards of morale, good order, discipline, & unit cohesion are no longer adversely effected by out homosexuals?

Isn't that logical, since it certainly isn't in the best interest of the armed forces as they're now mostly comfortable around gays?


Because most of the military doesn't. In the last DADT thread, the actual PDF of results was posted, in that PDF, they admit to not having a fair representation of the units who highly disagree with the repeal. Not only that, I say again, the option included both "no problem" with "unsure". So, if you marked "unsure", you also voted for the repeal.

Furthermore, if the military REALLY wanted to end the repeal, they wouldn't have been forced to do so. SSM couples would have the same benefits as heterosexual couples. There is nothing to support otherwise.

Vageta wrote:
as they're now mostly comfortable around gays?

Smiley: lol

I'm assuming you have never served in the service. The word "comfortable" can have many definitions, but from the stuff I hear on a daily basis, there is a distinct difference between accepting a person as who they are and ridicule of the same person.

In other words, if the military really wanted homosexuals to serve openly, then the military would have produced a more friendly environment for homosexuals to serve in. This is why a percentage of people will remain in the closet, hence my argument on a difference of priority. Just because you value sexual freedom more than something else, doesn't mean others do.
#843 Oct 23 2011 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Smiley: banghead
#844 Oct 23 2011 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Smiley: banghead
What she said.
#845 Oct 23 2011 at 8:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
If I'm wrong, then please provide me scenarios where you believe discrimination against sexual orientation is justified.


You are wrong, as there isn't a logical reason to justify it any longer. America is more comfortable around gays than they were, as is the military, so "comfort" is no longer justified as being a reason to continue the practice of DADT. Hence, repeal, to little to no fanfare at all.

The newest generations of soldiers are going to continue to be more & more comfortable around gays due to progress. Homosexuals are continuing to be accepted throughout the country & the military, while ignorant fools like yourself are becoming the minority. This scares you more than dudes checking you out in the shower, but you're too much of a coward to admit it.
____________________________
"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


#846 Oct 23 2011 at 10:57 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Vageta wrote:

You are wrong, as there isn't a logical reason to justify it any longer.


What is "it"?

I asked you to provide me ANY scenario in current society where it is ok to discriminate against sexual orientation. I'm not simply referring to DADT.

I also asked you to provide me examples of discrimination within the military that you don't believe is justified that aren't related to sexuality.

Vageta wrote:
The newest generations of soldiers are going to continue to be more & more comfortable around gays due to progress. Homosexuals are continuing to be accepted throughout the country & the military, while ignorant fools like yourself are becoming the minority. This scares you more than dudes checking you out in the shower, but you're too much of a coward to admit it.


How little you understand. Then again, I don't expect you to understand much. Your overall lack of ability to argue supports that notion. You attack from emotions, you don't think, which means there is no logic. Logic extends beyond feelings and emotions and if you refuse to accept the reality that there exist a time and a place to discriminate against ANY human trait, to include sexuality, then you are simply too dense, emotional and biased to see clearly.

The answer is in front of you, but you refuse to accept it because it goes against everything you believed in. Instead of being a man about it and just adjust your feelings, you lash out on others projecting ignorance and stupidity to make it appear that they are nothing but bigots. Well, you need to find someone with less intellect and logic to be more on your level to argue with, because I will not fall for such childish and immature attacks.

Nothing I've said supports your claim. Actually, what I've said supports the opposite.

Almalieque on post 206 for the second time wrote:
If you want to reorganize the military and it's rules, fine, but do so by looking at the whole "big" picture.


Almalieque on that infamous post 206 wrote:
If you want it[DADT] changed, fine, but if your goal is to reduce discrimination, that has to be done after reevaluating everything. It doesn't necessarily have to happen all at once, but there should at least be a plan in place.


This is nothing more than ignorant people making stupid decisions because they think they know what's best.
#847 Oct 23 2011 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
ITT: Alma is way too ******* retarded to realize that removing DADT doesn't change how the military works at all and that it's really nothing more than that gays don't have to hide the fact that they're gay anymore.
#848 Oct 23 2011 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Vageta wrote:

You are wrong, as there isn't a logical reason to justify it any longer.


What is "it"?

I asked you to provide me ANY scenario in current society where it is ok to discriminate against sexual orientation. I'm not simply referring to DADT.

I also asked you to provide me examples of discrimination within the military that you don't believe is justified that aren't related to sexuality.

Vageta wrote:
The newest generations of soldiers are going to continue to be more & more comfortable around gays due to progress. Homosexuals are continuing to be accepted throughout the country & the military, while ignorant fools like yourself are becoming the minority. This scares you more than dudes checking you out in the shower, but you're too much of a coward to admit it.


How little you understand. Then again, I don't expect you to understand much. Your overall lack of ability to argue supports that notion. You attack from emotions, you don't think, which means there is no logic. Logic extends beyond feelings and emotions and if you refuse to accept the reality that there exist a time and a place to discriminate against ANY human trait, to include sexuality, then you are simply too dense, emotional and biased to see clearly.

The answer is in front of you, but you refuse to accept it because it goes against everything you believed in. Instead of being a man about it and just adjust your feelings, you lash out on others projecting ignorance and stupidity to make it appear that they are nothing but bigots. Well, you need to find someone with less intellect and logic to be more on your level to argue with, because I will not fall for such childish and immature attacks.

Nothing I've said supports your claim. Actually, what I've said supports the opposite.

Almalieque on post 206 for the second time wrote:
If you want to reorganize the military and it's rules, fine, but do so by looking at the whole "big" picture.


Almalieque on that infamous post 206 wrote:
If you want it[DADT] changed, fine, but if your goal is to reduce discrimination, that has to be done after reevaluating everything. It doesn't necessarily have to happen all at once, but there should at least be a plan in place.


This is nothing more than ignorant people making stupid decisions because they think they know what's best.


Shut up.
#849 Oct 23 2011 at 12:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
In other words, if the military really wanted homosexuals to serve openly, then the military would have produced a more friendly environment for homosexuals to serve in. This is why a percentage of people will remain in the closet, hence my argument on a difference of priority. Just because you value sexual freedom more than something else, doesn't mean others do.
Bartender, I'll have what he's having.

Quote:
Well, you need to find someone with less intellect and logic to be more on your level to argue with, because I will not fall for such childish and immature attacks.
And also, nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.
#850 Oct 23 2011 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
In other words, if the military really wanted homosexuals to serve openly, then the military would have produced a more friendly environment for homosexuals to serve in. This is why a percentage of people will remain in the closet, hence my argument on a difference of priority. Just because you value sexual freedom more than something else, doesn't mean others do.
Bartender, I'll have what he's having.


If you print out the text of Post 206 and then freebase it, it gives you a nightmarish high. For a few minutes, I thought that women shouldn't say no during sex because it increases the likelihood that they'll be raped, and that DADT's repeal increased inequity in the military.

It wasn't pleasant. I don't like being that separated from reality.

Edited, Oct 23rd 2011 2:37pm by Eske
#851 Oct 23 2011 at 1:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Zamstock 2011 wrote:
"To get back to the warning that I received. You may take it with however many grains of salt that you wish. That the post 206 that is circulating around us isn't too good. It is suggested that you stay away from that. Of course it's your own trip. So be my guest, but please be advised that there is a warning on that one, ok?"
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 260 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)